Miseducation:Preschoolers at Risk, by David Elkind Dec 31, 1999 (88 of 113 found this helpful)
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.
Read a library copy Dec 28, 2003 (98 of 132 found this helpful)
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.