Book Review: Einstein Never Used Flashcards

Tags

Books

I was planning to do a full review of the book Einstein Never Used Flashcards: How Our Children Really Learn and Why They Need to Play More and Memorize Less.  Unfortunately, I had to return it to the library before I quite finished it, although I had more or less given up on it before then.

This really is a good book, packed with solid research, and if that is what you are looking for, I do recommend it.  The authors present plenty of compelling evidence, if you need to be convinced that children learn more from free play than from sitting still and memorizing.  And yet, while I was reading it, something was bothering me.

There seem to be several schools of thought when it comes to very young children and early childhood education.  Probably the most prevalent, in spite of evidence that undermines this view, is the idea that since the brain develops so rapidly in the first few years, we need to hurry up and cram it all in. The Common Core curriculum certainly seems to take this attitude, and since it is an alarmist perspective (any parent of young children is reminded a dozen times a week of how fleeting! how precious! this time is; and these reminders are accompanied by various obligations … take pictures/appreciate it/PACK THOSE LITTLE MINDS TO THE BRIM WITH FACTOIDS!), no wonder many people are frightened into believing that every waking minute of toddlerhood needs to be “productive” or else delinquency waits down the road.

The opposite school of thought, which seems to be gaining more interest, is that children are more or less pre-programmed to learn and develop, and as long as they aren’t seriously deprived of nutrition, affection, and a healthy environment, they will learn to read and write and count, just as they learn to crawl and cruise and walk.

Of course, this is vastly oversimplified, and there are plenty of ideas and opinions in between these two extremes.  But as much as the first, productive, mindset bothers me, I think I am most disturbed when the first mindset attempts to masquerade as the second.  And this is what I felt Einstein was doing, and why I lost interest in finishing it.  While the premise of the book seemed to be saying that children do not need to be forced into artificial learning scenarios, and of course they are not advocating flash cards, the learning activities they did suggest seemed to me to undermine the thesis of their own work.  Perhaps these are intended to reassure parents, who need to feel like they are doing *something,* but the rest of the book felt off, and I think it was because, ultimately, they seemed to be arguing for the same kind of “productivity” as their opponents, only they believe it is best/most effectively achieved in a different way.  In either case, childhood is seen as a unique opportunity to create a mini-learner who excels in literacy and numeracy, rather than as developmental stage that has purpose and value in and of itself.

Book Review: Beyond the Sling

It was by accident that I picked up Beyond the Sling: A Real-Life Guide to Raising Confident, Loving Children the Attachment Parenting Way by Mayim Bialik.  I was browsing the parenting section of the library when A. discovered that he fit neatly in between the support pillars that line the center of the library and the end of the bookcases, a discovery that he found hilarious.  Our library is huge, and there are always dozens of people in the reading room.  These people do not generally seem to appreciate small children, perhaps because after all, there is an equally huge children’s room directly upstairs, that is filled with toys and board books and two helpful librarians who like small children.  But one does get tired of books that rhyme, and the only way for me to procure one that doesn’t is to take my toddler with me to the adult section.  In an attempt to remove my loudly-giggling child quickly, I grabbed this book without having actually looked at it.

I’m glad that I did.  It was a pleasant read, and affirming of many things that are important to me.  It was hardly ground-breaking; none of the information was new.  I did particularly like Bialik’s realism about the fact that life with young children is just going to be different.  As parenthood seems to be quite trendy in certain circles, there is also a lot of advice being given along the lines of “your life doesn’t have to change!”  Sometimes babywearing is presenting as a way to bring the baby along to all sorts of places where perhaps the baby doesn’t actually belong.  (I’m sure everyone’s idea of where and where a baby doesn’t belong are different.  I am sure some people think a three month old does not belong on top of a mountain, for example, although that seemed fine to me.)   But at some point you have to be honest with yourself that life is going to change, at least for awhile, and you have to come to terms with that.  Sitting at a park watching your toddler play is no less fun than going out for drinks with friends, in my mind; but it is different, and you may as well admit it.  I also liked the personal perspective that Bialik gave about the “same old” AP issues.  I enjoy reading about people’s experiences with their children, especially when they are well-written and positive, as they are in this book.

My major hesitation about the book is that her children are still quite young.  In one way, this is an advantage, as the book is very current.  On the other hand, I don’t know that you can draw any conclusions about a child-rearing philosophy while the children are still in elementary or preschool.  (That might only be an issue, however, if you were looking to be persuaded by the book.  It presents a lot of basic information about Attachment Parenting, but still mostly seems to be preaching to the choir.)

There were a few things I disagreed with.  I do think children need to be taught (and yes, perhaps forced) to share.  I think it is important to acknowledge their real feelings (i.e., “I can see that you don’t want to give up the truck yet”), but I do think it is a parent’s job to help their children work through their feelings and do the right thing even if they don’t feel like it.  Some of that may come from my religious/ethical beliefs; some from Waldorf (in which, as I understand it, the parent/teacher is the authority, and the children’s feelings/desires are not the be-all/end-all).   And I think it’s important to remember that not every Attachment Parent has to do all the things on every person’s “What-it-means-to-be-AP” list.

Overall, I would recommend the book, especially if you can borrow it.  It is an enjoyable and encouraging read; it is not a book I would keep on my shelf forever (such as Whole Child/Whole Parent or Heaven on Earth).

Armistice Day — 11-11-12

Yesterday I stopped at the baby consignment store (technically, I suppose it is a baby-gear consignment store, as there are no babies for consignment) to see if I could pick up a cheap winter coat for Baby, since it’s already so cold and most of his jackets are pretty thin.  I found myself automatically reaching for a green-and-brown camo baby fleece top. It was 18 months size, and only 2.50, and nice heavy fleece.  My husband likes the baby to be dressed in “manly” clothing, rather than babyish pastels and peter-pan collars, and I thought he would like it.

A few minutes later, I backtracked and replaced it on the rack.  Nearby, I found a solid green jacket for 3.50, and took that one instead.

Just a couple of days ago, I had read an article in an old copy of “Mothering” magazine about dressing children in war clothes and allowing them to play with war toys.  Growing up, I knew lots of people who didn’t allow gun play — even to the extent that water “guns” shaped like animals were allowed, but not ones actually shaped like guns.  But I also knew lots of people who felt that little boys have a natural inclination towards such things, and that it should be allowed or even encouraged.  Baby has already had a pair of camo pants, long outgrown, that were a gift, and I didn’t think twice about putting them on him.  Since our family has never been involved in the military, I associate camos more with hunting (another topic entirely — and one that I believe is significantly different; more on that later, perhaps) than with the armed forces.

But the article made me reflect on this issue in a different way.  I have always thought of the issue as being one of violence — children who grow up playing with guns, dressing up like soldiers, watching violence on TV, etc., being more immune to violence and war, or possibly even inclined to glorify it.  While the article addressed that topic, it also mentioned the history of civilians wearing military style clothing and led me to really think about what message we are communicating when we do so.  The military has never held any appeal for me, and military history is not a branch of history I am particularly interested in, but having several friends with spouses or family in the armed forces has given me a different perspective of what these people do and the sacrifices they make.  I would like to consider myself a pacifist, but in reality, I am not: I do believe there are things that are more important than peace.  I may not agree with a particular war, or indeed, with most of them; but in theory, I think there is such a thing as a “just war.”  Using military style clothing to make a fashion statement seems to cheapen the weightiness of the subject of war.

I just realized last night that today is Veterans’ Day — or Armistice Day, as my title says.  For the past several years, I have been in a classroom on this day, and have begun by asking students if they know what happened on the eleventh hour of this day, the eleventh day of the eleventh month.  Usually they do not; it takes many, many clues before they can identify the right war (even with the clue of “1918”).  But World War I is one of the wars in history that does interest me — not for the battles and stratagems involved, but for its cultural impact.  After (finally) identifying the origins of this day, no matter what subject we are supposed to be studying, we take a look at the following question, and talk about the really important questions of life: http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html

 

 

Book Review: “Bringing Up Bebe” by Pamela Druckerman

I don’t think this book is a hot topic anymore, but I had to wait for 16 other people to take it out of the library before it was my turn to read it.  I had a very strong, somewhat mixed, reaction to it, though, so I’ve been wanting to write about it since I finished it.

First, a precis: The author is an American, living in Paris when she has her first (and second and third) children.  In some ways, her daughter opens up French society and culture to her in a new manner; but in others, this new glimpse only serves to demonstrate how different she — and by extension, American parenting — is from the French.  She discusses birth, breastfeeding, nursery school, mealtime, and a number of other facets of parenting, contrasting the American and French ways of doing things.  Ultimately, she draws a conclusion, of course.  I don’t think I’ll be giving away any spoilers if I say that she comes to the conclusion that the French way of doing things is often, if not always, superior.  (“The-French-Do-It-Better” seems to be a popular genre lately.)

I was actually inclined to like the book.  I am something of a Francophile, have been to Paris twice and France three times, and if I could live anywhere else than where I do, it would probably be Paris.  When traveling to Europe, I am completely charmed by the children (there is just something incredibly adorable about a tiny, tiny person speaking another language), all the children’s clothing and toys, and the little nursery schools you sometimes see on the corners.  And there were a few things I like about the book. First, I think any examination of a topic makes people think about it, and thinking is usually a good thing.  The question of how to bring up children is certainly worthy of thoughtful consideration.  I think her point about how the French feed their children in courses, heavily weighted towards vegetables, was brilliant.  That might be it, however.

Part of what troubled me about the book was that a great deal of it is an unfair comparison — she compares good French parenting with poor American parenting: negligent American parenting, helicopter American parenting, overindulgent American parenting, etc.  Although she does acknowledge that her writing is mostly based on Parisian (which is not necessarily a fair representation of the rest of the country) observations, I think she generalizes widely.  America is a very large country, with a very large population, and a great disparity between the rich and the poor.  America is also made up of many, many other cultures which have many divergent ideas about how children should be raised.  If the observations made about French parents are not over-generalized, the ones about American parents certainly are.

Another thing that bothered me is the assumptions the author makes about attachment parenting, and the contrast she draws between the American mother’s catering to her child’s every whim and the French mother’s comparative independence.  Attachment parenting is not about catering to whims — it is about meeting needs and fostering the security a child needs in order to be independent at the appropriate age.  The author describes parents who believe in attachment parenting as slaves to their children, rather than as confident, healthy adults who have chosen a lifestyle that they believe (not without reason) is beneficial to their children.  American parents do not “have to” choose this lifestyle, many (if not most) do not, and I find it difficult to believe that no French parents do.

A related problem is that the author does not discuss the fact that underlying values influence the choices parents make, and that all of us do not value the same things.  When discussing breastfeeding, for example, the author does halfheartedly explain the benefits of it — but she quickly praises the French mothers for giving it up by the time the baby is a few months old, not doing night feedings after two months or so (which often affects milk production), and by taking her need to get back in shape and back to work more seriously than American mothers do.  She praises the values that French parents instill in their children, such as independence, but she does not consider that American parents (and here, it may be difficult to draw conclusions about what is important to American parents as they are not a homogeneous group) may be doing things differently to instill different values.

In yet other ways, the points the author attempts to make just do not hold up.  The example I found most striking is the way she speaks of how French parents teach their children “doucement.”  The standard English translation of this is “gently.”  She explains at length how effective this is, how it teaches children to behave in a certain way, how all a French parents needs to say is this one word; yet, almost all American parents and early childhood educators routinely tell young American children, “gentle,” or “gentle touches” — with exactly the same effect.  I can’t help but feel, after reading this book, that the author is simply not that familiar with American parenting.  I am sure, too, that there are also American parents who encourage their children to eat vegetables, do not allow them to spew cheerios everywhere, whose children must put their toys away.

I have even seen American children sitting quietly in restaurants.  This is one of the points that seems to really strike the author.  She tells a story about her own daughter going wild in restaurants, while French children sat quietly and politely through long meals.  Perhaps the real issue here is that, unfamiliar with American (or any other style of) parenting, the author learned a lot from the parents she saw observed around her, where she was.  Which just so happened to be Paris.

 

On Controversy

Tags

Parenting, Politics

Everyone loves a good controversy.  As a teacher, it was one of my favorite “hooks” for a lesson: throw out a provocative statement or question, and then sit back and let the students fight it out (after a carefully constructed lesson on “how to argue properly in the classroom,” which, of course, will be largely ignored by the students).  It teaches critical thinking and requires them to interact with their peers in a (it-is-to-be-hoped*) meaningful way.  At its best, it even forces the students to justify their position from the text, one of the hardest things to get high school students to do.

A good thing can be overdone, however. Perhaps our society is overindulging itself in this love of controversy. Everything, from advertisements to politics, is now presented in terms of the most controversial, most extreme, worst-case-scenario/best-case-scenario.  Ideas and issues are framed as arguments, as zero-sum games, painted with a palette on which black and white do not mix together to create shades of grey.  This is very poor logic, and leads away from productive solutions by putting the emphasis on the extremes, away from the “golden mean” which is where the answer usually resides.

All this is by way of introducing a recent topic of much controversy: the cover of TIME magazine ( http://lightbox.time.com/2012/05/10/parenting/#1 )  I have not read the article yet, and while I would like to, I am actually more interested in the wake it has left behind it than in the article itself.  The title itself is a challenge: “Are You Mom Enough?”  Since its appearance, the article has spawned numerous blog posts and commentary, attacking and defening Attachment Parenting and extended breastfeeding, and in general adding more fuel to the fire raging over various issues of parenthood.

What I would like to call attention to here is not the issue of extended breastfeeding, but the manner in which TIME magazine has chosen to frame the debate over those issues.  I have seen many women breastfeeding toddlers and preschoolers, and this photograph seems (deliberately or not) misleading in a number of ways:

1) The child appears older than 3 years old, and is dressed to look older.  Would the image be as shocking if he were in, say, overalls?  Also it is interesting that a male child was chosen, and dressed in clothing (camos) that often has particularly male/manly associations.  All of these things contribute to the shock value of the picture.

2) The position seems strained, not natural.  Standing on a chair , I imagine, would be a difficult and tiring position for both mother and child.  In what situation would this be a normal stance for both of them?

3) Extended breastfeeding is as much about emotional as physical nourishment.  It is a special, shared bond between the mother and child.  The camera in this photograph is an interloper, and both mother and child are staring directly into the camera instead of gazing at one another.

Now, having said all that, perhaps these choices were deliberately made in framing this shot to send a particular message.  That’s fine; but it should be understood that this is a posed studio shot, and the image should not be used as evidence in a debate over attachment parenting and breastfeeding.  These are important, even vital, topics; they deserve to be treated in a thoughtful, serious discussion — not manipulated in order to sell copies of a magazine or to fuel an ongoing and unnecessary fire.

*Technically, according to Strunk & White’s Elements of Style, “hopefully” means “in a hopeful manner,” not “it is to be hoped.”