| Author | |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: July 26 2008 at 1:59am | IP Logged
|
 |
|
Here are two questions for anyone who's familiar with the Moores' philosophy of education.
For readers who are already convinced of the merits of home education in general -- but would like to learn more about the rationale behind the "better late than early" philosophy, and how it works, in practical terms, with young children -- which book(s) do you recommend? Better Late than Early? School Can Wait II? The Successful Homeschool Family Handbook? Home Grown Kids? The "Education Before 8-10" CD? (There are so many choices at their web site, it's kind of overwhelming.)
In the meantime, I have a specific question that's been bothering me, and it just can't wait (even for Priority shipping  ) :
The Moores are well known for claiming that early reading and seat work are bad for children's developing eyesight. What do they suggest parents do with a young child who's an early reader by choice, and who *likes* to do seat work? Are we supposed to hide the books and paper, throw the child out in the back yard and lock the door, or what? Enquiring minds want to know! 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
asplendidtime
Forum All-Star
Joined: Dec 14 2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 744
|
| Posted: July 28 2008 at 9:39am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Well, I am no longer an expert in this area, 5 years and 5 babies later.... Beyond the eyesight concern, another concern they'd have is burnout. And if I found myself in your case I would encourage more play and large motor skills, and take them outside a lot more, read more storybooks, more playdoh, bean bags, sorting.
My two cents. I love their books and have read everything I could get hold of. Homeschool Burnout, Better Late, Homegrown... etc...
__________________
Rebecca~Mama to
Noah 17,
Katie 16,
Mary 14,
Tim 13,
Jonah 12,
Josh 10,
Zoe 9,
Will 7,
Peter 6,
Laura-Mae 4,
Emily-Joy 2,
Genevieve & Gabriella 1
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: July 28 2008 at 4:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
We generally let the children choose their own activities (within a somewhat "prepared environment," Montessori-style), so I'm not sure how I'd go about encouraging them to choose certain types of play over others. In any case, they already spend most of their time on the sort of things that you've suggested. It's just that, on top of that, my DD chooses to spend upwards of an hour a day on "close work." Most of it is creative and open-ended -- such as drawing, coloring, and writing little notes and stories -- but I'd imagine that the effect on eyesight would be the same no matter what.
I'm hoping that someone can recall a passage from one of the Moores' books that addresses this situation. It would be interesting to see what they have to say. It seems to me that it must be a fairly common thing. Even if they're not early readers, many kindergarten-aged girls like to do a lot of drawing and coloring.
Regarding the books - I'm glad to hear that you (like most reviewers) liked all of them - but I'm still going batty trying to decide which one to start with!
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Bookswithtea
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 07 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2621
|
| Posted: July 28 2008 at 6:03pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I subscribe to this philosophy. My favorite speaker on this topic is Carole Joy Seid. She does not have books but if you can find a seminar in your area, its well worth the money.
As for the eye development, here's what we do with early readers: No reading for more than 15 minutes at a time. This must be followed with distance vision opportunities for at least 30 minutes (basically, go outside). No coloring or beading or lego-ing or any other close eye work right after reading. If the child complains at all of eyestrain, we limit the amount of times a child can read for 15 minutes until they no longer complain of eyestrain.
Carole Joy Seid recommends saying things like, "We can read that book later. Right now we need to make lunch! Come and help me make the bread. Would you like to scoop the flour?" Distract so that they aren't doing too much close eyework. Its not going to slow them down academically, but it will save their eyes and they won't be burned out when they are 12 (which happened to a child of mine  ).
hope this helps...
__________________
Blessings,
~Books
mothering ds'93 dd'97 dd'99 dd'02 ds'05 ds'07 and  due 9/10
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
cornomama4
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: July 28 2008 at 11:49pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I don't think it sounds like your dd is doing damage to her eyes by the amount of "close work" you describe. I think the Moore's are refering to more of what a child might experience in a school setting, or with the amount of seat work a "school at home" approach might involve.
I scanned the Successful Homeschool Family Handbook index for something about eye strain, but didn't find anything. I think this is the most recent book (1994?) The first is Better Late than Early from 1975. I think it's always good to keep in mind when a resource was written, since the homeschooling scene has changed dramatically since '75 and especially in the last 10 years. The philosophies will still ring true, but some of the anecdotes and references may seem a little "over the top". I think this book (SHFH) covers a little of what most of the other books say.
I think I'll do myself a favor and read it again before we start this year's work.
cm4
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: July 29 2008 at 11:18am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Cornomama, I'm thinking more of the future. She's still at the "sound it out" stage, but she's been making quick progress recently, and I'd guess that it's just a matter of months before she'll be reading simple books with ease. If she's like DH and I were as children, we'll absolutely have to ration her reading time if we have any concerns about close work. We were both fairly active children, with relatively typical interests, but we did like to read a lot. DH also built models and drew detailed pictures... and did the infamous "reading comic books under the covers with a flashlight." FWIW, we did both end up with glasses at around 8-10 years old. His eyesight is much worse than mine. Apart from driving, I can get along fine in daily life without my contacts, but he wouldn't be able to function at all. 
Given what we've learned about the claimed boy/girl differences, we're especially concerned about our 3-year-old son. He wants to be like his big sister, and is already trying to "read" book titles and "write" on the Magna-Doodle. He also has an eye for detail, and loves jigsaw puzzles, small Legos, and so on. He doesn't have ready access to "small parts toys" (due to choking hazards with the baby around), but it wouldn't be feasible to try and keep them away from him until he's 8 or 10. So we're going to need to come up with a policy of sorts (and hopefully it will be a well-informed one).
Thank you for your input on this, Books; it gives us something to work with. 
As far as the rest of the Moores' philosophy goes, I think I'll just get "Better Late than Early" to start with. From what I've read elsewhere, their evidence still seems to hold. In fact, the nation of Singapore has an ongoing campaign to raise awareness of the link between reading and vision problems. Apparently, 90% of their college students are myopic.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
mama251ders
Forum All-Star
Joined: Oct 21 2007
Location: Michigan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 508
|
| Posted: July 29 2008 at 12:45pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I subscribe to this type of theory too, even though I haven't read the Moore's books. Waldorf is similar in that children wait until late 6 or 7 to begin reading and doing any kind of seat work. My 5.5 yo is beginning to want to read and I just keep diverting her attention. I did let her start knitting a few months ago and that has satisfied her some. I do think that you can't force every word of any philosophy on every child. I also subscribe to the philosophy of listening to your children and honoring their needs. There will come a day (very soon, I think) that my daughter will no longer be divertable and I will honor her need to start reading then. I think any ideas or philosophies that we subscribe to need to be prayed about at length and we really need to see what the good God wants.
I had not heard about the eyesight thing before. This gives me something to think about as my dd already has 20/50 vision in both eyes. Since my hubby is legally blind without corrective lenses, bad eyesight seems inevitable, but perhaps there is something to consider in really making her wait? Hmmm....
Blesings,
Betsie
__________________
Wife to Oliver
Mama to 5 Wonders
Benny, Braidon, Olivia, Anna and Saragh
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: July 29 2008 at 3:03pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Waldorf does discourage early reading, but it's for rather broader reasons than those cited by the Moores. Because of Steiner's conviction (based on an occult belief system) that the child's soul doesn't "incarnate" until age 7, they believe that young children should be kept in a dreamy state, away from "premature" intellectual activity. Learning, at this stage, is to be based on imitation of the teacher or parent, rather than on analytical reasoning. Thus, Waldorf would discourage the use of such things as educational manipulatives, home science experiments, and even some types of music, conversation, and stories that might incite the child to think analytically (and thus "awaken") too soon.
OTOH, the Waldorf early childhood curriculum encourages other kinds of close work, such as drawing, making daisy chains, building little gnome houses out of twigs, etc. So it would seem that they're not especially concerned about visual development per se. I doubt most children would have the patience to do those things to the extent of impairing their eyesight, but who knows?
My thought du jour: Educational theories are like nutritional theories. Just when you find something that you're sure everyone will agree is healthy (like broccoli or garlic), somebody somewhere will say it's not good for you.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: July 29 2008 at 4:01pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor wrote:
| In fact, the nation of Singapore has an ongoing campaign to raise awareness of the link between reading and vision problems. Apparently, 90% of their college students are myopic. |
|
|
I'm thinking genetics... 
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog 
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Erin
Forum Moderator
Joined: Feb 23 2005
Location: Australia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5814
|
| Posted: July 29 2008 at 7:55pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor wrote:
Here are two questions for anyone who's familiar with the Moores' philosophy of education.
For readers who are already convinced of the merits of home education in general -- but would like to learn more about the rationale behind the "better late than early" philosophy, and how it works, in practical terms, with young children -- which book(s) do you recommend? Better Late than Early? School Can Wait II? The Successful Homeschool Family Handbook? Home Grown Kids? The "Education Before 8-10" CD? (There are so many choices at their web site, it's kind of overwhelming.) |
|
|
Eleanor
This post has taken me back down memory lane. The Moore's were one of the first books I ever read way back when I was 17 and thinking about homeschooling philosophy. If you want to know specifically about their 'eye theory' than Better Late than Early is the best book, it combines eye info with a bit of homeschooling inspiration. If you want a book with lots of statistics than School Can Wait is it. It is more aimed at punching holes in the whole American idea of early school though, so not as relevant to a homeschooler. The Successful Homeschool Family Handbook (used to be called Homeschool Burnout) is my favourite of the Moore books, lots of inspiring family stories entwined with practical ideas, more unit study type approaches, Home Grown Kids is good too, just not as fat The CD was before my time.
Although truly in my opinion there are other hs books out now that are more 'meaty' about homeschooling.
Eleanor wrote:
| The Moores are well known for claiming that early reading and seat work are bad for children's developing eyesight. What do they suggest parents do with a young child who's an early reader by choice, and who *likes* to do seat work? Are we supposed to hide the books and paper, throw the child out in the back yard and lock the door, or what? Enquiring minds want to know! |
|
|
Yes! Truly well sort of. You are to limit a child younger than 8 to half an hour of reading a day. (Now my memory could be wrong but I think not) For the child under 8 you are to concentrate on character building, practical help etc.
This is where the Moore's had a big impact on our early years of homeschooling, I held my first child, a girl back from reading, but then I was confused as I had also read Maria Montessori and alot of what she said gelled (besides my mother had raised me with much of MM philosophy) and I also read lots of John Holt so... what was I to do. In the end John Holt won and I was very child directed with her, fortunately she was assertive enough and at the age of five and a half she informed me that her goal was to learn to read over the holidays (she was a Kindergartener after the holidays) She set herself a task of reading 2 books per day and she was reading by the time we officially started.
Now my boys have been a whole different story. They haven't read until 7-9 yrs. So the Moore's have been very good in reassuring me that boys are often later. Btw this is a generalisation as many of the ladies here can attest too. But in our family it has been this way.
On an interesting side note, I learnt to read at aged 4 nearly 5 before I went to school, and wore glasses in K-2, I have never worn glasses since.
__________________
Erin
Faith Filled Days
Seven Little Australians
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: July 30 2008 at 7:51pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Interesting! I've already been making a few changes to our environment, as I felt the children would benefit from being steered more toward non-academic types of learning (in Montessori terms, "Practical Life" and "Grace and Courtesy" ). This would seem to support that decision.
In particular, I think we'll put the Montessori language and math stuff in another room, and make it "by permission only." The non-Montessori educational toys (generally flashier and more enticing) will go into storage for a hiatus. It might not make a difference at this point (I have a feeling that there's no going back, even for the 3-year-old), but we'll see what happens.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Leonie
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2831
|
| Posted: Aug 01 2008 at 7:14pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
I really like "The Successful Homeschool Family Handbook". Still own it, in fact. Love the stories of different homeshool families.
But I think the early or late reading will depend on the child - again, it is a matter of going wth what seems best for each individual and not a blanket rule. All my sons have been early readers - we are all bibliophiles and they were all interested in words and letters and books at a young age. So, I went with the flow and it was okay by me if they read by age 4 or 5
(which they all did) or by age 7 or 8.
Some wear glasses/contact lenses, others do not - but I personally think that is an hereditary thing. 
__________________
Leonie in Sydney
Living Without School
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
MacBeth
Forum All-Star
Probably at the beach...
Joined: Jan 27 2005
Location: New York
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2518
|
| Posted: Aug 01 2008 at 7:34pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Leonie wrote:
But I think the early or late reading will depend on the child - again, it is a matter of going wth what seems best for each individual and not a blanket rule. All my sons have been early readers - we are all bibliophiles and they were all interested in words and letters and books at a young age. So, I went with the flow and it was okay by me if they read by age 4 or 5
(which they all did) or by age 7 or 8.
Some wear glasses/contact lenses, others do not - but I personally think that is an hereditary thing. |
|
|
My latest reader (read when she was nine) was the first to need glasses. My earliest reader (3) just got glasses (at 17), and the ophthalmologist laughed and told her she didn't really need them, but that her type A personality made her want to see better than everyone else . She was not amused; he gave her the most mild prescription possible, and she spent a huge amount of money on very fashionable glasses. So, in our family, I guess it's part hereditary, and part pop culture. Reading at a young age does not seem to make a difference.
__________________
God Bless!
MacBeth in NY
Don's wife since '88; "Mom" to the Fab 4
Nature Study
MacBeth's Blog
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Bookswithtea
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 07 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2621
|
| Posted: Aug 02 2008 at 6:54am | IP Logged
|
|
|
My friend's opthalmologist recommended that she delay reading with her children since she could as a homeschooler in order to protect her children's eyes. It probably depends on the doctor, as early reading is really pushed in our culture.
I read early and constantly as a child and was in glasses before high school (nearsighted). My brother never read and does not wear glasses. Both of my parents have bad eyes, so I find it curious that my brother doesn't wear glasses...Its anecdotal at best.
I wouldn't stop a child who was determined to learn how to read, but I would distract from spending too much time practicing (or any other kind of close eyework). All of mine that are old enough to read are bookworms but no one needs glasses. I just made a point of making sure they told me any time their eyes started to hurt/feel strained, and in the first two years or so of reading (depending on age) I limited the amount of time they could read and made sure the lighting was good (no flashlight reading!)
__________________
Blessings,
~Books
mothering ds'93 dd'97 dd'99 dd'02 ds'05 ds'07 and due 9/10
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
organiclilac
Forum All-Star
Joined: March 30 2006
Location: Illinois
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 640
|
| Posted: Aug 02 2008 at 10:43am | IP Logged
|
|
|
I was an early reader and still do not need glasses. (I'm almost 30.) Dh was not, but spent a lot of time sitting WAY too close to the TV at that age, and was in glasses at the age of 4. Ds is still not a fluent reader (age 7) but he has been into very detailed art work for several years now, which I would think would cause similar strain? His eyes are good so far - I hope he takes after me in this area, not dh!
__________________
Tracy, wife to Shawn, mama to Samuel (4/01) and Joseph (11/11), and Thomas (2/15)
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
donnalynn
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 24 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 581
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2008 at 4:53pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Eleanor wrote:
Waldorf does discourage early reading, but it's for rather broader reasons than those cited by the Moores. Because of Steiner's conviction (based on an occult belief system) that the child's soul doesn't "incarnate" until age 7, they believe that young children should be kept in a dreamy state, away from "premature" intellectual activity. Learning, at this stage, is to be based on imitation of the teacher or parent, rather than on analytical reasoning.
|
|
|
This is a little misleading - it is not that a child's soul is not "incarnated" - the child's soul is there - but up until the age of seven it is thought to still be partially "sheathed" (by the soul of the child's mother)- the Waldorf educators speak of another birth at around the age of seven (the will)- and then again at 14 (the emotional life) and then again at age 21 (the intellect or ego).
Rather - different capacities at each "birth" are now more accessible to that person. I think Steiner's general seven stage cycles are observable and are in agreement with other developmental models - that is, they are not dependent on Steiner's "reason's" or his other philosophical views.
I wish I had more time.... but for the first seven years Waldorf wants to provide an environment that facilitates the tremendous growth that a child goes through during this time. I have heard of cases where this is taken to an extreme - a child being told they shouldn't read or parents pressured to keep books out of the house.
The key is balance - if a child shows early intellectual development you can't really stop it but you can make sure to provide for a lot of outside time, physical activities, finger games, proper nourishment, good sleep routines etc...everything to do with growth and physical well being is the main *emphasis*.
__________________
donnalynn
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Aug 04 2008 at 9:38pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Hi, Donna --
The term "incarnating" is used a lot in Waldorf circles to describe this supposed process. (There's even a book called "The Incarnating Child.")
That said, I would really rather avoid an in-depth discussion of Steiner, Waldorf, or Anthroposophy in this thread.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
donnalynn
Forum All-Star
Joined: July 24 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 581
|
| Posted: Aug 05 2008 at 7:05am | IP Logged
|
|
|
Yes, I know - I was just trying to clarify how the term is used and how it is not. I'm not looking to discuss Steiner either but I wanted to clarify that Waldorf educators do not see the young child as somehow incomplete or without a soul until the age of seven.
There could be terrible consequences to a belief that a child does not have a soul until the age of seven - I thought it was important to correct that misstatement.
__________________
donnalynn
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Willa
Forum All-Star
Joined: Jan 28 2005
Location: California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3881
|
| Posted: Aug 05 2008 at 10:38am | IP Logged
|
|
|
It's interesting how different philosophies can come from different premises to similar conclusions. Charlotte Mason wrote about "securing a quiet growing time" for the children until they were at least six. She said that children were capable of academics before that time but that it could harm them -- stress their systems, particularly their minds and their emotional equilibrium, since what seems easy to us is very challenging for them.
Has anyone read about the Moore's research being duplicated or given weight elsewhere? This was one difficulty I had with reading their books. I did believe in the Integrated Maturity Level because I saw my boys in particular "click" at a certain age. But I have never really come across the early reading/eye damage theory anywhere but in the Moore's book.
__________________
AMDG
Willa
hsing boys ages 11, 14, almost 18 (+ 4 homeschool grads ages 20 to 27)
Take Up and Read
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
Eleanor
Forum Pro
Joined: June 20 2007
Location: N/A
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 326
|
| Posted: Aug 05 2008 at 3:48pm | IP Logged
|
|
|
Donna, I feel I have to clarify something. While I've never said that Steiner claimed young children didn't "have" souls at all (maybe you're thinking of a different discussion?), I do believe, as a Catholic, that the errors inherent in Anthroposophy could indeed lead to "terrible consequences," spiritually and otherwise. Please note that I'm not talking here about the "whats" of Waldorf education (such as beeswax, knitting, fairy tales, and imaginative play), but rather of the "whys," which are directly derived from a belief system that's riddled with false teachings about Jesus Christ, the human person, the nature of good and evil, the afterlife, etc.
I do have some familiarity with Steiner's writings (long story, long ago), and would be happy to discuss this further in a different venue, if you can point me to such a place. The basic issues have already been addressed here, by Lissa, Dawn, Elizabeth, Kim, and others, and I believe that those posts provide a more than adequate starting point for forum members who might be discerning this issue.
Getting back to the Moores -- my book hasn't arrived yet, but I'll follow up here when I have a better idea of the specific research they're referring to.
And I have to get away from the computer now, I'm ruining my eyesight.
|
| Back to Top |
|
| |
|
|
4Real Forums : Philosophy of Education
Topic: Moores & "Better Late than Early"
