Stars: ★★☆☆☆ (Not Worth It)

This book came highly recommended, and I was excited about it because I generally agree with the premise that American schools start children in formal lessons far too early. I did not like the book at all. It made some solid points, which is the only reason it got two starts instead of one. I think there are more accessible ways to get this information, and the recently released study about voluntary Pre-K in Tennessee is an excellent source for a more recent and easily read example.

Premise

This book details substantial evidence that it is better to wait until children are at least eight years old to start them in formal school. The authors present a thorough literature review of the academic studies available before the publishing date of 1975. It is written in the style of a literature review, which can be very dry and challenging to power through at times.

Loved

1. Strongly Supports Nongraded School
   There are numerous advantages to having children in mixed age groups. The children can advance as they need to academically or take it as slow as is helpful. There is no rush to move a child along because they are a certain age or to hold them back so that they can emotionally develop. The children of a variety of ages can work and learn together. The older students learn to help the younger ones, and the younger students learn to behave from the older ones. Having all children of the same age in the same grade is as nonsensible as having every wrestler fight those of the same age rather than in the same weight class.
   
2. Emphasizes the Importance of Time Out of Doors
   This is idea I can get behind fully. Our children should be spending plenty of time outdoors, even after school starts. They need to be actively and regularly engaging their bodies in ways that are simply impracticable in a standard school setting. One of the authors’ more ridiculous points is that boys are less mature and should therefore have a different starting age. Boys may be generally more active, but that portends more time outside for everyone, not segregation.
   
3. Prioritizes the Role of A Strongly Bonded Parent
   One detriment of early academics is that curriculum can overtake connection. When we prioritize homework over time spent doing fun things, we teach our children which one is more important to us. Children will learn. That’s what they are inherently designed to do. We don’t have to force it upon them. But connections with their parents, especially as they age are not as inherent. Those must be nurtured. Delaying formal lessons until later than normal is an excellent method to foster those increased connections.

Didn’t Love

This book was very difficult to finish. It is not written in an engaging way, and even though it has some good information, that is overwhelmed by the negatives.

1. There is offensive language throughout the book. Even though the words were not considered offensive in 1975, they are now, and the book has not been revised.
2. They are highly critical of working mothers. With almost no latitude, the authors expect that every mother should stay at home full time and that no one would be an acceptable substitute.
3. Another premise throughout the book is that sending children to preschool is placing the parents’ freedom above the child’s welfare.
4. It is derogatory toward teachers, especially preschool teachers.
5. Expects all children to have their own room
6. Advocates for different starting ages for boys and girls because boys are less mature

Lessons Learned

• “A solid foundation means a mistake or failure is not a threat.” I have heard variations of this over the years, but this summarizes it succinctly. If we allow our children the space to make mistakes when the stakes are low, they will feel free to make other mistakes when the stakes are higher – knowing they have a haven to return to should they need it. Perfectionism can be one of the greatest stumbling blocks to big dreams, and a great relationship with a child’s parents can alleviate some of that perfectionism.
  
• There is evidence that children may not be physically developed for learning to read most effectively until 8-10 years old. The authors explained how each of the senses develops through childhood, including sight and hearing. Clearly, children can learn to read at earlier ages. Our school system rests on that foundation. The authors make the argument that the children would learn to read much more efficiently if we waited until their physical senses were more properly developed to the task.