For the past few months, my daughter, Jinaki, who will be four in four months, has been asking me how to spell certain words. She has also started adding, although she’s not much beyond “Two and two is four, Daddy.” My son, Kyle, who is two years younger, says, “Two kisses” and proudly plants that number on my cheeks.
Now there are certain educational theorists who argue that children need not be taught anything in respect to skills and ideas—just expose them to the relevant materials, these theorists say, and the children will teach themselves. Some even go so far as to argue that children can even teach themselves to read, once they have access to reading material.
This is not an argument I accept, mainly because I have never seen any evidence to support it. It is true that there are children who have taught themselves to read, but most of those anecdotes relate to geniuses and prodigies (not the same thing, by the way). It is also true that many children start to recognise words from being read stories—since children like to hear the same stories umpteen and one times, they eventually memorise the stories (which, unfortunately, does not make them want to go on to something new) and start to relate the squiggles in the book with words, in a fashion similar to learning to talk. But none of this necessarily means that, left to their own devices—and nowadays with tablets and laptops and smartphones, that phrase is no longer figurative—they will learn reading and other skills needed to function in the modern world.
The theorists who argue otherwise point out that, in primitive societies, children learn all the skills they need to survive without being formally taught them. Basically, the children just observe and mimic their older peers and the adults and, by the time they’re 16 years old or so, they are pretty much ready to become full-fledged members of the band. The counter-argument is that most of the skills these children learned are either hard-wired by evolution or not as complex as reading letters or doing mathematical calculations.
The only empirical evidence I’ve come across that children can learn is an account of centres known as the Sudbury schools, where children from four to 16 come to every day and do whatever they want. The centres have materials for any activity, and there are teachers but they only teach when a child comes and asks them to teach something. But, even if it is true that children can teach themselves, they can only survive financially in a developed society which offers opportunities to use their skills and knowledge. The Sudbury approach would never work in T&T, where the piece of paper and being friends with the right people are what mainly matters.
Even so, watching my daughter becoming enthused about spelling and addition has made me rethink my position to some extent. After all, if she wants to master these academic skills at three years of age, then wouldn’t she have all the basic tools needed for school at six or seven years of age, which is when primary school starts in most countries with effective education systems?
I think so. But I’m not going to experiment with my children on unproven ideas. The best I can do is try to ensure that school doesn’t extinguish their enthusiasm for learning.
