THis is hardly in an appropriate format -- it is more advocacy than an encyclopedia article. JHK
- Howzat? Had to delete the last paragraph, couldn't rephrase it to make it NPOV. Mswake 15:51 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)
Well, concerning POV/NPOV I have two concerns with this article. First, it defines education very narrowly -- but by not being explicit about htis, it implies that infants are otherwise not educated. In fact, infants are always learning. At issue is what and how they are learning. If I understand the article correctly, there is a movement (and perhaps the article should be retitled accordingly) for systematically reforming the current informal ways that infants are educated, and institutionalizing new forms. I believe that Rousseau and his heirs (and if Foucault isn't one of them, we could probably add Foucault and his heirs) would suggest that such a "reform" would in fact express and expansion of enslaving and dehumanizing practices into childhood. I think the article has to acknowledge that there is some debate over what we mean by education, and some debate over its value.
Second, the article would do well to analyze or at least describe the social and political context of this movement. Does it have early antecedants (what about Skinner? I really do not know, I am asking)? Why is it developing now? I have not done or read any researchon this, but I suspect it is a response -- perhaps a mostly emotional response -- to the increased competition to get into elite colleges in the US, such competition owing in part to affirmative action. Just a guess.
I am not a specialist in education -- I am just suggesting two gaps in the article that I see, and perhaps other readers will see, Slrubenstein
- Well, it doesn't define education, it refers to it. Your point that "it implies that infants are otherwise not educated": yes, infants are always learning, but that doesn't mean they're being actively educated by others. I think the role of education should be presented on the education page, not here. Secondly, I don't think it even mentions that this is a movement of any kind, let alone a recent one. A history of "infant education" could be useful though. Mswake 16:18 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)
- Well, the problem with the notion of "active" education is that in fact most parents are often "actively" educating their children, and they are conscious of this process -- they just aren't "educating" their children to read or like Mozart; also, much of the "education" that goes on in actual schools is passive and unintentional. In hsort, although I do thinkg active/passive is a useful distinction, I do not think it is edifying in this case. based solely on the article it sounds like formal/informal, and considerations of content, are more relevant Slrubenstein
Another question that arises (for me) from the article in its current form: how does this "infant education" actually work? The quoted studies are said to show that "a one-year-old child's ability to do XYZ is a fairly good predictor of later IQ ." This actually seems fairly obvious. It's not clear to me that this leads to either of the implied propositions: a) you can improve a child's innate ability at XYZ by "training" it, and b) doing so also raises later IQ. Has anyone done controlled studies to see whether or not a group of kids given this sort of thing does better later on than kids who aren't? (My own biased perspective: I think stimulating young children as much as possible is great, any sort of regimented learning is a bit much).
Merge to Early childhood education
- Merge: Yes, this should be merged somewhere. This page is pretty confused about its scope and purpose. --- Rixs (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- 'Merge: No, I teach Early Childhood Education which covers the study of children's learning and development from conception to age 7. One can also study Infant Education, which would include conception to say age 2. I would suggest that there be links between content rather than a merge.Ctrala (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose - the two overlap but they are not the same thing. There needs to be clear cross-linking between the two articles and duplication should most certainly be avoided. This will make the proposed merge unnecessary. In any case, the fact that this mere proposal has sat here for close to six years shows probably shows that there isn't a real need for the merge to occur either. --ToniSant (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)