readings: the income gap & early literacy

[fflo]

As Plutarch wrote almost 2000 years ago, quotes Robert H. Frank in this chock-full piece on the increasing income gap, "An imbalance between rich and poor is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all republics."

Was talking to bigfinedaddy about this issue a bit yesterday. But more often today I've been thinking of her talk of early literacy. She'd been reading of possible damage we do by inculcating kids in the world of letters and such so early in their lives. Nosing around to read about it myself (with cues of Swedish law & the Waldorf Schools), I came across this issue (.pdf) of Waldorfy research/writing on the subject, much of it from a conference on "The Push for Early Childhood Literacy." Innarestin' stuff.

Comments

[01100001.livejournal.com]

I have a few thoughts. First, while my step-brother teaches at a Waldorf school (and is raising his daughter in that methodology) I'm deeply suspicious of the Waldorf methods. My suspicions were initially aroused by a salon.com article I read a while back:

http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2004/05/26/waldorf/
"But a growing group of parents, teachers and students who've left the Waldorf system are troubled by the way the schools interpret Steiner's philosophies. Waldorf "survivors," as they very seriously call themselves, accuse Waldorf schools of encouraging a cultlike loyalty to Steiner's philosophy, which was founded on racist and anti-Semitic beliefs and which incorporates a host of unconventional educational methods -- like delaying reading and writing until children are 7."

I read through the pdf you linked to. Most of the complaints about early reading aren't about early reading per se (thought one seemed to be). Rather, the complaints were focused on the many activities that compete for "play time". So, early reading if it subtracts from time to play is bad. Time in front of a screen if it subtracts from time to play is bad. To some extent these critiques must be correct. The foundation of human knowledge is embodied experience and so play must be a critical part of learning -- especially early learning. But there is more to embodied experience than "play." Or, to put it another way, we shouldn't define "play" too narrowly. For example, my mother took me (as a little child -- pre-school) to the Detroit Institute of Arts, the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, the Detroit Science Center, and Cranbrook Institute of Science etc. I loved (and still do) exploring museums. Isn't that also play? She also read to me constantly and I taught myself to read by the time I was 3 through the experience of reading with her. Isn't that a kind of play too? Sometimes I played computer games with friends -- we'd build an imaginary scenario around the video game such that the game became part of a larger imaginary game we were playing. Isn't that play too? And yes, I also played outside with friends in the nearby woods. Some of the authors in the pdf you linked to seem to be sliding close to an anemic (and rigid) definition of "play" and I'm wary to go there. From the pdf it doesn't seem that a balanced push for early childhood literacy is harmful.

[fflo.livejournal.com]

I picked up the same crux in that set of papers---the importance of free-formy play, and its (implicit) contrasts with the structured and abstract aspects of written language. Of course it's a specious argument that the latter necessarily detracts from the former in an inherently harmful way simply by virtue of infringing on time for the former. But I'm sympathetic to complaints that childhood in our culture is more and more managed for kids, at earlier and earlier ages, and I'm curious about what the combination of formal, structured learning and earlier school attendance might mean developmentally. Curious, but quite uninformed, I admit.

It is an arena about which emotions run high, maybe meaning "scientific" examinations are more likely than usual to lean hard with the examiner's bent. (Another angle on that is how sentiment nostalgic for the idealized mom-at-home family makes for Chicken-Littlishly simple anti-feminist concluding about the causes of the ills of Our Children.)

In casting about for some reading on the subject, I came across other pieces like the Salon one (thanks for that---it was a good read) pointing out whacky/nutty stuff about the Waldorffolk. That said, I don't think the woo-woo spiritual aspect of their underpinnings is necessarily a bad thing. The cult-like dogma of it, yeah, but its centering itself outside the stock early-education box, not such a bad thing. This just to say that of course it doesn't hurt to question the dominant cultural trend, and might well help.

The piece in the .pdf with the most specific support---the one by the Brit with the round-up of a handful of European angles---is the best read in there, to me. He cites studies and such, and then has poetry in there, too---and it's not bad poetry. How 'bout that?

I'm with you on the variety of contexts for play, btw.