Chris on Child Development

The Daycare
Community

Question: I've been getting pressure from friends and family to put my child in a formal preschool setting to prepare for kindergarten.   I think it's good for children to get used to a larger school, but I've heard how stress and being rushed damages preschoolers.   What insight do you have?

You're right to be worried.   Many parents are concerned and confused about this and I researched long to gather sound, objective information to balance my passionate feelings about what's been happening to preschool and kindergarten over the last ten to fifteen years.   As I always tell my clients when we discuss the hard decisions, in the end you need to follow your own gut because you are the one who has to live with this decision for the rest of your life.   If your heart isn't in your choice then with every little thing that goes wrong or right with your child's attitude about school and homework you will wonder if it all began with starting them too late or too early.   The problem is, when we get all kinds of fear-based advice and marketing then it's hard to tune in to what our gut is telling us.   So let's try to untie the knots here and look at some common sense about academics, group size, kindergarten readiness and how this all relates to the three, four and five year old child.

Your relatives and friends mean well as they parrot things they hear from television, magazines, teachers and even the government.   Education has become a highlight of public policy and many people in the United States have developed a sense of urgency about our children's performance; either as a source of national pride or an indicator of how successful they will be upon graduation in the global job market.   We hear a lot about the importance of literacy and how early literacy is key for a child's success in school.   We also know that with new government policies a child's ability to take a test is important for their success and also the success of their entire school.   It is natural for everyone who is concerned about your child to want him to have every advantage in a highly competitive school system, and to want to see your child be highly successful, either for their own pleasure or for the child's.   Most of us remember the embarassment and humiliation of some sort of failure in school and we would all move heaven and earth to prevent our children from ever knowing those feelings.   We also hear a lot about the importance of boosting children's self-esteem and giving them all the tools we can to insure success in all their endeavors.

So it seems logical that some sort of "prep school" before kindergarten would give children a leg-up on that wild ride and that a small imitation of kindergarten would be just the ticket to allow them to hit the ground running when they finally get to the real thing.   Even our government strongly stresses the importance of quality preschool for every child, since kindergarten now has become what we all remember first grade to be.   But is a 'mini-kindergarten' really the best preparation for kindergarten?   What does promote early literacy?   And what are the consequences to the child of these expectations to perform at earlier ages?

Early academics
Unfortunately, there is precious little research done on preschool to back up the notion it will ensure success.   Most of the reports that cite preschool as 'essential' and 'the most important grade' refer to studies done on exactly four programs: the High/Scope Perry Preschool program, the Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention program, Head Start, and the Title I Chicago Child-Parent Centers.   Further, when the families of these children are examined in greater detail we find they represent the lowest income children and the highest, which confuses the issue because of course, lowest income children in preschool will improve over their peers who stay home because of the many low income homes that have other disadvantages besides economic.   And highest income children have so many advantages that it's hard to separate the impact of preschool education from the other benefits.   But just lately a more recent study (2005) has looked at these ecomonic differences and found that while the children from impoverished families definitely show cognitive gains from attending preschool, middle class children show a smaller improvement than their peers who stayed home.   More disturbing is the finding that most children in preschool (with children from Hispanic families being the exception) actually suffered noticably in their social development: ... attending a center also appears to suppress social development, including the child's motivated engagement in kindergarten classrooms, self-regulation, and a variety of interpersonal skills ...   (They guess that Hispanic children have such a strong cultural social structure that it counteracts the detriment of preschool.)

As Dr. Karen Effram states in reaction to this study and the government's push to put all children in preschool to improve their 'mental health,' the outcomes for these preschool curricula have little or nothing to do with academic improvement.   Instead, both the national Head Start and many identical state preschool outcomes deal with such topics as "gender identity," "jobs," "the environment," and acceptance of various differences, such as "genders, race, special needs, culture, language, and family structure."   Aside from being controversial and outside the accepted role of government, inculcating these standards will do absolutely nothing to close the achievement gap between poor "at risk" children and middle-class children or promote academic achievement.   ... in fact, preschool does not improve children's social interaction and development; they harm them.   The proposed government solution is creating the very crisis it purports to solve.

Though much of the fervor to give our kids a solid start in school comes from the feeling that they must compete in a global world and perform well with high testing children of other countries, our practice of starting children early is completely the opposite of Finland whose children are among the smartest in the world.   They earned some of the top scores by 15-year-old students who were tested in 57 countries.   American teens finished among the world's C students even as U.S. educators piled on more homework, standards and rules, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.   In Finland the children aren't taught to read until they are seven years old, and from grades one through nine, after every 45-minute lesson, students are let loose outside for 15 minutes so they can burn off steam.   Many European countries have school systems resembling Finland's and others are reforming theirs.   In 2000 the British House of Commons Education Select Committee issued a report stating there was no conclusive evidence that children gained from being taught the three Rs before the age of six.   Creative play and small class size were deemed essential in early childhood education. Their report went on to state:

The current focus on targets for older children in reading and writing inevitably tends to limit the vision and confidence of early childhood educators.   Such downward pressure risks undermining children's motivation and their disposition to learn, thus lowering rather than raising levels of achievement in the long term. . . . Inappropriate formalized assessment of children at an early age currently results in too many children being labeled as failures, when the failure in fact, lies with the system.

Group size and stress
I find it so ironic that parents with children in wonderful home programs will pull their children out to give them "exposure" to a larger group, and for the rest of their child's educational career those same parents will be fighting for smaller classroom sizes and a smaller teacher to child ratio.   We know that the more individualized attention a child gets, the better they do.   We also know that from ages zero to five a child needs to build trust and security to become emotionally and socially stable.   One of the most tried and true ways to build trust is by limiting the number of primary caregivers the child has and making sure the amount of stress the child experiences is kept to a minimum.   Going to a new school is as stressful as starting a new job, and the size of the group is in direct proportion to the amount of stress a child feels.   A University of Minnesota study found that 70-80 percent of children in center-based care show ever-increasing levels of cortisol across the day. The same study found in family-based child care,... children's stress levels do not rise in settings where they receive a lot of attention, support, and guidance from the care provider.   Not only are high cortisol levels associated with poor effort control and self-regulation, but they also cause brain cells to die and reduce the connections between cells in some areas of the brain.

Also, consider that in a formal preschool setting you lose the benefit of a mixed age group.   Some people feel their child needs to be with children their same age or older in order to learn, but that narrow-minded view fails to recognize the knowledge we all gain from people younger than ourselves.   In a mixed age setting, older children learn to nurture and help others, they learn patience, empathy and tenderness.   They easily remember when they were struggling with the challenges they see in their smaller peers and it encourages them in their new challenges.   Their self esteem is bolstered by being a 'big fish in a little pond.'   Younger children feel protected and cared for by the big ones, learn from them and often will be encouraged to try new things (for better or for worse) because they've seen the older ones do them.   No where in life except for the modern classroom are we grouped with so many people all the same age and I feel that not only is it a highly unnatural atmosphere, but it severely limits our opportunites for learning.

Literacy
So what about early literacy we hear so much about?   Doesn't going to a formal "pre-school" help kids there?   Well, literacy begins at birth, and the solid foundation for it is speech, music, being read to and a literacy-rich environment.   So is your child more apt to benefit from being read to one on one, in a small group or in a large group?   The Multnomah County Library has a nice page on their website about early literacy and things you can to at home to help.   Note that they say; The most important thing you can do to foster early literacy is provide an atmosphere that's fun, verbal and stimulating, not school-like.   And don't forget one of the best things you can do to promote early literacy is to keep your young child moving.   Brain development and academic achievement in children is directly related to how much excercise and natural, undirected play they get, which means turn off the television and computers and get them outside!   It also means leave them alone to devise their own play without your help or intervention.   One very serious problem with "kids these days" is they are really losing their ability to create; they rely heavily on 'ready made' play situations.   You would be amazed at how often this comes up in the classes I teach.   We especially see that children from programs where the group has to be more structured for the sake of 'crowd control' are perhaps more compliant with the adults and know how to follow directions, but are by far less creative in their play and often at a loss when it comes to making independant choices.

Consumer, educate thyself
Remember the bottom line: schools, even public schools, are businesses who need us to buy their product so they can stay alive.   It's their job to make us believe our children will be worse off without them, just like all the millions of other products out there for children.   It's up to you to be a smart consumer and not fall for all the advertising hype.   Before you make your decision, why not talk to the school your child will be going to for kindergarten?   Most schools have a checklist of things they feel a child should be able to accomplish to show they're ready for kindergarten.   I am confident you are as capable as most child care center workers to help your child with any areas on the list they might have trouble with.   The kindergarten teachers I know are more concerned about a child being old enough and mature enough to handle the workload, not if they've learned things which will be covered in the curriculum anyway.

If you do decide to give your child a classroom experience before kindergarten, research your options well.   Just like home daycare, child care centers range from fantastic to horrible.   Ask if their program is more academic or more developmental and whatever your preferece is make sure that the lessons are developmentally appropriate.   Ask to observe a little of the normal day without your child, but realize this is intrusive for the teacher and children and try to be as much of a 'fly on the wall' as possible.   Also I always advise parents to pop in unexpectedly to whatever program they're considering leaving their child in.   You can pretend you need some paperwork or have a question that you need answered.   Don't choose a sensitive time like rest time, but a time where you can peek in and catch the classroom in a candid moment and get a feel for what your child will be immersed in.

If you really believe your child needs to get out a little more and have a wider social scene and more exposure to classroom situations there are also lots of other options besides the formal ones.   Why not a gymnastics class?   There are usually very good preschool offerings at any gymnastics place or YMCA and these fill all the requirements of bigger group, formal teacher and new setting while also accomodating the short attention span of the little ones and allowing them lots of excercise and fun.   Some parents don't like this option because the only class they can fit in to their work schedule is on a weekend which cuts in to their family time with their child, but there are often "Mommy and me" type options that allow you some real quality time together.   When I was a nanny I took my little charge to one of these classes at the local Y and it was truely a wonderful experience for both of us that helped form a stronger bond.   Also, often you can find fun group activities though your local community college, library or even local businesses.   One parent I know makes it a regular outing with his child to go to kid's day at our local big box hardware store.   The kids all make a project with their parents that they get to take home and have a little treat; the store cultivates potential customers and the kids have a wonderful hands-on, group experience with lots of individual attention.

As I said before, get in a quiet place and really think about how YOU feel about this important decision.   Whatever your gut tells you to do, I'm sure your child will be just fine with a loving parent who cares as much as you do.

Question: I was wondering what your opinion of Baby Sign Language is.   We have some friends who are trying it with their youngest.   They said they liked it because they were able to communicate with him well before he would've been able to talk.   I've also seen a couple of books on it .   Any thoughts?

Since most of our communication with babies is non-verbal, the trend of Baby Sign Language doesn't seem harmful to me.   I've had a few families who tried it with varying success and since I know some rudimentary sign language, I could support them in their efforts.   Those opportunities gave me the chance to form some of my own "hand's on" opinions about the practice.

Of course families with members who rely on Sign Language (American or otherwise) teach their babies to sign from birth.   For these children, learning to sign is a necessity.   This practice is supported by the child's family and springs from the natural character of that family.   It's the "mother tongue" for that child or the equivalent of being brought up in a household where one or more members speak a language other than English.

The rest of us still use an infinite number of gestures to communicate with each other.   We teach them to our children every minute of the day with every part of our body.   Children are keen observers and a small child's primary method of learning is by imitating our every gesture, internal and external.   So the child is learning to gesture for what they want from the minute they lift their little arms to be picked up.   The difference is that these gestures aren't a formal language system.

For those of us who don't use sign language to communicate with each other the question is, why would we teach our infants to speak a separate language?   From studying the countless products you can purchase to pursue this endeavor, the answer seems to be so they can communicate with their parents supposedly at an earlier age and therefore alleviate some of the suffering that comes with the inability to express their needs and desires.   This theoretically makes life easier for the parents since there is less tantrum throwing and you have a happier child.   Some of the proponents of BSL also hint that children who learn sign language may also speak sooner and be smarter than their non-BSL peers.

I would challenge all those claims.   I've seen no evidence to support them nor have I seen them proven in my experience.   If you're attracted by them I think it's wise to ponder why you would want to speed up your child's communication skills or why it's important for you that your child be "smarter."   Smarter than what?   Life isn't a competition or a race and to try to enhance your child's skills or speed up their development is a trap many parents fall into that quickly backfires.   A child is ALWAYS learning, every minute of the day.   The only way you could make them "smarter" is to add more minutes to the day (and no, depriving them of their much needed sleep is not the path to a genius child!)   Any time you spend coaching them on one thing is time they are not learning something else, so ask yourself if what you're teaching them is really worthwhile in the big picture.   Parents are easy prey for marketers as they are generally an insecure bunch who will spend any amount of money to assure themselves that they've done right by their children.   Buyer beware!

Even more dangerous than trying to boost your child's progress is to deprive them of their struggle to communicate in the same language as all the adults around them by giving them a separate language that only a few of their caregivers understand and will soon become obsolete for them.   As parents it's important for you and your child to have your unhappy moments instead of contriving all manner of schemes to avoid them.   Parenting is a life of growth.   There will be tantrums.   There will be misunderstandings.   There will be sweat and tears, breakthroughs, victories and disappointments.   They all begin in these most important first few years.   Instead of trying to give your child an adult tool that they will soon discard just so you can avoid some of that struggle, why not use the same time teaching your child their true mother tongue?   And then pay close attention to how your unique child is trying to communicate back to you.   Why not let them teach you some signs?

The children that I've worked with who learned BSL mastered their Baby Signs about the same time they were mastering many other forms of communication.   They also had as many problems with their Baby Signs as they did with those other methods.   The sign for milk often just meant that they wanted something, not always a drink, not always milk.   The sign for Mommy often just meant woman caregiver, much to Mommy's dismay.   Sometimes we thought they were signing for milk when they were using the gesture to try to grasp for something across the room, as most babies do.   The sign for more often gets lost in their sleeves or clothing or is gestured under the table so it goes unnoticed.   I could go on but I think you get the picture.

As I said at the beginning, I don't think that signing to your child as you're speaking or using signs in a playful manner as finger games is harmful at all.   I'm sure children benefit from any cheerful, playful attention from their parents.   We teach signs here to the children all the time, in much the same way other day care settings teach finger games.   As the children try them out it challenges their dexterity and gives them a fun new slant on their lives.   A three year old loves to learn that the sign for dog is like calling a dog, or that the sign for cat is like stroking a cat's whiskers.   Just as they love to learn how to count in Spanish or French or Japanese, they love to learn how to say a few simple things in ASL.   There is much evidence supporting the practice of introducing new languages to preschoolers in a stress free, playful way.   There have also been times when a child in my care has relied on ASL to communicate and the other children became so much richer for soaking up that experience and taking part in it when they felt comfortable doing so.   But of the babies who were taught BSL, not one has retained what they knew because it was not a part of their regular life and once they could use words to express themselves it was dropped like a hot potato.

As in all things, it's not what you do with your child so much as it is the spirit that you do it with.   If you take up an endeavor that is ultimately useless in order to accelerate your child and for the purpose of avoiding struggles of growth I would caution you against it.   If you take up the same endeavor with a playful spirit of exploring a fun activity with your child expecting no inflated outcomes of any sort then I would give you my wholehearted endorsement!