Too Early or Too Much Structure?

This is what I thought when I saw that post. If a child is totally interested and wants to learn on his or her own, I do not see why there would be any inhibition. But when kids are forced (for lack of a better word) to sit and learn the letters, numbers, words etc rather than allowed to play and learn, I think there is some inhibition in use of the imagination which is what usually drives all creative thinking at this age.

It seems logical to me. Another thing that, IMHO, inhibits creativity and imagination are electronics. They tend to teach kids to look for "instant gratification" and they don't need any imagination because everything is right there in front of them instantaneously.

The only way your child's creativity will be limited is if you do that kind of structured stuff all day long, which most people would never do.
I think the bigger disservice those programs do to young children is to simply turn them off to learning at an early age.
Most children would rather develop their writing skills with lots of beading, lacing and other fine motor activities than to sit and trace letters over and over.
That's why a good preschool is so great, this is exactly what they do, learn through play! And at the same time they are learning important group and social skills.
After all, we are raising them to be part of society, and there is structure in that, sharing, taking turns, compassion for others, working together, etc.

My kid is a musician and artist, as well as reading at a college level (she's 12 and they are recognizing all the middle schoolers with college level reading in a ceremony in one hour). She learned to read at 2 very naturally because I started reading books to her when she was two days old. We never missed a day. She loved coloring and coloring books often have letters or stories in them, so she would do those. She had matching games that had letters on them and she would play with those. She had computer games with letters and literacy games, and she loved them. Is that structured learning? To me, it's educational play. It was completely directed by her - once introduced to those things, she would ask for it every day. I do not know any parent that would force a child to do structured seat work, and yet my daughter craved these things. Should I have told her no, the "experts" say it's bad? Of course not. I think this is much ado about absolutely nothing.

Are you really asking bc you are uncertain or you want to try to convince everyone you are right? You seem incredibly convicted in your view so not sure if you are really asking a question in the hopes of learning a new one. As with most things in life, happy medium seems pretty safe. Also, all this talk of creativity... Some people are just naturally creative and some aren't. We need both types. I'm starting to wonder if the non creative kids are going to develop a complex... I am not creative really and nothing to do with my upbringing. My sibling and mother are creative. But I'm ok with that. I enjoy structure and work that involves all logic and it's brought me to a career that enables me to make more than probably 99.5% of the population. So no shame here in not be creative and I will support however my kids are too. I let them play a lot bc it's fun. That's my goal. They enjoy their childhoods. I don't do it bc it may or may not make them more successful career wise. I think parents need to adjust to what their kids seem to need and that is the most impt thing vs one approach is always best.

Meh. I would have been BORED TO DEATH if I had to wait until age 7-8 for academic-based learning. My older sister was 2 years older than me and I craved school work before I started school. I used to memorize her spelling words when she was in 1st grade, and practice her flash cards, and try to do work from her workbooks and home work sheets. When we played, we would make up "math tests" and "spelling tests" to play with. The more workbooks and pencil-and-paper tasks I had, the better. I LOVED everything about school and was more than ready for it.

However, I understand that not everyone's brain is as wired for traditional, standard education as mine is. I guess my point is that there is no "one size fits all" approach and frankly, without seeing an actual journal article or something else that really explores this idea in a neutral way, I don't believe that exposing children to an academic environment at a young age actually stifles their creativity. As mentioned in the response yesterday, my sister is a professional designer and I was artistic as well and while we were natural learners, my mother was very formal in her instruction with us. We didn't magically learn to read, add, subtract and spell at age 3, she committed time each day to teaching us these things.

All that said, I would never have placed my children in an "academic-based" pre-school. Their daycare program included pre-school concepts and while there was some pencil-and-paper work for the 3 & 4 year olds, it was really only in the last year that they started to spend more than a few minutes at a time doing seat work and it was with the goal of prepping them for Kindergarten. But I can say that based on my volunteer work in Kindergarten, more than half of those kids (mostly girls) were more than ready for traditional, academic school work and thrived in a very structured, pencil-and-paper environment. The rest of the kids may not have been at that point for another year or two.

As with everything else, it really depends on the child.

sure. there's a world of difference between a child freely exploring a resource-rich environment, and a baby einstein who is force-fed a structured curriculum from womb-out.
nothing wrong with flashcards so long as the kid likes them, and they're not hammered. but few kids today are allowed sufficient completely unstructured playtime.
khairete
S.

I think the sentence, "If you begin school work with your two year old, your two year most likely will not have the same creativity as children that aren't forced into structure," is absurd.

Beginning in the second year (perhaps later in the second year) I have begun "school work" with both of my children, to prepare them for being homeschooled. NEITHER of my children has ended up "stifled" in any way - spending an hour a day doing fun abc and 123 activities, colors, fun worksheets, etc - basic Pre-K stuff - is very beneficial for a young child because not only do they LEARN these things, they prepare themselves for having to have a sense of order once they begin school.

Both of my children are focused and good at sticking to a schedule, knew their letters, letter sounds, and numbers in their 2's - and gee, somehow they are both very creative. Perhaps its because it "runs in the family" but I don't put much stock in that. I've always given specific "creative" time with art supplies, crafts, "trash" like toilet paper tubes, etc, and my kids are actually VERY creative.

Personally, I think your idea that "free range play" kids are somehow better off it absurd. It's not like I schedule every minute of my children's day, but there is a predictable routine and experts agree that THIS is best. I know a lot of "free range play" kids who just have no sense of time management and they have trouble doing what they are supposed to, when they are supposed to.

Now, if the argument is truly about whether your kids learn their letters through flashcards or a puzzle - you are just splitting hairs. Who cares how they learn, as long as they learn? A lot of parents don't bother to take the time one way OR the other, they just leave it to the school system to teach their children everything - and I think we can at least agree that THAT'S not a good idea.

Really - I would LOVE to see your sources for your claims. "Chances are creativity will be inhibited if children use flashcards?!?!?" Seriously? Man, I wish you knew my flashcard using children. Evidence does not support what you say - I truly, truly want to know where you got your info. And you know what?

There's only one way to do a puzzle. Each piece only goes ONE place, and in ONE way. Yet you think that's creative. Lol, if puzzles are creative, I must be ALL messed up.

But flashcards - that we can use to play games, elaborate on, shuffle up, add to, etc - somehow that's not creative.

(And of course children need to play. As young children, my children spent 75% of their "awake" hours playing, 15% eat or bathing, perhaps, and maybe 10% on "school" activities. I don't think anyone is sitting their two year old down for eight hours to recite the alphabet and drill flashcards.)

Just another twist to this:
When my daughter was younger, we knew this family. My daughter would get invited to play dates. Their kids were nice and the Mom. But going into their home, you would not even think, that they have children. Why? Well because the house is an adult house. Meaning, it looks like a museum, everything is in its place. It is a real nice home though. BUT, when or if the children wanted to play with something, they had to ask their Mom, first. And then, the Mom would go to this one closet where the kids things/toys were kept, and she'd take out ONE thing from the closet. That is all. Then the kids would sit there, and play with that ONE toy etc. And then after a time, they had to be done. The Mom would say that is enough, and then she'd put it back in the closet. There was NOTHING around or on the floor or anywhere, that was the kids. Even their rooms, were just so. AND... as a result, to me, and even my daughter noticed-- those kids were, so UNimaginative. They had no sense of play nor of spontaneous play. They were boring too. They had NO sense, of self-reliance or of self-motivation. NO creativeness nor anything, kid like.
They had no playfulness.
Oh sure, they were nice well behaved kids. The Mom was real pleasant. But it was just all very odd.
Oh and yes, the kids were "smart." But so what. What they did and knew and how they played was just so........ un-kid like.

I agree with everything you said. Don't inhibit academic learning, but don't force it either. There, that's your answer, right there.

The one other thing I'd add is that it IS a good idea to make your child's environment conducive to learning. Kids who are read to; kids who get to do fun, safe little preschool-style science experiments; kids who have limited (or no) access to TV and video games -- these are the children who teach themselves to read, who teach themselves all kinds of math -- who ultimately go on to really succeed in school.

So, I completely agree: No hyper-structured input, in terms of flashcards and all that. And don't stifle kids when they are ready to learn. But the other ingredient is -- creative learning can't compete with whiz-bang video entertainment. Broccoli can't compete with high-fructose corn syrup. Create a healthy learning environment, just like you set a healthy table, and children will do brilliantly.

I didn't teach my kids much when they were young. We did colors, letters, numbers, etc but it was just another activity and nothing serious. I felt it was more important for them to learn that grass was green and soft on your feet when you walked barefoot in it. That snowballs were fun to throw at trees and puddles were wet and splashy. That friend's feeling were important and sharing things made people share back with you.

There's a lifetime to learn things but the things you learn when you are very young about getting on with others are the most important groundwork you can lay for your children.

Quite simply, young children learn through play. Baby drops thing on floor. Baby learns about gravity.

They learn science and math and literature and all of those "academics" through their natural tendencies for play. We chose a play based preschool for DD and she had all her kindergarten readiness skills even though they never sat her down and grilled her on the ABCs. Even though she does more structured learning in K now, they still have "centers" so the kids can do art, or read, or play in a kitchen. I was very pleased to see that her school still values this less structured time as educationally beneficial. We use flash cards to help her with sight words but that can still be a game.

It's not limited to younger kids, either. Read the blog on Mamapedia today. Sure, you can smooth things for your kid, but if you do that all the time, WHEN will he or she learn to be an independent human being? I'm sure the teachers knew whose house SD was at when she turned in a project - the ones done by her mom were pretty but SD learned nothing. The ones turned in from here were messier, but she learned a ton from actually doing her own work. Sometimes it is best to step back and let them puzzle it out first.

I think there is a problem with some preschools being way focused on academics to the detriment of other very important skills, like sharing. IMO, it is sometimes a question of is it what's best for your kid or do you just want bragging rights that your 2 yr old can read? Also, a lot of people get afraid that if they don't get their kid reading by preschool, they aren't doing their best as a parent. Or if their kid doesn't start an instrument at 4 or doesn't learn a foreign language by 6 or...(insert thing here). Kids with loving, involved parents will succeed. Parents just need to remember to let them be kids, too.

I can only go by what I've seen. In general, as I've volunteered in schools, the kids from (monetarily) poorer backgrounds, were much more creative and excited to try new things in elementary school than kids from more affluent areas. The ones that dealt with less structure in their days were more uninhibited in the creative process.

But school does not reward creativity that does not conform to the academic model. And at some point, they have to connect that special ability in a way to communicate their ideas and become a partner in their own education. Sometimes, much of the time, that creativity is lost to the world by resistance to the disapline of learning, poor parenting, and little guidence in goal setting. Striking a balance is difficult and tricky. Probably too great a task for our hobbled school systems.

My kids never went to preschool. Did great in school and college.

Kids need to play or they do NOT develop as much creativity and stuff as kids that don't get to play a lot.

NOT saying kids that don't get to play are stupid, saying that they might be more analytical and structured as an adult as a child that is allowed to go play in the dirt and build tunnels, streets, buildings, and more every day.

Please google children learn as they play.

Playing is SOOOOOO important. That's what this poster is saying. That kids need to play.

Having too much structure isn't good for kids. Having no structure isn't good either.

I have seen free range kids that absolutely cannot learn in Kindergarten because they don't possess the ability to sit for more than 30 seconds and then they're running around swinging from the chandeliers.

Kids need structure and to learn. Not saying they don't. Just saying there needs to be a balance.

Also, side note, there is a high correlation between kids that don't go out and play in the dirt/get dirty are more likely to have MS when they grow up. Their cells don't have enough on them to fight disease because their immune system never grew.

It's better to have a good balance of activities both indoor and outdoor.

Drive by the best child care centers in your area. Look at their playgrounds. You might see a climbing structure, a sand box, big shovels and digging toys, swings (insurance for swings is astronomical), benches, play houses, and more.

I had paint easels on my fence. The kids could color or pain to their hears content and not make a mess inside on my floors. There was also a boat sunk into the ground. The kids would play fishing, shark attack, driving, and anything else you could do on a vehicle. It was everything from a tank to a boat.

I also had a stage built under the trees. The kids held so many concerts and dance contests. They loved all this.

I built an obstacle course with old tires, balance beams made of landscaping timbers, and anything I could think of that they could balance on and move from one to the other. I had someone build a concrete path but I had 3 lots and 2 of them were playground. I had a couple of tricycles and then some skates, I also had some devices the kids sat on and used their hands to pedal it. They were really old so I don't know what they were called. I also had some more modern things they could ride on.

We had huge parachutes for group activities and more.

Helping the kids find things to do outside will help them but not control their minds when they're playing it.

I agree that a child this very young age does not need school, they need attention, opportunities and experiences. Parents can set the tone of a childs love of learning or dreading learning.

As each child shows an interest, you continue to feed that interest. When the child moves on, so does the parent. A child trying to run? You put them on the grass and let them go for it even if they are only 8 months old.

I learned to not underestimate what our child could do, but also not to expect her to be able to do what other children her age had mastered. They are so individual.

A child wanting to know colors, you speak about colors each time you are doing anything around your child that has colors.

Puzzles, our daughter has always loved them, still does.
She would go through them so fast, I would flip them over and have her draw her own picture on the back, so that she could put them together on the opposite sides. used to take 2 puzzles and mix up all of the pieces and she could put 2 together at once.. Then 3 puzzles this way..
My BIL once gave her a 300 piece puzzle and we laughed that it was WAY too advanced. She got on the floor and started putting it together she was 4 and a half!

I recall our daughter loving certain books. She would pick the same ones out over and over. The book "Stone soup" fascinated her at one point. How all of these people shared to make enough soup for every one. She loved the pictures of all of the vegetables. the "Chopping" etc.

The next time we went to the store, she wanted to see ALL of the vegetables and for me to tell her "What this called?" Only took 1 time and she could name all sorts of vegetables and greens.
I suggested we make our own soup and so we went out to find the perfect "stone".. You get the idea.. She was 3.

Another time it was dinosaurs. Same thing, we started pointing out different ones and their names, If they were Carnivorous.. Took her to the local Natural History museum, and then she moved onto the next thing. Never played with dinosaurs again. (did use some of their features in her art work). She even make "clawed shoes" out of newspaper and tape. Rolls of tape are a great creative toy for kids.

SHE LOVED to draw that is something that still has not changed. We had a tool box full of colors and colored pencils and colored pens. in the house and another that was kept in the car along with pads of plain paper. Then she would name her creatures and so she wanted to know how to write "Names".. We just went with her lead based on her interest.

Sometimes, I would find interesting games, toys etc and present them to her, but if she was really not interested that was fine.

Our local Grocery Store is H.EB. those were the first letters our daughter learned. On her own. The next letter was M - Yep from the giant M in McDonalds, we passed by it all of the time. So at home with her letters all laid out I would ask her, where is HEB.. and she would pick them out.

When she had just turned 4, I wondered if she would be ready to read. I purchased a set of BOB books and on the way home she read the whole set. I turned the car around and purchased the second set and man, she devoured the books.

I asked her, "why didn't you tell me and dad you could read?" She said "Because I was afraid you would not read to me anymore!"

We promised we would never stop reading to her, but we wanted her to read to us also. She was quite satisfied and said "That is a deal!"

FYI, We never owned a set of flash cards.

Our daughter did like workbooks, she called them "homework", so we let her pick out a work book and she would do her homework whenever SHE wanted. I never said ok, "lets work on homework. "

Instead she would want to be the teacher and gave me homework.
Then she would "grade it" Of course I would make mistakes, but she would "Allow me to make it right".

FYI, Our daughter did not lose any creativity. Her artwork won contests, was published and then one of her degrees is Studio Art. She is now making a living doing Marketing.
I get excited hearing what children are interested in and how they are constantly learning things, they are so smart and intuitive. They fascinate me.

I think a structured, academic approach to early education is pretty limiting. It means that people measure success in things like test scores, vocabulary words learned, and so on. Some months ago, there was a comment on Mamapedia from a parent who was all upset that her young child had once learned all the states and their capitals, but then forgot them when she moved into a non-academic preschool, and wasn't that terrible? Um, no. What value does that information have to a 4 year old anyway? What does it prove about her intelligence? What else got neglected while she was drilling on those.

Reading some of the responses, I think people restrict their view of "creative" to mean crafty or artistic. But we're really talking about creative thinking and critical thinking, of being able to understand a situation (or a book or a project) on a different level, beyond face value. That's what free play teaches. What happens if I do this vs. that?

My son had Legos and Brio-type trains and some hand-me-down building toys such as Construx and K'nex. He got some of those sets that give you exactly the right number of pieces and instruct you to build the model shown. That had some value in teaching him sequencing and following instructions. But he also played with things very freely, and mixed & matched toys and different sets to create new things. That's creative thinking.

Kids who are pushed too much into any one area generally don't fare as well, and they just don't work well in a group (classroom, scout troop, whatever) as kids who have some flexibility and sense of discovery. Our best scientists are those whose who are curious, not just those who memorized the Periodic Table. Yes, we need some math facts, and some things are streamlined by memorizing basics. But math is used in the kitchen while cooking, in the story while shopping, in the garden while measuring out soil or planning a grid for vegetable plantings, not just with memorizing flash cards.

Kids who read and learn to discuss the book will do better than those with huge vocabularies from flash cards. But a good vocabulary will help that child read more and better books. So it's a balance.

I also think people with a broader education (which doesn't just mean book learning) are more tolerant and less likely to fly off the handle when people ask a question or raise a subject they may not agree with. A lot of the knee-jerk reactions we see on websites (and Facebook, and "news" commentary shows) are because people really aren't so well educated, able to admit new evidence into the mix, or intelligently discuss other people's viewpoints. If I hear a "my way or the highway" type of zealot, I know they aren't so secure in their views and can't take any sort of challenge. I think that often starts early, when everything is done by the book to the exclusion of questions, "mistakes", experiments and learning-by-doing.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a child who learns numbers and letters early. There is a LOT wrong with parents making their 3 year olds sit at a table and memorize flash cards. I have zero understanding of why anyone would do that.

A huge amount of learning occurs during play and during normal day to day activity. How could a child who is playing with blocks or sticks or boxes or stuffed animals NOT learn numbers? Counting is so much a part of life that I don't see how a child could avoid it. Honey, how many blocks have you stacked? Can you jump up and down four times? Can you bring me two onions so we can start dinner? Same for colors - ooh, look at the blue bird, green grass, etc. It just happens.

Every bit of evidence supports the benefits of reading to our kids. Who reads to a child and does not point at the words and pictures? Of course they learn their letters - human brains are wired for language. It is virtually impossible to keep a child with close, positive adult relationships from learning language.

And the computer games you mention? The evidence does NOT support computer use for young kids and it does not matter whether we pretend these games are creative or educational. Real interaction in the physical world is what benefits kids.

Yep, play-based and child led is really in the child's best interest at that age. I read a lot to my kids, did puzzles, played at the park and even (gasp!) let them watch some tv. They picked up a lot of information - letters, numbers, colors, shapes - without me "teaching" it to them. They were naturally curious, explored and asked questions. I always did my best to answer their questions as honestly as I could and in an age-appropriate way.

Kids are very smart. They often know what they need.

I never gave thought to it, however, my older daughter was free range and still is. She is a crafter for a major production.

That is what she does for a living, crafts.

The younger child has had a little more structure, however, not really enough to call it structure. She is still pretty crafty.

The younger daughter is a lot more artistic at age 8 then the older one was at age 8. The older daughter did not get creative until sometimes around 6th grade, but it wasn't anything that promised a future.

They are both lefties and both my kids. We have a lot of crafty people in the family. I am not sure how many lefties. Do you think it could be genetic as opposed a lack of structure?

I will go with genetics.

Hmmm, That is a good question actually. I hadn't given it much thought, nor have I done any research on the topic, to be honest. I've always questioned the "Your Baby Can Read" type things though. They never sat right with me.
I know that my son learned all the letters of the alphabet by sight before he was 2, and no one taught him. That was kind of scary and unsettling actually. All we could figure was that we would let him watch Sesame Street, and he must have learned it there.
He's only 3 now, but very intelligent. On a creative level, I haven't looked into that one yet. He is able to play on his own, and his older sister (who is 5) and him do play games where they create their own rules, but I am not sure who is making the rules, him or her.
We haven't done a lot of "structured" learning with him, to be honest. He does soak up knowledge like a sponge though, no matter what we are doing.
I will have to read some of the links you posted. I am now interested in the topic, and will have to look more into it.