Shannon Phillips

So I’ve been meaning to post more about early education: it’s a keen interest of mine, since I’m still planning to homeschool Robin at least for the early years. I read most of what I can come across on the subject, but I haven’t written much about it since I’m arriving at my understanding in a scattershot fashion.

It doesn’t help that the science of early education is, as far as I can tell, in a very rudimentary state. There’s little consensus about even the most basic educational strategies. For example, some educators advocate early, intensively focused academic work, while others advocate introducing these subjects only to older children who will grasp them quickly. In America, the social consensus seems to mostly be swinging towards the first position: when it comes to school, more is better, and it can’t start too early.

The trend toward early testing and academic programs is typified by preschools that require IQ tests for entry: some in children as young as two years old. This world is probably craziest in New York—here’s an excellent article describing the lengths to which New York parents are going to groom their children for kindergarten admission tests—but San Francisco is not far behind. And the insanity does not begin with kindergarten. In the Bay Area, the elite preschools (oh yes, there are elite preschools) have waiting lists so long parents are signing up when their children are in utero. I have seen threads on local parenting forums debating which hospital parents should choose in order to maximize their chances of getting into these competitive preschools—which are, of course, so competitive only because they are “feeder schools” for the more exclusive private schools.

Anyway, most of the early-testing-and-rigorous-academics crowd call on Science to justify their programs. Testing is scientific (never mind the debate over IQ, and the question of whether administering constant tests to children has a negative affect on their educational outcomes). You even get annoying articles like this one, which uses the terms “neuroscience” and “cognitive science” liberally, even though the actual neuroscience in the piece is pretty much limited to a little sidebar graphic of the brain. Instead what the article is really about is the suggestion that kids who study math early—wait for it—improve in math. But this is in comparison to children in low-performing schools whose “classes devote mere minutes a day to math instruction or no time at all.” There’s no discussion of how the children who are put through abstract math drills in the early grades end up comparing to, say, children in a Montessori program whose introduction to mathematical concepts comes through directed, sensorial play, and who are encouraged to proceed at their own paces.

In the article we are also told that “schools in about a dozen states have begun to use a program intended to accelerate the development of young students’ frontal lobes, improving self-control in class”: but we are not told the specifics of this program or any evidence that it may be effective. But, you know—it’s Science!

Robin is getting close to the age when other children will be starting preschool (most start admitting kids when they’re 2 and 9 months). I don’t want him to miss out by staying home, but I remain skeptical of the long-term benefits of early academic drilling. I think I’ve mentioned before that kids in Sweden don’t start primary school until age 7 (though younger children are guaranteed a place in public daycare), and even then the first year is devoted to socialization and play. The Swedes seem to turn out fine.

And call me paranoid, but I’ve come to believe that a lot of the emphasis on early education, universal pre-school, longer school years, and extra homework after school hours is a veiled attempt to get children—especially poorer children, and especially poorer non-white children—out of their parents’ hands as early as possible and for as long as possible, because the home environment is now assumed to be destructive. The research on preschool, for instance, indicates that it is far more beneficial for low-income children than for children from high-income homes. But at the same time, kids who spend a lot of time in schools and day care have a higher rate of behavioral problems than kids who get more family time.

I don’t doubt that kids who focus on academics early learn something from their study. I doubt whether those benefits persist over time, in comparison to children who come to the subject later but possibly better-equipped to handle the material. I doubt whether subjecting toddlers to a battery of tests is a good way to encourage enthusiastic learners and independent thinkers. And the only thing I’m sure of is that, for all the shouting about Science!, there really hasn’t been enough of it when it comes to early education.