It's Really All About Them

It’s Really All About Them

I have been trying to understand an alarming epidemic of parental anxiety about how one’s kids perform, how they measure up to peers as early as preschool. This contagion of worry is mainly focused on academics, but it often includes other things, such as sports and social success. A preoccupation with our kids’ standing is not that new, having been with us for a number of years now; but it does seem to have become more and more intense, with the crescendo paralleling political focus on children’s carefully measured, overscrutinized academic functioning. What does seem different lately is that we have unequivocally tied kids’ achievement or lack of it to the adults in their lives. Suddenly, it’s all about us. Teachers’ jobs are in jeopardy when kids don’t make the improvements expected; and parents’ self esteem is all tied up with their kids’ grades and test scores.

Maybe there’s a bit “too much of a good thing” going on here. Research has suggested that kids whose parents are actively involved with their children’s schooling are likely to do better than the children of less involved parents. But, of course, there is “involved” and then there is “over-the-top involved.” I’m not talking about asking, “Have you done your homework?” or offering, “If you have any questions about the homework, I’ll try to help you to answer them.” Rather, it’s about at least one parent being at the elbow of each child while he or she unwraps the assignment, never leaving until the last “i” is dotted. It is no longer “your” homework; it is now “our” homework. Schools are encouraging this despite the fact that it can cause a lot of tension and angst all around. Too much is riding on a 2nd grader’s weekly spelling tests or a kindergartner’s name writing. It makes everybody tense and defensive. Kids are not as free to learn, stumble, then master, and achieve independently. The learning situation is contaminated with generational power struggles. Not good. There is a rolling snowball effect since goading to do better is coming from all directions. One of the things at stake seems to be parents’ own sense of having parented correctly, whatever that means. And that’s where my new theory comes in.

I have begun to wonder whether all this hovering and pressure-cooker climate about academics may have gained steam from a silent struggle between working and stay-at-home moms; or perhaps more accurately, a silent struggle within each individual mom. Both the Stay at Homes and the Working Moms may be enduring their own silent struggles. It could go something like this: “Did I do the right thing to stay home — am I making a contribution to the world, living up to the expectations my own teachers and mentors had for me? If my kids are successful, then it could turn out to have been the right choice.”

Or: "Am I shortchanging my kids by pursuing my own ambitions? Sure, it shows up in our better standard of living; but I had better spend evenings doing homework with them to make up for my daytime absences. If they succeed, I can feel less guilty.”

Of course, both of these positions are dangerously oversimplified and wrongly focused on the adults. We can’t seem to shake the exaggerated assumption that parents make or break kids. It’s a short-sighted view since it misses the two most important factors in how well children will do: who they are to begin with (the DNA factor); and the degree to which they feel understood, valued and loved as they are. It’s really all about them.

October 23, 2007

What 3 minutes really mean

What 3 minutes really mean

A recent event in my 2nd grade granddaughter’s academic life got to me, as a former school psychologist, as well as her grandma. By way of background, I must assure you that this is a “heads-up” 7 year old; and not just because a quarter of her chromosomes come from me. You’ll be more likely to believe what I say about her if I tell you she is a third child whose parents were well schooled in the art of parenting by the time they got to her. What’s more, she is the third grandchild on one side and the fifth on the other. So all of her elders are relaxed around her; and her quiet confidence may reflect that fact. She is a brick at fending off the teasing of two older brothers, almost always unperturbed; loves school, playing with friends, has sleeping bag and will travel at every opportunity for grandparent or other sleepovers.

This wunderkind is a good athlete — star player in soccer and a great swimmer; also very feminine. She learned to knit this past summer in a class for somewhat older girls, enjoying the challenge and overcoming her age disadvantage through great effort and quiet confidence. (But I still haven’t gotten the scarf she promised me — maybe because there is no sign of winter weather yet here in the east coast. I haven’t given up hope.) And, of course, she is a model student; she’s an eager reader and ordinarily scores way above age- and grade-expected levels on achievement tests.

But I’ll force myself to stop bragging now and get to the point. On the first day of school this fall, she and her classmates were given a reading test with many subtests. Her teacher was alarmed by a subgroup score — a test that had something to do with vowels and blends and that lasted 3 minutes, I am told. Absolutely untrue to form, our gal bombed on this subtest; and the teacher concluded that she must have remedial help “before this becomes a learning disorder."

Granted, her mom does tend to overreact to any unfounded suggestion that her child is struggling. But this one blew me away too. Not because it will have any effect on our girl’s well-being or quiet confidence; but because it is an example of all too common misuse of test scores, “in the best interest of children.” The teacher is earnest in her wish to smooth any rough edges on this very appealing good student; but she went too far in putting her faith in a single test. I know it will roll off of my granddaughter; but I think of all the other children who may suffer from such misguided conclusions. Here’s what’s wrong: No test is a better assessor or predictor of a child’s knowledge and skills than an observant teacher’s assessment based on daily contact. Just as with a medical lab test that is alarming, but absolutely inconsistent with the healthy, vibrant appearance and functioning of a patient, we ought not to rush to believe it. Redo the test or simply ignore it and retest in several weeks or months is the mantra in both situations.

Then too, no achievement subtest that is so brief can be a reliable predictor of performance. The best prediction of future performance is past performance. And finally, making curriculum decisions for a 7 year old on the basis of a subtest given on the first day of school, when becoming familiar with a new group, new classroom, usually new teacher, and surveying what the other girls are wearing is the testee’s primary interest, is unwise. As I said, it is going to have absolutely no effect on this particular child; but an educational environment that puts so much faith in tests and so little in the observations of teachers can be dangerous to most children’s academic health and general well-being.

October 8, 2007