Jerry Kirkpatrick's Blog

Thursday, October 23, 2008

The Child As Small Adult

The education literature since at least Rousseau has cautioned against viewing the child as a small adult. The meaning of the phrase, however, is not totally clear.

“Small adult” usually means that children are viewed as adults in miniature, that is, as small in height and weight and weak in physical strength, but otherwise as possessing an adult brain that is merely absent content. The job of educators and parents, then, is to fill that brain with knowledge to move the children, as they reach maturity, up to the level of educated adults.

The problem with this view is that the children obviously do not possess adult brains. And most parents and teachers have a sense that this is correct, namely that the brains of children are as immature as their bodies, that their cognitive capacities and abilities vary by age and among each other at the same age, and that pace of learning and interest determine what and how much any particular child will learn at any particular time. This is what the concept of “stages of development” is all about.

Yet adults continue to demand that children learn the way they, the adults, think they learned, by attempting to stuff the brains of children with knowledge the children are not ready for or interested in and by expecting this learning to take place and be completed at one time. I say “think they learned” because I doubt that many adults in fact learned the way the adults expect their children to learn.

The worst mistake adults make when relating to children is to demand obedience to authority. “Learn your multiplication tables or there will be a consequence.” “Pick up your clothes, or else . . .” Adults may or may not be consciously aware of acting on this premise, and sometimes it may be an act of desperation when nothing else works, but demanding obedience to authority is not nice when made either to children or to other adults. It is the demands of a dictator or authoritarian mentality; I’ll assume a more innocent motivation in adults for the rest of this discussion.

A widely common mistake that adults make in relating to children is what I call “one-time learning.” It manifests itself often in the (sometimes angry, sometimes exasperated) question, “What did I just tell you?” The question can be asked about anything, ranging from multiplication facts to dirty clothes on the floor to catching a softball with two hands. The assumption is that the child has been informed—the knowledge has been put into the brain; therefore, he or she should be able to instantly grasp, retain, and act on what was just “learned.”

Such expectation, however, is patently absurd. Adults do not as adults, and did not as children, learn that way. Experienced teachers know that two requirements of good teaching are repetition and patience, for the variety of reasons mentioned in the third paragraph above. Some children are just not ready to learn what the adults seem to think they should be learning right now. And others are just not interested in learning that great wisdom of the adults. What the experiments of Summerhill and Sudbury Valley Schools (1, 2, 3) have demonstrated is that children, when left free to pursue their own interests, will in fact learn to read, do arithmetic, and even go on to college, but not on the schedule that adult educators think they should be on.

This last was made obvious to me recently in my duties as assistant coach of my daughter’s softball team. One of the coach’s jobs is to repeatedly shout to the girls to use two hands when catching the ball, which they seldom do. A couple of weeks ago, I noticed, without my chiding, one girl (eight years old) all of a sudden was catching with two hands. Subsequently, in a game, she even made a semi-spectacular two-handed catch of a pop fly. Lesson learned, by the adult? Children march to their own drummer when it comes to learning! Something clicked in the girl’s mind that I could not have predicted. One-time learning certainly did not produce the result.

On the other side of the coin, adults who treat children as small adults often fail to grant them the cognitive capacities and abilities that they in fact do have. Montessori demonstrated this abundantly by teaching children to read at age four and by teaching lower elementary children geometry, algebra, and history, among other subjects that the education establishment long ago relegated to much later ages. Children desperately want to grow up and become adults, but adults have to allow them to do so, at their own pace and when they are interested enough to learn the ways of the adult.

The bottom line of the issue of viewing children as small adults is that children need to be viewed as children, not more than they are and not less than they are. And each child has to be viewed as a unique individual with unique desires and abilities. Recognizing and responding to those uniquenesses is one of the traits that separates teachers from those who would appear to be dictators.


Postscript. The recent financial bailout lunacy in the United States has
sufficiently tweaked my boredom with politics to make this comment. The simplest, concise explanation and solution to the lunacy can be read here (1, 2, 3) by Mark Thornton of the Mises Institute. For more detailed and equally competent comments, read many of the last month’s posts on the Mises blog, but especially this recent one by George Reisman (also posted here).

1 Comments:

  • Dr. Kirkpatrick,

    As a high school educator myself, I feel that I can chime in here.

    I agree with a certain amount of waht you say. I witness every day the misguided attempts to spend 1 day on a subject (meiosis) and assume that the students will remember it two weeks later, or taht one day's coverage is sufficient.

    I could not disagree more about your appraisal of waht schools do currently. The big fad in education is "brain based ways of learning," a "scientific" way to back up the 40-year fad of progressive education. While I suppose someone can say that schools are not perfectly progressive in the way Dewey or Montessori would want, the schools I've worked in are far from the "teacher lectures while students copy" mode.

    Also, in an ironic twist, those of us (myself included) that do not buy into Montessori's methods (which heavily influenced the failed "whole language" reading instruciton), feel that she, not we, are the ones who see children as mini adults.

    You might check out books by ED Hirsch for further elaboration, but I see the progressive method of education as very Rousseauian in nature, assuming that the child is a noble savage who comes into the world ready to self-regulate to a degree larger than I think is realistic.

    Yes, children need to learn via interaction, and I will never deny that, but I think teachers know quite well that students need a lot more guidance than Montessori's method provides. Before teachers can facillitate, they must actually instruct, but instruciton necessitates the "frustration" of the child's attention towards an artificial authority figure (the teacher).

    There are many students that might learn well with Montessori's method (I suspect I would have). But as an educator, I can attest that there are many who need more structure than that, and need very specific directives (if they were asked "what would you like to do today?" not much would get done.) Many kids, especially the young ones Montessori was concerned with, don't have that type of executive funcitoning yet. (I am rusty on my Piaget, but I think even he said that.)

    So the irony is that both "sides" see the other as treating kids like little adults. You see "us" as treating kids like little adults by "filling their heads with information," and we see "you" as treating kids as noble savages who are born with the executive funcitoning skills to know how to self-direct their learning.

    By Blogger Kevin Currie, At Wednesday, February 4, 2009 3:55:00 AM PST  

Post a Comment



<$I18N$LinksToThisPost>:

Create a Link

<< Home