by Maureen Chapple
Several weeks ago I had a conversation with a young mother that went something like this:
“My friend has taught her son very well,” she said, referring to a child less than two years old.
“What do you mean by ‘taught him well’?” I asked.
“Well, her son knows his A, B, C’s to ‘F’ and he’s several months younger than my daughter, who only knows them up to ‘D’.” My heart sank. Here were two intelligent young women confusing rote memorization with meaningful learning, and already comparing their children to each other, judging their progress against shallow and arbitrarily set standards. For some, the above conversation may seem harmless, but to me it indicates a growing and disturbing trend in our society. In our efforts to produce “smarter” children, abstract, symbolic representation is being pushed on children at a younger and inappropriate age, at a cost to the children themselves and to society as a whole.
As any parent or teacher can testify, even the smallest nuance of behavior or casual comment is absorbed by a young child. Children quickly learn that rattling off A, B, C’s bring delight to the adults about them. Such behavior is encouraged and rewarded sweetly with praise and affection, in adult anticipation of a successful school career. But what most adults are unaware of is that A, B, C’s have little to do with reading. Reading is a process of getting meaning from the printed word or, as one educator described it, reading is the discovery that, “I have words in my head!”1 Rote memorization and sight recognition of the alphabet, consonant blends, and numerals – the type of programming “Sesame Street” is committed to – is a relatively minor part of the learning process, an easy step for most children unless they come from a deprived environment or are learning disabled. The ability to memorize is an essential skill, but only one of a constellation of skills necessary for intellectual development. Mnemonic skills might even be said to be less important than in the past. The vast amount of information accruing in virtually every field of inquiry has necessitated the use of computers, which have assumed the job as a memory bank to organize the overwhelming amount of data now available. Encyclopedias are obsolete, outdated before they even make it to press. We can no longer function within the confines of nineteenth century notions of education, relying on memorization to store a fixed body of information.
What is important in education today? Technology has created its own problems, and the need for individuals with the ability to interpret, analyze, question, explore and imaginatively create is great. So what, you may ask, does this have to do with three year olds and “Sesame Street”? Television fosters physical passivity, developing a learning style in young children that begins to sediment the body/mind dichotomy many of us find so painful as adults. Psychological research and simple observation confirm that children learn best when their whole being is involved – physically, mentally and spiritually. Television teaching in the genre of “Sesame Street” can help children to memorize bits of information, and teaches conformity, but does little to foster creative intelligence. Rabindranath Tagore’s critique of education eighty years ago might well be applicable to the current orientation in education: “We devote our sole attention to giving children information, not knowing that by this emphasis we are accentuating a break between the intellectual, physical and spiritual life.” Such a break crushes spontaneity in pursuit of the imaginary line of the average – “…but life’s line is not the straight line.”2
Twenty years ago the parents of today’s young children watched television which, in the eyes of their parents, was harmless entertainment. Today, “Sesame Street” type programming is assigned the task of educating its young audience. Inform and entertain it may, but educate, it cannot. Television cannot replace the direct relationship with a caring adult who encourages inquiry, exploration, problem solving and creative synthesis. Education is a process, not a product. “Educational Television” is a misnomer. Once relieved of its impossible mandate to educate, it may better perform its more appropriate task – to inform and/or to entertain.
It may be argued that it cannot hurt to have children sit and watch programs they are not ready to assimilate. I am not suggesting to exclude television entirely, for to do so in this society would be to culturally isolate the child. But to sit for an hour, or hours, in front of a television is to exclude other, more meaningful possibilities. Parents may want to limit, or monitor a child’s television viewing, but a better alternative is simply to offer them something more interesting to do. An empty cardboard carton can provide hours of imaginative play for a young child. Involving a child in cooking or baking can give experience in measuring, counting, following directions, and fine motor coordination, as well as the pride and satisfaction of having contributed to the family’s meals. A lump of clay pinched, pounded and rolled exercises the small muscles necessary for writing and also provides an outlet for aggression and creative expression. Children learn best by example. If they see the adults in their life plopping down in front of a television set every night, they are likely to do the same. If they see them reading, writing, playing an instrument or discussing world events, they will most likely become involved in these types of activities. If a caring adult takes the time to really converse with a child, both listening and speaking, such a child will learn that his or her ideas are important and respected, and will develop the confidence of expression first in speech, and later in written communication.
Children readily assimilate the values of those around them. Our lifestyle reflects our basic orientation, and our children will imbibe the values that we hold dearly. We cannot deny the culture we live in. But we can show our children an alternative way of living in the culture. The “alternative” is manifested in all the small details of our manner of living. All of us are teachers of young children through the example we set for them. An adult who reacts more enthusiastically to a young child parroting the alphabet than to the child expressing him or her self through the spoken word is teaching that child to place more value on the mechanics of memorization rather than effective communication, which is the goal of literacy. Academic skills must be taught as tools, not as an end in themselves. We must begin with the child’s own, immediate experience. Tagore writes, “The starting point… (is) things like the pulsing earth, the living language, the stirring epic, and the business of the educator is to build a persuasive bridge between them and academic studies.”3
Footnotes
1. Rabindranath Tagore; quoted in Dr. S. P. Chaube, Recent Educational Philosophies in India (Agra: Ram Prasad and Sons, 1967), p. 119.↩
2. Ibid., p. 223.↩
3. Rabindranath Tagore; quoted in Khawaja Ghulam Saiyidain, The Humanist Tradition in Modern India Educational Thought (Madison: Dembar Educational Research Services, Inc., 1967), p. XV.↩