by Robert Pondiscio
September 29th, 2008
Tags: American Academy of Pediatrics, childhood, overscheduling, parenting
Posted in Research and Reports | 1 Comment »
A few years ago John Cloud of TIME Magazine wrote that the idea that kids are overscheduled and need to slow down is “a fine example of transference. Aren’t you really the one who wants to lose the BlackBerry and go fishing?” Looks like he was right. The Washington Post takes note of new research that indicates kids not only cope with a heavy schedule, but thrive with it. It’s the parents, however, who are stressed out. And, (as is often the case when members of professional classes feel burdened by a problem) it’s not that much of an issue to begin with.
Two studies based on data about how children spend their days show that only a minority are heavily scheduled and that organized activities are linked to positive outcomes in school, emotional development, family life and behavior. The children most at risk have no activities at all, the studies showed.
“I found the opposite of what I expected,” Sandra L. Hofferth, director of the Maryland Population Research Center at the University of Maryland at College Park, tells the Post. Hofferth “started out with a pretty solid belief that lots and lots of activities are bad for children.” But, says the paper, she found a higher level of activity was not linked to such stress symptoms as depression, anxiety, alienation and fearfulness.
The American Academy of Pediatrics warned in 2006 that a hurried lifestyle could create anxiety or contribute to depression for some children.
by Robert Pondiscio
September 29th, 2008
Tags: achievement gap, Charles Murry, determinism
Posted in Education Theory | 2 Comments »
Say this about Charles Murray: he’s very clear about where he stands. Writing in the Times of London — and echoing the themes of his most recent book, Real Education: Four Simple Truths for Bringing America’s Schools Back to Reality — Murray rejects the idea that all children can succeed on the academic track if schools do their job. “There are both genetic and moral reasons that children of the professional classes come out on top,” he says. Having limited academic talent is no more remarkable than being limited in art, music or sports, writes Murray, who describes the belief that every child can learn at a high level as nothing more than “educational romanticism.”
And yet to say such things in public is to invite shock and ridicule. The educational romantics will pummel you with four objections: 1) when children are below average we can raise their ability; 2) the schools are so bad that children at all levels of ability can learn much more than they are learning now; 3) the rising test scores of the past decade prove that big improvements are possible; and 4) there’s no reason why the high educational achievement of children of the professional classes cannot be achieved by all classes.
“The bottom line: at best, we can move children from far below average intellectually to somewhat less below average,” Murray concludes emphatically. “No one claims that any project anywhere has proved anything more than that.”
Karin Chenoweth had her way with Murray a few weeks ago on the Britannica Blog, noting that “Murray is ignoring the fact that good instruction makes a huge difference in what kids can and do learn.”
