Customer Reviews

Miseducation: Preschoolers at Risk

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

If you work with preschoolers, you probably have been presured to do activities and/or lessons that are not age appropriate. This book will help you explain what your are doing and why. It also will help you revise your program elimnating some activities and goals and replacing them with better activities and goals.

Dr. Elkind is not suggesting that young children should not be taught. Instead he is educating the public on the *appropriate* way to teach these very special members of our population. He offers nine pages of notes/bibliography to support his sound child development theories. At the time of publication he had logged in about 25 years in the early childhood field, which I think makes him an "expert". I have a degree in e.c.e. & taught pre-k for over a decade. Trust me, this book is right on target. I highly recommend it, especially for parents who are feeling pressured to have "superkids".

In the "Questions Parents Ask" section of this book Mr. Elkind is asked: "So what is going to happen? According to you, we are miseducating large numbers of young children, so what does this mean with regard to the future?"

Mr. Elkind answers: "I have no crystal ball...My guess is that the teenagers of the nineties will be more neurotic than teenagers today. They will show more obsessions, more compulsions, more phobias, more psychosomatic symptoms than do teenagers today. ...What I cannot really predict is the extent of the problem."

This book was published in 1987. The preschoolers of that time are today's teenagers - the same teenagers who are bringing guns to school and killing their teachers and classmates. While I believe the causes for these horrific behaviors are manifold, I also believe Mr. Elkind has made a valid point, he certainly has my attention.

I was deeply disappointed by this book. I was seeking a reasoned presentation of the case against early teaching, and instead ended up with this unsupported diatribe by a man who seems to misunderstand a lot of what he opposes.

The alarm bells went off early. In the first chapter Elkind repeatedly talks about "pushing" and "pressuring" children, using loaded language to try to turn us against the idea of teaching them. Someone should explain to him that it's only pushing if the child resists. I have also read the pro side of this controversy, particularly Glenn Doman, who emphasizes repeatedly that parent and child should both be having a wonderful time and you should stop immediately if that isn't so.

I could understand the casual use of loaded language, since this is a polemic. However, Elkind continues mischaracterizing left and right. He blithely slots parents who teach their young children into one of several cute categories, and proceeds to describe them in improbable detail. For instance, "Another group of parents want their children to become Olympic-class athletes or competitors. Gold-Medal parents tend to be in routine middle-management positions with little hope for advancement . . . ." And he goes on like that for some time, describing these so-called Gold-Medal parents as if everyone teaching their child a sport at a young age were precisely identical. And there are lots of other cute labels, like Outward Bound parents and Prodigy parents. Apparently we are to see people who teach their young children as "types" rather than as people. And these absurd stereotypes are not supported in any way; he just blandly asserts them as fact.

Elkind talks about one boy who was taught early and toilet-trained late, attempting to imply that these things are connected. But "late" toilet-training is quite common these days, and we see many three-year-olds in diapers whose parents have never taught them anything.

He also talks about one boy who was taught early and is doing quite well, and congratulates the mother on her son's good luck as if the boy had dodged a bullet. But he presents no statistics to back this up. He just thinks the boy must have been lucky because his happiness doesn't accord with Elkind's views on the dangers of early teaching.

Where are his figures on how taught vs. untaught children fare later in life? There aren't any. Although the "nine pages of notes and bibiography" mentioned by a previous reviewer do exist, many of them are references to things like _Time_ and _Money_. Others are citations of the works he's slamming. There's very little research cited, and he is obviously cherry-picking his sources.

I became disgusted with the book when I reached the part where Elkind argues that children should not be exposed to computer use. He briefly mentions Seymour Papert, the creator of LOGO, but takes the tone that this idea was outrageous and completely omits to mention Papert's impressive results. This is a fine example of the cherry-picking I mentioned.

He then makes a statement which is truly awesome in its ignorance. He asserts "The problem with such programs is that they presuppose a level of mental ability higher than that which they seek to encourage. Put differently, a child who really understands programming is at a sufficiently high level of mental development that learning programming is not really going to promote additional mental development."

Programming does not promote mental development, according to Elkind. But anyone who has ever learned to program, as a small child or an older child or a teenager or an adult, knows better. In fact it is difficult to think of anything which does more to promote mental development, although music and pure mathematics rival it. Perhaps the basic art of reading is even more effective, but Elkind is also against teaching small children to read!

Elkind suggests a set of blocks instead of LOGO. A set of blocks is great, but why on Earth can't a child have both?

This is already too long, so I'll end the blow-by-blow analysis. In summary, I suggest checking this book out of the library if you're curious about it. It certainly isn't worth a place in one's permanent home library.

I remain in search of a book which can make a reasoned case against early teaching of children who enjoy it. It's difficult to disagree with the idea that one shouldn't place tiny children in a high-pressure all-day academic program, but few people were ever arguing for that in the first place.

I'd heard that this book was better written and more well-researched than Elkind's other disappointing book, The Hurried Child. But I found that he still spent the first third of this book with the same unsupported, curmudgeonly rantings. In case you're trying to decide which Elkind book to read I will say that the content this book was what I had expected from The Hurried Child. In the Hurried Child, Elkind focuses on influences such as divorce, latch-key kids and TV. In Miseducation, he focuses on the academic versus play programs of home and early childhood education.

The Miseducation spends the first few chapters insulting every possible type of parent - even those that read his books (p.31)! He has these stereotyping titles like "college-degree parents" and "goumet parents" which imply that there is something wrong with having an education and cultural experiences and wanting the same for your children. If you read this book, I'd skip the first few chapters and start with chapter five. Chapter four covers computers and can be forgiven since it was written in 1987. They're no longer a status symbol, but he's right in that there's no real value in them for young children.

I doubt that Elkind has ever been a stay at home parent, because he grossly misunderstands why these parents take their children to programs such as Gymboree. Simply put: we need to get out of the house!! We don't go because we think it will turn our kid into the next Michael Jordan. It's rainy outside and playgrounds are made for school-age children. We just need a safe and dry place to play with our kids, which you would think a proponent of play would be fully supportive of. Later in the book he does say Gymboree may pose no problem (p. 162). Now I'm just confused as to his stance.

The second section of the book is slightly interesting and possibly useful. Elkind covers crucial moments in childhood. A minor criticism I have of this chapter is that when comparing literacy in various countries (p.141) he compares the literacy rate in Denmark (nearly 100%) to the amount of reading problems in France (nearly 30%). These two statistics can't be compared directly, since they are different measures. It is not saying that illiteracy in France is 30% or that none of Denmark's population has reading problems. Also in this discussion he talks about Japanese literacy, but only addresses their syllabary. Japanese use four types of writing systems (hiragana, katakana, kanji, and minor use of the Latin alphabet).

I was quite pleased to see Elkind address how his views apply to gifted children. He has very practical advice for how to support them in their curiousity without pushing.

I would say highly recommend only the eighth and nineth chapters for parents looking to find preschools and other early childhood education programs. He has very good advice on what to look for in a school or daycare. It is very practical and easy to apply advice.

The irony of my distaste for this book is that he and I actually agree on how to educate children and I will be sending my toddlers to a school based on NAEYC's principles (Elkind was president of NAEYC from '86 to '88). My actual rating for this book is zero stars for chapters 1-4, 3.5 stars for chapters 5-7 and 4.5 stars for chapters 8-9.

Elkind gets criticized a lot for pushing for parents to be "child-centered." I disagree. He's right. If you pursue things for your child taking into account their best interest that is what is called "parenting." The parent centered time is called "before children."

With that said, this book, with a great message, is choppy and ambiguous, particularly the first 100 pages. It could probably be condensed. I think his best point in the book is that just because something can be done early does not mean it should be done (his example: toilet training a 6 week old baby through the use of suppositories.)

That message, and properly identifying it earlier in the book, would have made this a much better read. With that said, I still gave the book 5 stars because the message is timeless. In this day and age of the pressures built into "No Child Left Behind," college students jumping off of buildings over academic pressure, and kids going to formal programs for things that used to be learned via general human interaction, there is no better time to read this and heed his wise advice.

Don't shrug off his message because you think he does not agree with your lifestyle. Simply read what he is saying and see what is worth incorporating and what you can comfortably disregard.

I bought this book in hopes of ascertaining the kindergarten readiness of my 5 year old grandson. The author was recommended by a retired school teacher friend. In fact the book was written in 1987 and much of the material is now dated. However, I found a fascinating prediction about the Millennials (Gen Y) young adults now entering the workforce. David Elkind accurately assessed how the education style and pressures of the 80's would affect children reared and educated during that time.

The author was writing a lot about the 80's "superkid" syndrome, but it still has relevance to parents today. He explores why so many of us are so fixated on "educating" preschoolers, and at younger ages than ever before. He points out how this can be detrimental, even when parents have the best of intentions.

That said, I think the reader will find certain things in this book dated. I don't think I've heard of anyone trying to teach his or her infant to swim in recent days. The 80s "superkid" syndrome is kind of ridiculed today. If you ever saw the 80s movie "Baby Boom", the scene where Diane Keaton is talking to the mothers in the park who are obsessing over preschools comes to mind.

To me, the dated parts were interesting in a historical sort of way, but the real value of the book was in how it examined what our preschoolers actually need, despite what the current trends may be.

It does not surprise me to see such a wide variety of opinions concerning David Elkind's book, Miseducation: Preschoolers at Risk. Dr. Elkind, a professor at Tufts University and author of nearly 20 books, believes that too many of America's children are being taught material that is not age-appropriate. Dr. Elkind believes that many preschool children are taught information that should actually be taught to elementary students. He believes that many young children receiving structured instruction at an early age can be harmed psychologically and/or physically.

This 200+ page book is organized into four parts: Education and Miseducation (Chapter 1), The Social Dynamics of Miseducation (Chapters 2-4), The Risks of Miseducation (Chapters 5-7), and Healthy Education (Chapters 8-9). In Chapter one Dr. Elkind lays out his argument that early instruction teaches the wrong things at the wrong time. In Chapter two Dr. Elkind describes eight different kinds of parents and the mistakes they make. Chapter three covers what we have considered to be the competent child over the last several decades. Chapter four is focused on computer education, and it is extremely dated (the book was published in 1987) and rather comical. Chapters 5-7 examines the first three stages of Erik Erickson's social development stages. In Chapter eight Dr. Elkind provides practical suggestions for making the right choices for the education of your child. The last chapter consists of 30 questions parents have asked Dr. Elkind that he answers.

So what is my take on the book? I started kindergarten at the age of four and was the youngest in my class. I am very thankful that my parents started me early in school, but that does not mean I did not have issues. I still have lots of issues, but don't we all? Our daughters have summer or fall birthdays, and we chose to start them in a school setting a year after many parents might have. Each parent needs to evaluate their child and see what is best for them. We and others believe our youngest daughter, a kindergartner, could find success in the current first grade class, but we want our Grace to continue to be in an early childhood environment before she is pushed to complete homework and miss out on a lot of playtime. There are definitely some advantages for delaying formal schooling; however, my wife did provide some formal instruction for Grace before she started attending school. Dr. Elkind is not a fan of this. I think it is important to examine each child and if they find formal learning to be a fun activity, why wouldn't you provide this?

If you don't have little tots runnin' around your house or school and never will, this book is probably not going to be of much interest to you. If you are a "tiger mom" you will probably hate this book with the passion of your tiger heart. Although we delayed the formal schooling of both of our daughters, I feel Dr. Elkind made some broad sweeping statements. There are definitely many parents out there pushing their kids to accomplish tasks that they are not ready for. There are also many parents out there not doing enough. There needs to be a balance as in many things in life. I think with nearly 25 years having passed since the last version of Miseducation, an update is in order.

This book gives a little history about education. I got to see how education has changed over the years and what has come about because of it. I also have personal experiences that show how early childhood education has been going downhill, as far as following how young children actually learn, as opposed to what we try and force them to do to "learn." The history can give us support for what we do, even when society believes that what is happening now is fine. We are the ones who need to show what is right for early childhood education and be able to support what we know.