The thing is that with these milestones, we as a society manage to create very specific moments of (potential) shaming. The child doesn't smile at 6 weeks? It's behind! The child doesn't roll at 4 months? Something's wrong! The 11-year-old can't pack their own lunch? What a catastrophe! But, does anyone care if the 6-year-old doesn't smile? No. Does anyone test 40-year-olds whether they roll? No. As for schools, it's even worse: there are abilities that we don't even expect from those who are "too young" AND from those who are "too old": who remembers all details of the photosynthesis, or still knows how to differentiate and integrate functions?
Many have written about the way American children are currently infantilized, especially when compared to kids of just a few decades ago, when very young children crossed streets, rode public transit and stayed home alone, etc. (Just this summer two of the kids I worked with, aged 5 and 6, told me that turning their shirts rightside out was too difficult for them.) What I wonder is how this affects some of the milestones referred to by Dr. Fisher. If "crossing the street without help" is on the list, there would have to be two ages listed: the one that kids USED TO DO THIS AT, and the one our current, insane society has decided they should be before attempting this extraordinary feat (13? 14? 17?). How about walking to the store without a security detail? Prior to the 1990s: 5-7. (Any number of folks over, say, 50, can tell you they were sometimes tasked as a kid with the job of going to the store to buy cigarettes for their parents, lol. Today movies contain a warning about characters who smoke!). Today: around 13 or older (with a cellular leash, of course). My point is that almost all such milestones are more a product of culture than of child development, and our culture has gone completely off the deep end when it comes to kids' attempts to master their environment. On the one hand, too much pressure is put on them to start building their resume at age 5, and on the other they're kept helpless and disturbingly dependent on adults much longer than is healthy. It would be good if we switched these things around: let kids learn at their own pace, AND let them explore their world and take normal risks when Mother Nature intended they do it. Sadly, I don't expect this to happen any time soon.
Two takeaways from my direct and indirect experience of 'democratic' schools (which I prefer to call schools for self-determined learning): There is loads of anecodotal and documented evidence about people mysteriously becoming able to read, sometimes only at the ripe old age of, say, 10, apparently overnight. Importantly: without ever having experienced formal reading lessons.
And: People who have learned to read in the same organic way that they learned to speak tend not to know what you're talking about when quizzed on the subject of dyslexia. Dis-what? Never heard of it.
I know very little about "dyslexia," but I'm certain it's being used to pathologize kids who aren't reading fluently enough by the standards of our one-size-fits-all school system. (You can't test a child who doesn't know how to read, thus the pushing of instruction on all five year-olds.) So while I wouldn't presume to speak knowledgeably about what is called dyslexia, I know enough about American industrial schooling to know that such a "disability" is very likely a large load of official sounding nonsense.
I find myself explaining this time and time again to parents worried to receive a report that says their child is 'below expectations'. Whose expectations? Some bureaucrat with no real expertise, only an expectation that everyone develops at the same pace on a ruler straight line. Real growth is a wiggly path of peaks and plateaus, surges and slide-backs.
One of the best teachers I know always says her goal for the children is to become 'good, decent, happy people'. You can't put a standardised measure on that!
So important to hear this - I’m reminded of my brother who was completely unintelligible till he was 7 (despite my Mum being a speech therapist) then got the hang of it and now has a first class honours degree in philosophy! Also my kids who are academically way ahead of peers but socially way behind. Sometimes we think everyone else has ‘normal’ kids but the reality is that we are all neurodivergent and it takes all sorts to build a community :-)
Nice write-up! I had thought about the consequence of such "developmental milestones", more in the context of schools (and in German), though: https://danielkarrasch.substack.com/p/ich-wei-es-nicht
The thing is that with these milestones, we as a society manage to create very specific moments of (potential) shaming. The child doesn't smile at 6 weeks? It's behind! The child doesn't roll at 4 months? Something's wrong! The 11-year-old can't pack their own lunch? What a catastrophe! But, does anyone care if the 6-year-old doesn't smile? No. Does anyone test 40-year-olds whether they roll? No. As for schools, it's even worse: there are abilities that we don't even expect from those who are "too young" AND from those who are "too old": who remembers all details of the photosynthesis, or still knows how to differentiate and integrate functions?
Many have written about the way American children are currently infantilized, especially when compared to kids of just a few decades ago, when very young children crossed streets, rode public transit and stayed home alone, etc. (Just this summer two of the kids I worked with, aged 5 and 6, told me that turning their shirts rightside out was too difficult for them.) What I wonder is how this affects some of the milestones referred to by Dr. Fisher. If "crossing the street without help" is on the list, there would have to be two ages listed: the one that kids USED TO DO THIS AT, and the one our current, insane society has decided they should be before attempting this extraordinary feat (13? 14? 17?). How about walking to the store without a security detail? Prior to the 1990s: 5-7. (Any number of folks over, say, 50, can tell you they were sometimes tasked as a kid with the job of going to the store to buy cigarettes for their parents, lol. Today movies contain a warning about characters who smoke!). Today: around 13 or older (with a cellular leash, of course). My point is that almost all such milestones are more a product of culture than of child development, and our culture has gone completely off the deep end when it comes to kids' attempts to master their environment. On the one hand, too much pressure is put on them to start building their resume at age 5, and on the other they're kept helpless and disturbingly dependent on adults much longer than is healthy. It would be good if we switched these things around: let kids learn at their own pace, AND let them explore their world and take normal risks when Mother Nature intended they do it. Sadly, I don't expect this to happen any time soon.
Two takeaways from my direct and indirect experience of 'democratic' schools (which I prefer to call schools for self-determined learning): There is loads of anecodotal and documented evidence about people mysteriously becoming able to read, sometimes only at the ripe old age of, say, 10, apparently overnight. Importantly: without ever having experienced formal reading lessons.
And: People who have learned to read in the same organic way that they learned to speak tend not to know what you're talking about when quizzed on the subject of dyslexia. Dis-what? Never heard of it.
I know very little about "dyslexia," but I'm certain it's being used to pathologize kids who aren't reading fluently enough by the standards of our one-size-fits-all school system. (You can't test a child who doesn't know how to read, thus the pushing of instruction on all five year-olds.) So while I wouldn't presume to speak knowledgeably about what is called dyslexia, I know enough about American industrial schooling to know that such a "disability" is very likely a large load of official sounding nonsense.
I find myself explaining this time and time again to parents worried to receive a report that says their child is 'below expectations'. Whose expectations? Some bureaucrat with no real expertise, only an expectation that everyone develops at the same pace on a ruler straight line. Real growth is a wiggly path of peaks and plateaus, surges and slide-backs.
One of the best teachers I know always says her goal for the children is to become 'good, decent, happy people'. You can't put a standardised measure on that!
So important to hear this - I’m reminded of my brother who was completely unintelligible till he was 7 (despite my Mum being a speech therapist) then got the hang of it and now has a first class honours degree in philosophy! Also my kids who are academically way ahead of peers but socially way behind. Sometimes we think everyone else has ‘normal’ kids but the reality is that we are all neurodivergent and it takes all sorts to build a community :-)
Lovely writing and thinking!