Recently, as Wesley's first birthday approached, I've been looking around at stores and online for toys, books and videos. I confess, I came away from it a bit overwhelmed and frustrated. There are tons of things out there for kids and babies! Almost everything I looked at had tons of bells and whistles - 15 buttons which make 15 different sounds and then when you switch a button they make 15 more different sounds with ABC's and 123's, colors and shapes as well as blinking lights, horns, any number of things to pull, push and flop around. How much is a one year old really going to get out of all of this? Why do our toys have to be designed specifically for learning? Children learn so much just playing with simple things and observing the world around them. Anything we give them, whether it be a wooden spoon, a pan, a paper bag or the bright lights learning toys will help them learn. I guess I am not opposed to having one or two toys that have all the bells and whistles but it seemed that everything available was like that and would just be sensory overload for a little one to hear that all day long. Most of it just seems like a marketing ploy anyway.
The other day Wes was fascinated by our cd player. I let him play with it because it is old and he was so intrigued. After fiddling with it a while, tasting it every few minutes, trying to pick it up and turn it over, he figured out how to open it, pull out the cd, turn it over and put it back in. All I did was watch because I didn't want to wheels in his head to stop turning. There were no noises or blinking lights or recorded voice cheering him on. How much did he learn from this simple thing?!
Do these little ones really need all these toys, whether they are fancy or simple? Once again, I think back to Abigail Adams and her sons and daughter and to even just a generation or two ago. They didn't have all those high tech talking toys and gadgets but they cranked out some pretty smart offspring! I imagine John and Abigail Adams and Thomas Jefferson or even Plato and Aristotle and Shakespeare had very few toys at all, certainly not what we have, and they turned out pretty smart.
Are we doing justice to our kid's intelligence and their central nervous system with all these new fangled toys and books and videos? Of all the things Wes has, he will more often than not go to the simple toys like rattles, stuffed animals, pots, bags, balls, blocks, boxes, books, anything he can make "music" with and his little wagon.
I remember going to my grandparents house for a few days as a child. They didn't have much for us to play with, just some older riding toys and toys for the house and a few games. But we had so much fun there! We used whatever was laying around to build forts, make up games, and run around outside, exploring the woods, barn, cellar, pick and can vegetables and fruit from their garden, roam around in the garden, observing and inspecting, etc. Imagine the stimulation our brains were getting!
The other day I took advice from friends and from blogs I read about the accumulation of toys, to put away all but a few for a while. I did this and I am amazed! Before, Wes would play a bit and toss the toy and go on to the next or simply look at them all and then go stare out the window. It was too much for his little mind to take in. Now he actually plays with his toys. He still loves to stare out the window too though. I am sure he's learning a lot from that as well.
So all of the above lead me to another pondering. Why are we so obsessed with our kids being prodigies and learning their alphabet before they are 2 or even younger? Of course I do want Wes to be smart as any parent would, but I don't know that learning the alphabet when he's 1 or 2 will make him smarter when he's 5, 15 or 50.
Did you know that most kids used to not learn to read until they were 6 or 7 years old, at least? And at that age, they learned to read in a few days or weeks and could read novels very quickly thereafter. Most didn't start their formal education until much later than we do now. And yet, when they reached the age of 16 or 17, they could be fluent in Latin and Greek and were capable of achieving in a bachelor's degree what we might get in a Masters or Doctorate today! The entrance exam to Harvard in the 1700 hundreds was well beyond my capability and I have a Master's in history. I read over an 8th grade exam that was given in the 1890's and I would not have done very well.
I am all for exposing kids to grand things, to beautiful works of art and music, t0 literature, and books galore, of course. (My heart skips a beat when Wes fusses for me to read to him more!) However, in an effort to make kids smarter by exposing them to great things, all sorts of companies have sprung up that promote child smartness, like Baby Einstein. As I am sure you are aware, they play classical music or other styles in a way that is supposed to appeal to babies. However, I've found that Wes really loves the real thing! Imagine that! Why play Baby Einstein Mozart when he delights in the real Mozart? Why don't we expose them to the real thing? To real literature instead of books that contrive to make our kids smarter but are poorly written with bad pictures? Real music in all varieties? (Wes loves real bluegrass!) Real Art? Real Poetry?
I found a baby video series at the library called Classical Baby, produced by HBO, that has a video for music, poetry, art and dance. I checked out the poetry video and it was wonderful. It had famous actors reading famous poetry in full and in snippets to soothing animation and sometimes in song form. It was so soothing and captivating! Wesley loved it, too!
I hope I don't sound too negative in all this, these are just some things I've been thinking about and wondering. Perhaps you have some insight that I'm missing. I'd love to hear your thoughts too!
Below are a couple of links I thought you'd like.
No comments:
Post a Comment