While I’m very far from a Luddite, one of the reasons that we specifically chose a Waldorf education for our three children was the limitations on technology and media exposure at a young age, which allows them to develop a better sense of ‘self’ so that when they interact with media and technology they are coming from a position of strength and not one of being manipulated by the media/technology. I agree that kids should have an understanding of the perils of online technology and critical thinking skills when dealing with media, but not at the expense of the character of the Waldorf Education. Waldorf offers something special and unique. Our WSB kids are far more developed than their peers in reading, writing, history and more, and they aren’t as swayed by the latest big movie release, or pop songs over-sexualizing them when they still need to be children.
I work with kids in 4th and 5th grade in the city public schools, with 8th graders in Roland Park, Francis Scott Key, Kennedy-Kreiger and Calvert schools, and I see the results of the over-exposure all the time. I run children’s writing programs for 6–12 year olds at Loyola, in-school audio recording/production programs and summer radio programs. I see and hear the results of their educational path constantly and I’m deeply grateful for what WSB offers as an alternative.
There is an expanding pushback from pediatric groups against media and technology for young children. Perhaps instead of running towards technology WSB might do well to use the scientific studies to reinforce its stand to not introduce things too early? This article, by the American Academy of Pediatrics, explores this issue.
As parents, we have the ability to teach technologies that we want at home, in addition to the curriculum, whether it’s coding, mobile app development, particle physics, audio production, etc… There may be other parents that don’t necessarily want these topics taught in their WSB classroom. I’m only suggesting that we tread lightly lest we put at risk the very character that led many of us choose WSB over the vast array of generic private schools in the city.
In a recent opinion piece in the New York Times, Angel Harris and Keith Robinson, both academic sociologists (and authors of The Broken Compass), review research on the impact of parental involvement on the academic success of their children. Their research—analyses of longitudinal studies that tracked children over three decades—found that “most forms of parental involvement yielded no benefit to children’s test scores or grades, regardless of racial or ethnic background or socioeconomic standing”.
The authors conclude that some forms of parental involvement might benefit certain children, but that the more important impact parents can have is by communicating the value of education. They conclude “What should parents do? They should set the stage and then leave it.”
The Lemelson Center at the Smithsonian Institute is devoted to the study of invention and innovation. It produced a short video exploring the role of play in children’s development. Most of the video consists of comments by scientists and educators; worth viewing. Several additional videos on the Lemelson Center site further explore this topic. One of my favorite quotes is by Craig Venter “My favorite toys were hammers, nails, saws, and scavenged lumber that I used for building forts, airplanes, and boats-although you had to use your imagination to what they were on completion.”
A reminder of the critical role of play in Waldorf Education, and the unfortunate disappearance of play from many children’s’ lives.
Blended learning is a form of education in which traditional, classroom based learning is complemented by personalized tutoring, usually in the form of computer-based activities. Proponents argue that this approach allows students to learn at their optimal pace, and allows teachers to tailor lessons to individual students’ needs and strengths. Advocates also suggest that blended learning can result insignificant financial savings, an attractive advantage for struggling, independent schools. A recent article in The Atlantic explores these issues.
Join us, on March 29, 2014, at 3PM, for a conversation with Jack Petrash. The title of his talk is “Preparing Our Children for the 21st Century”. Jack is an engaging and inspirational speaker, who will talk with us about the abilities and skills our children will need in this 21st century, and how Waldorf Education best provides these needs.
Renate Hiller is a fiber artist and educator whose work is inspired by the work of Rudolph Steiner. In this video interview Ms. Hiller talks about her work, and about the importance of handcrafts in education in general, and in Waldorf Education in particular.
"The use of the hands is vital for the human being, for having flexibility, dexterity. In a way the entire human being is in the in the hands. Our destiny is written in the hand. And what do we do in our modern world with our hands? You know we move the mouse, we drive and so on. We feel plastic most of the time. The hands are relegated to very little that’s actually bringing dexterity to our times. So we have come ever more estranged from nature and from also what other human beings are doing."
"The children will all go to that. They’re really drawn to that. They want to experience it and however the reality is that there’s less and less of that. In the home, you know you can use already bought vegetables, all chopped up and ready to eat. There is very little activity like kneading the bread, and you know children grasp first an item and then they grasp with their mind. So if they have very little to grasp other than plastic readymade toys then what their mind grasps is very little. The toy automatically moves and you know children can only be kind of astonished by that."
In a recent weblog entry I described studies that failed to demonstrate significant cognitive effects of musical training on cognitive development (except in children receiving intense musical training). There are important caveats to these findings:
The number of children included in these studies is small; as a result, it is possible that small improvements in cognitive development did not rise above the “statistical noise” (Type I error).
It is also important to note that these studies focused on particular aspects of cognitive development (mainly linked to mathematical skills). They did not explicitly ask whether music development results in other cognitive improvements. We recently described studies showing lasting hearing benefits of early music education.
A recent article reviews evidence that early musical training results in improvements in language acquisition. Of particular interest are the longitudinal studies described in the article (studies that follow children for long periods, starting at the time musical training begins). For example, one year of instrument music training resulted in greater improvement in verbal memory. In another study, training in visual-auditory associations (including the use of musical notation) improved writing skills of children with developmental dyslexia. Children who received music lessons for 6 months showed improvements in reading and linguistic perception abilities, but no such improvement was observed in children who received painting lessons.
Most people intuit that musical activities have benefits that extend beyond the immediate joys of music. There have been many reports of associations between musical training in childhood and later nonmusical cognitive outcomes. We discussed some of these reports on this weblog. Some of the more comprehensive studies on this issue are from the group headed by Dr. Elizabeth Spelke at Harvard.
In a series of studies, reported here, Spelke’s group compared children and adolescents with training in music to those with (a) no specific training, (b) training in sports, or (c) training in other art forms. Separate experiments tested for effects of mild to moderate training, moderate to intense training, or highly intense training. The studies suggest a relationship between music training and spatial ability (abstract geometry), but only in the intensively trained population of children. These were older children whose primary interest and academic work centered on their music training. Intensive training in visual arts was associated with certain improvements in sensitivity to geometry. Intense training in music or visual arts did not produce improvements in other mathematical abilities, such as numerical reasoning. No improvements were reported for children with moderate or low training in either music or visual arts.
These studies, and many like it, are correlational, and therefore cannot reveal whether music training causes improvements in children’s fundamental mathematical abilities. There have been very few randomized controlled trials to assess causal effects of music lessons. Dr. Spelke’s group recently reported on one such trial.
They compared preschool children who participated in a six week musical enrichment course, to children participating in a similar but non-musical form of arts instruction, and to a no-treatment control group. The children were assessed in four distinct cognitive areas: spatial-navigational reasoning, visual form analysis, numerical discrimination, and receptive vocabulary. Overall, children provided with music classes performed no better than those with visual arts or no classes on any assessment.
This study adds to the small number (seven, at last count) of randomized controlled trials on this topic. The authors conclude by stating “Whether or not future studies uncover reliable relations between music education and extra-musical aspects of cognitive development, instruction in the arts likely will thrive for its intrinsic value.”