FOR THE LOVE ………. you can finish the sentence! You know those of us that grew up in the 50’s loved Hula Hoops, I still have one and my 3 yr old granddaughter LOVES IT! Yep, it is a good old fashion fun loving way of good healthy excersize. This country, and its over protective, over the top, critical of everything, biased way has to stop. I guess it healthier to sit and play something that has no athletic ability, other than increasing one’s hand eye coordination. If the Hula Hoop is now too dangerous, what about soccer, football, baseball, swimming, diving, track, cross country. The parents of today have to get a life, and so do the teachers! What a shame.

On Hula Hoop and Other Threats:

Excellent column!

It was appropriately run the same day as my local paper ran a big story on a “lockdown” at a local college because a kid–a 16-year-old–brought a gun to campus, and left it there and ran off. That’s a bigger threat than hula hoops, but casually applying the prison-management term and practice to schools is a very bad sign.

A generation or so ago, one of my students was detained on the Oxford, OH, campus of Miami University for his car-trunk full of unloaded weapons (which he was bringing to campus for his gun collection in campus housing). He had to appear before our Disciplinary Board, as I recall–even back then we had rules about guns on campus–but Miami U went about our business without lockdowns or news coverage.

There are too many guns around the USA, and we need to be careful not to sacrifice the rest of our rights to maintain the Second Amendment; but really! Deaths at schools are rare, and shootings at middle-class schools are very rare. Making schools prison-like may be a bad trade-off for a slight reduction in risk. An alert at the college was undoubtedly justified, but locking the figurative prisoners in their figurative cells? My guess is over-reaction.

Still, it’s nice to know we’re now safer from the threat of hula hoops …. ;->
(”emoticon” for sarcasm).

Rich in Ventura County, CA

Hi, Betsy.
I really love your show. Just disappointed that the podcast doesn’t contain the entire hour. Since I’m in Jerusalem, listening to Chicago radio station WYLL isn’t an option. (Also, is it just me, or was the show on family finances unavailable through the website?)

As for the psychological benefits to children from large families, that was definitely good news for me. As a mother of seven (13 and under), I sometimes worry that my kids will somehow miss out, despite my best efforts. It’s a relief to hear that when it comes to parental attention, there’s such a thing as too much of a good thing.

Keep up the good work.

Hi Betsy,

As a first-time parent of a two-year-old boy who is reading, I’ve got to take issue with some things you and David Elkind say in your interview.

While I agree with what you and he say about oversexualized and overcompetitive culture of older children, when it came to early education issues, I thought it was entirely one-sided. You gave no dignity or credibility whatsoever to the entirely separate issue of whether children should be given anything like systematic training at an earlier age. Your assumption, and Elkind’s, is that all parents who want to give their very young children something resembling “academic” (I use this term VERY loosely) training are the same way.

Sorry, but you have no reason to think so. This is quite simply stereotyping.

In our boy’s case, we discovered after reading constantly to him when he was a baby, including from ABC books, that by 18 months he knew his ABCs. Then I looked online and found that some toddlers had been trained to read–after a fashion–by age 2! So we did a little more. And sure enough, our boy is reading simple books by age 2.

Do we want our boy to go to Harvard? Eh…maybe, probably not. Do we want to keep up with the Joneses? Not really. We’re not especially competitive and we DON’T keep up with them in many respects. Our boy plays most of the day, and we do not smother him with constant attention and expectations. He’s not going to an academic preschool. Above all, we do NOT pressure him to do anything in particular. We taught him to say “that’s enough,” and when he says that, we stop what we’re doing immediately. I feel that you and Elkind have not got the first clue about what really motivates us.

We read to our boy, and let him watch SOME educational videos (NOT very many), and do various flashcards and other educational activities, and as a result he knows all sorts of things one wouldn’t expect a 2-year-old to know. Why? Speaking for myself, and I think my wife feels the same way, it’s because we feel he will learn the most in the long run. Education, knowledge, and wisdom, not “getting ahead in life,” are what are important to us. By doing these things, we maximize our boy’s potential.

There is no credible evidence–Elkind’s book contains none–that such early systematic education will actually spoil either a child’s ability or motivation to learn. Some clinical and much anecdotal evidence suggests something to the contrary.

Simply because you taught your own children a certain way, Betsy, does not make other ways incorrect. You should keep an open mind, and examine whether your animus against systematic early education is motivated by misplaced envy, or a desire to pressure others to conform. Consider other sources than Elkind and those like him. There are many. Interview the parents of children who taught their kids systematically early on. Find out what their kids are doing now. DO they lack creativity, as Elkind insultingly suppose? ARE they burnt out? Do you really know?

Think about it anyway.

And another thing…the idea that learning kills childhood is another rather silly and insulting assumption. Is our little boy less of a joyful, fun-loving, otherwise typical little boy just because he knows how to read?

Of course not.

Would love to hear a reply to this in your next radio program, Betsy.