# ugggghhh!!! can i vent and say how much i hate the concept 'educational'?



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

why does everything have to be 'educational'?

why would you allow it only if it teaches educational?

by 'educational' most people usually mean the ABCs. or concepts like colours or others even for older kids.

i am just horrified by the toys i see for under one years old. i am horrified by the shower gifts i see for babies. leapfrog is making a huge killing. and all the other companies who have jumped on the educational bandwagon. i recall when my dd was a year old there werent that many insidious ways of presenting the ABCs to a child.

why oh WHY are we so focused on 'educational'? why does it always have to be a teachable moment? it doesnt mean the ABCs all the time. but teaching concepts. even for an 8 year old.

why cant play be just play? why does there have to be an adult defined purpose? isn't our children's purpose enough? can we not trust them that they do know better?

yeah DO they know more than us sometimes? i really trust they do - and our real job is to keep them safe. but sometimes they really do need to take the lead.

i really think we are changing the definition of play. we are truly cutting out the spontaneity of play.


----------



## treeoflife3 (Nov 14, 2008)

I totally understand what you mean. I know a lady here who has an almost 2 year old and an almost 4 year old and she is so proud that she keeps most of her kids toys 'educational.' Of course, what this means is electronic toys they don't really understand how to use. She herself says she tries to keep 'plain toys' to a minimum. Its so funny because I do the exact opposite. I'd love nothing more than just simple toys with multiple functions and I currently only have ONE electronic toy for my child to access... and of course she chooses blocks instead of that toy 9/10 which I love.

I love that kiddo's favorite games are reading random books and knocking down towers I build. She also likes to rock her dolls and steal my frying pans to make them beds. I'm more concerned with teaching her how to ask for things nicely and expressing her feelings appropriately than the abc's. What does a 17 month old need to know the abc's for? She can't even say her name yet!

I much prefer watching my kid running around pushing our tire swing than sitting poking buttons on a toy that talks to her.


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

I agree! I don't have a problem with having a few "educational" toys, but generally I prefer regular old toys. The kids do, too. They love blocks, their wooden kitchen and fake food, baby dolls, etc.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

It is sort of a war cry nowadays, isn't it?

The really silly thing is, EVERYTHING is educational. A baby trying to stick a rock in a cup is educational. They're learning small motor skills and spatial relations. A toddler building and knocking down block towers is educational. They're learning small motor skills and such high-tech scientific concepts as gravity and balance. A bunch of four-year-olds playing tea paryt are honing their social skills. It's all brain building and it's all important.


----------



## noobmom (Jan 19, 2008)

I agree! Especially with TV shows trying to teach "moral" lessons. It's one of the reasons I like Backyardigans so much--the characters are just using their imaginations and having fun.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

When Nick Jr was Noggin, it used to crack me up how they'd have the little "educational disclaimer" at the beginning of every episode.


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

The stuff for older kids is awful, too. All the computer/video games where you have to complete levels in a specific way to continue, with the obnoxious "try again!" after every move that strays from the strict guidelines. I seriously avoid everything with the label "educational." They are boring and stifle creativity. I love watching my ds find alternate solutions to games and use things in novel ways.


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *noobmom* 
I agree! Especially with TV shows trying to teach "moral" lessons. It's one of the reasons I like Backyardigans so much--the characters are just using their imaginations and having fun.

There used to be a law (hell, maybe there still is) about a certain percent of kids tv programing being educational so things like the old Transformer shows would suddenly have some moral/educational lesson thrown in.


----------



## crowcaw (Jan 16, 2009)

Maybe "educational" will eventually go the way of Baby Einstein (it isn't still popular, is it?)


----------



## jeanine123 (Jan 7, 2005)

What about those kids who love "educational" toys, shows and videos to the point where that is almost all that they are ever interested in? While I agree that the overt push for everything to be a learning experience or educational is ridiculous there are some kids like my oldest son who loves all of that stuff. He would be utterly miserable if he were just given a set of plain blocks of play silks and told to play with them. That's just not how he's wired, never had been. While at the age of 7 he is slightly more interested in more imaginative play it's still not his favorite thing to do and it likely never will be. He's wired to be a very literal, concrete concept person. Being handed a bunch of crayons and a piece of paper and told to draw something drives him absolutely bonkers, and more often than not leads him to simply write down the latest recipe he has memorized instead. So while I agree that you shouldn't force a child to do something simply because it's educational it's always a good idea to keep in mind that there are some kids out there who would be absolutely miserable without the educational stuff. And no, I didn't make him that way by only allowing him to play with those types of toys, as I said, it's how he is and I have no interest in changing it.


----------



## nwatt (Sep 3, 2009)

I both agree and disagree. I think that toys should be toys. All of my daughter's toys are open-ended toys that she can just play with. No batteries, no talking voices, no instructions. However, I do think that TV for little kids should be educational. Nature shows, alphabet, books brought to life, something redeeming if a kid is going to sit there and passively watch it. Even shows that have no lesson or morals are not really opening kids' imaginations.


----------



## treeoflife3 (Nov 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeanine123* 
What about those kids who love "educational" toys, shows and videos to the point where that is almost all that they are ever interested in? While I agree that the overt push for everything to be a learning experience or educational is ridiculous there are some kids like my oldest son who loves all of that stuff. He would be utterly miserable if he were just given a set of plain blocks of play silks and told to play with them. That's just not how he's wired, never had been. While at the age of 7 he is slightly more interested in more imaginative play it's still not his favorite thing to do and it likely never will be. He's wired to be a very literal, concrete concept person. Being handed a bunch of crayons and a piece of paper and told to draw something drives him absolutely bonkers, and more often than not leads him to simply write down the latest recipe he has memorized instead. So while I agree that you shouldn't force a child to do something simply because it's educational it's always a good idea to keep in mind that there are some kids out there who would be absolutely miserable without the educational stuff. And no, I didn't make him that way by only allowing him to play with those types of toys, as I said, it's how he is and I have no interest in changing it.

haha well I think there is a big difference between a parent following their child's cue's on what is best for them and their development and a parent who is proud to mostly just have little electronic toys instead of 'plain' toys simply because the box says 'educational' and the colored blocks for building towers doesn't


----------



## Lisa1970 (Jan 18, 2009)

It is also unnatural. Children lose out on so much when exploration and toys just for enjoyment went away.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeanine123* 
it's always a good idea to keep in mind that there are some kids out there who would be absolutely miserable without the educational stuff.

i am not talking about children choosing what they play with. i am talking about parents looking only at the 'educational' aspect of anything rather than their child's interest.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nwatt* 
However, I do think that TV for little kids should be educational. Nature shows, alphabet, books brought to life, something redeeming if a kid is going to sit there and passively watch it. Even shows that have no lesson or morals are not really opening kids' imaginations.

why?

do you really believe a child passively watches tv? just sit there and watch. i cant imagine any human doing this. there is more going on than watching.

why cant they watch a story? why science? why abcs? yes absolutely some 'content' must be present.

in a sense i find 'educational' shows for kids absolutely boring. have you noticed how they just present facts? we in society as a general is very fact oriented. why is educational only about facts. wouldnt it be great esp. for the younger kids to be about cultures? why not some critical thinking? why not think of choices? of course i feel the 'facts' are all about early training of a great work force. just swallow what i say and do as i say. of course this is a whole nother pet peeve of mine.

one of the things i mourn is the slow dying of story telling. people are turning to books and tv and not telling stories ourselves. how many of you tell a bedtime story than read from a book. too much emphasis on reading. not enough on conversation.

ok i am going OT now - taking off on another tangent.


----------



## mamadelbosque (Feb 6, 2007)

While I definetly see your point, I think many of the 'educational' tv shows are *VERY* well done - Super Why and Dora the Explorere/Go Diego, Go! all spring to mind. My Ds1 *loves* all three shows, and they all teach something super important - abc's/reading in super why and basic problem solving in dora/diego. And they are fun shows, with decent-great storylines.

But all the 'abc/123' toys from leapfrog/baby einstein/etc for 0-2 yr olds are definetly ridiculous... Personally, I hate noisy obnoxoius toys and we basicly don't have any... the only one I can really think of that we do have is a ball with a monkey that stays ontop and sings a horribly obnoxious song whenever it gets thrown... but that hardly teaches anything


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
one of the things i mourn is the slow dying of story telling. people are turning to books and tv and not telling stories ourselves. how many of you tell a bedtime story than read from a book. too much emphasis on reading. not enough on conversation.

This is so true. I used to make up little stories for ds1 sometimes, and I never do it for my other kids. The weird thing is that my nephew thought it was just freaky that I "could" tell stories without reading them. I need to work on my storytelling skills. Storytelling is becoming a lost art, and I'd like to see it make a comeback.

At a Canada Day festival we went to, there was a tent shaped like a giant fish. Outside, there were a bunch of childen's costumes on stakes. Every hour, the woman running the attraction would encourage the kids to each put on a costume, then they went for a 10-15 minute walk through the festival in costume. When they got back to the giant fish tent, they took off the costumes, went inside and she told them a story (unsurprisingly, the story featured salmon). My kids liked it the best of everything else that was going on at the festival. It was really, really cool.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
The really silly thing is, EVERYTHING is educational. A baby trying to stick a rock in a cup is educational. They're learning small motor skills and spatial relations. A toddler building and knocking down block towers is educational. They're learning small motor skills and such high-tech scientific concepts as gravity and balance. A bunch of four-year-olds playing tea paryt are honing their social skills. It's all brain building and it's all important.

This. This. This. My 14 month old (and _how_ on earth can she be this big already????) puts shoes on her hands every day, and she dumps everything she can, and shoves her fingers in the dirt in the garden and all that kind of thing. She's learning something by all of it. I love to watch it, and have no interest in buying a beeping ABC toy. My MIL has picked up a couple over the years, and the kids can have them if they enjoy them (they have liked a couple), but I don't think there's any real value in them, in and of themselves.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

It all has to be "educational" because we all know that if it's not educational it's worthless junk right? (yeah, sarcasm, I'm not ashamed of it).

Society is so obsessed with kids learning we forget they have a natural affinity for doing just that no matter what they are playing with or how. A PP mention putting a rock in a cup as "teaching" (more like practicing) fine motor control, that is exactly what it does. Your kid opens a book? They are practicing the same thing, and they are being exposed to letters and words, reading the book to them creates a link between the words on the page and the words being spoken. Taking care of a doll? They learn how to parent. Throwing the doll? They learn physics, geometry and hand/eye co-ordination.

"Educational" is a word used to sell, mostly to sell crap the kids don't need. When you get right down to it, every toy is educational, even if it's just a piece of play silk or a wooden building block.

Last week DS was thoroughly immersed in learning colour theory, fine and gross motor control, chemistry and physics. DH stripped him down to his diaper and let him loose with a couple of small bottles of finger paints. (By immersed, I mean that when DS was brought back in from the garage to get cleaned up he was rainbow coloured. His hair is still a little multicoloured...)


----------



## LynnS6 (Mar 30, 2005)

Give "Einstein Never Used Flashcards" to everyone you know.

One of the many eloquent points that the authors make is that the drive for 'enrichment' or 'educational' things for children is based on a false analogy with laboratory rats.

Lab rats raised in cages with interesting things to do turned out to be smarter than lab rats raised in sterile cages. Wow, really?!!

Add to that the consistent findings over the years that people with college educations out earn those without, and you have parents who feel that their child must have every educational 'advantage'.

Then add to that the fact that most parents don't have a clue as to how learning actually takes place. (Einstein Never Used Flashcards also does a great job of explaining how interaction with the real world, like filling up shoes and dumping them out, is much much better for learning.)

But the marketers have taken these facts and put a huge spin on them: You need to enrich your child's environment to make them smarter so that they will succeed in life. You need to buy products that will ensure your children's success. True, but only if you're raising your children in a sterile cage!


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeanine123* 
What about those kids who love "educational" toys, shows and videos to the point where that is almost all that they are ever interested in? While I agree that the overt push for everything to be a learning experience or educational is ridiculous there are some kids like my oldest son who loves all of that stuff. He would be utterly miserable if he were just given a set of plain blocks of play silks and told to play with them. That's just not how he's wired, never had been. While at the age of 7 he is slightly more interested in more imaginative play it's still not his favorite thing to do and it likely never will be. He's wired to be a very literal, concrete concept person. Being handed a bunch of crayons and a piece of paper and told to draw something drives him absolutely bonkers, and more often than not leads him to simply write down the latest recipe he has memorized instead. So while I agree that you shouldn't force a child to do something simply because it's educational it's always a good idea to keep in mind that there are some kids out there who would be absolutely miserable without the educational stuff. And no, I didn't make him that way by only allowing him to play with those types of toys, as I said, it's how he is and I have no interest in changing it.

I think that's great. It's the marketing that bugs me, like the whole Baby Einstein fiasco when it turned out they were actually the opposite of educational.

BTW, I thought of your little "Top Chef" when I was out at the mall this afternoon. In Gymboree they were starting to put out the Halloween costumes, and they have a little "junior chef" ensemble. Very cute!


----------



## EdnaMarie (Sep 9, 2006)

I agree so much.

Quote:

Last week DS was thoroughly immersed in learning colour theory, fine and gross motor control, chemistry and physics. DH stripped him down to his diaper and let him loose with a couple of small bottles of finger paints. (By immersed, I mean that when DS was brought back in from the garage to get cleaned up he was rainbow coloured. His hair is still a little multicoloured...)
I hope you got a picture! Maybe I need to do that with my littlest one. I bet she'd love it.

Quote:

"What about those kids who love "educational" toys, shows and videos to the point where that is almost all that they are ever interested in?"
I dunno, I think you might be mixing what the OP is talking about--toys designed to make children interested in the alphabet through basically jazzing it up--and more serious, system-oriented play. After all, a children's dictionary, any book at all, really, plants, a magnifying glass, a ruler, graph paper, etc. can all be found in almost any home. To me, these are not "educational toys", they are things that the more literal-minded child will be more interested in. And I mean... what about shovels and buckets? You don't need a workbook if a child is driven to learn to read and write. I didn't have them. I had paper and pencils, and I designed my own workbooks using rulers and books.

I'm not suggesting your son is not doing well with what he has. I think that you may be assuming she's referring to a type of play, rather than a type of toy and how it's marketed.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeanine123* 
What about those kids who love "educational" toys, shows and videos to the point where that is almost all that they are ever interested in? While I agree that the overt push for everything to be a learning experience or educational is ridiculous there are some kids like my oldest son who loves all of that stuff. He would be utterly miserable if he were just given a set of plain blocks of play silks and told to play with them. That's just not how he's wired, never had been. While at the age of 7 he is slightly more interested in more imaginative play it's still not his favorite thing to do and it likely never will be. He's wired to be a very literal, concrete concept person. Being handed a bunch of crayons and a piece of paper and told to draw something drives him absolutely bonkers, and more often than not leads him to simply write down the latest recipe he has memorized instead. So while I agree that you shouldn't force a child to do something simply because it's educational it's always a good idea to keep in mind that there are some kids out there who would be absolutely miserable without the educational stuff. And no, I didn't make him that way by only allowing him to play with those types of toys, as I said, it's how he is and I have no interest in changing it.

Thing is, with a kid like that I still wouldn't want 90% of the "educational" toys on the market. For him I'd be getting stuff like chemistry kits that walk you through making blue smoke and kits for building little battery powered cars and cookbooks that walk you through how to dice an onion and julienne a carrot. I'd give him a plot of land and have him lay out a kitchen garden (obviously, I'd contribute physical labor and advice). That's what I consider educational.

"educational" toys tend to be condescending and annoying junk where the main thing being taught is how to work the interface. Pretty much the same skill set and of the same utility as being able to play Tetris.


----------



## jeanine123 (Jan 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
BTW, I thought of your little "Top Chef" when I was out at the mall this afternoon. In Gymboree they were starting to put out the Halloween costumes, and they have a little "junior chef" ensemble. Very cute!

Ohhh...I must have walked through my Gymboree too fast because I didn't see that in there. That would be a great idea for a Halloween costume for him, thanks! And far easier than the garbage truck my youngest wants to be.


----------



## 4evermom (Feb 3, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeanine123* 
What about those kids who love "educational" toys, shows and videos to the point where that is almost all that they are ever interested in? While I agree that the overt push for everything to be a learning experience or educational is ridiculous there are some kids like my oldest son who loves all of that stuff. He would be utterly miserable if he were just given a set of plain blocks of play silks and told to play with them. That's just not how he's wired, never had been.

My ds is very similar, actually. He loves science shows, books, kits. He's more into fantasy now that he's older. It's not that he didn't like "educational" things, it's just that I found toys and games that were trying to be educational somehow lost their fun and were designed to be played in a very goal oriented way. Most young children are process oriented and we found it annoying when ds couldn't progress in a game because it was trying to make him do everything step by step in a very rigid way. My ds is a visual spatial learner, not a sequential one so it was especially aggravating.

I got him snap circuits because I knew he'd think they were fun and they are designed so you can either follow the instructions or just look at the pieces and figure it out.

He loves computer games. Ones that aren't intended to be educational are far superior for being fun and holding his interest. And guess what? They teach him more. So many "shooting" games involve complicated math, buying and selling, strategy, problem solving, and reading. The learning isn't contrived. Yet so many people only let their children play "educational" computer games and sit back feeling superior.

It's just ironic that educational games are less educational because of their attempt to be educational.


----------



## jeanine123 (Jan 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
Thing is, with a kid like that I still wouldn't want 90% of the "educational" toys on the market. For him I'd be getting stuff like chemistry kits that walk you through making blue smoke and kits for building little battery powered cars and cookbooks that walk you through how to dice an onion and julienne a carrot. I'd give him a plot of land and have him lay out a kitchen garden (obviously, I'd contribute physical labor and advice). That's what I consider educational.

"educational" toys tend to be condescending and annoying junk where the main thing being taught is how to work the interface. Pretty much the same skill set and of the same utility as being able to play Tetris.

But he wouldn't be interested in those kinds of kits. He's not interested in science much at all, I think he had a vague interest in the exploding volcano at science camp but that was it. I would love it if he'd have an interest in that but it's just not on his radar right now. What is is counting games, math games and workbooks, workbooks, workbooks. We have dozens of workbooks and they're still not enough for him. His favorite thing to do right now, at age 7, is sit and read his 4th grade math workbook with his Magna Doodle on his lap to write out the answers on. One of his favorite toys when he was a toddler was a lunchbox full of magnetic numbers. Some kids just aren't wired to enjoy manipulatives or open ended games or toys, they're more interested in having set answers to figure out and a set end goal to work towards. So instead of judging people for buying those types of toys understand that while they'd love to buy less "rigid" items it would be a waste of money for them since their child has little to no interest in playing with it.

No, I'm not talking about babies, educational toys for babies (I'm thinking those under 12-18 months) is very pointless IMO. It was pretty obvious with my guy from a very early age that imaginative, open ended toys held little to no interest for him as evidenced by the pile of Haba blocks and play silks that gathered dust around here. It's frustrating and annoying that if I wasn't given a chance to explain on a random messageboard what my child is like I would be judged, and likely still am going to be judged, for the fact that I bought and continue to buy scads of workbooks, educational software and Leap Frog videos and games for my child simply because that's what he's interested in. This is the danger of making sweeping judgments of people you know little to nothing about based simply on the fact that they buy their child toys you have no use or understanding for.

The other thing with him is, he enjoys getting answers wrong on games and toys simply because it makes a funny noise when he does. He knows the right answer, he just wants to hear the noise. Over and over again, LOL. He hardly ever plays a board game "by the rules". He takes the game and plays it to suit him and his whims at the time. So while he doesn't currently have the imagination to take a play silk and turn it into whatever suits his fancy like my youngest does he can take a very linear game or interactive toy and apply some imagination to it to achieve an other than intended result. He had no interest in playing with toy food and his play kitchen for years, not until he started watching cooking shows and reading cookbooks (his fav b-day present by far this year was a new Barefoot Contessa cookbook). He needs to have some sort of practical touchstone to base what little imaginative play he engages in off of.

I can't even begin to think of how much money I spent on the wooden open ended toys and games that I thought I should buy in order to avoid stifling my child that ended up sitting in the corner unused and gathering dust. Far too much money, that's for sure. Thank goodness my youngest has gotten and is getting some use out of them now.


----------



## jeanine123 (Jan 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
I dunno, I think you might be mixing what the OP is talking about--toys designed to make children interested in the alphabet through basically jazzing it up--and more serious, system-oriented play. After all, a children's dictionary, any book at all, really, plants, a magnifying glass, a ruler, graph paper, etc. can all be found in almost any home. To me, these are not "educational toys", they are things that the more literal-minded child will be more interested in. And I mean... what about shovels and buckets? You don't need a workbook if a child is driven to learn to read and write. I didn't have them. I had paper and pencils, and I designed my own workbooks using rulers and books.


We are on our third children's dictionary, which is in need of replacement once again and this is the first time that my oldest hasn't come home from school with a new dictionary. But as far as a shovel and bucket, he would have loathed that when he was younger. Absolutely hated it, and trust me, I tried burying numbers and letters in the sandbox to get him interested in digging for treasures and seeing what he'd find. Even my number loving child wouldn't go near that activity. Though he did love it when we drew on the driveway with chalk and created large number grids. At 2 he was able to correctly identify and find every number from 1-30 that was scrambled up on the driveway. But even then, his fav videos to watch were the Leap Frog ones and his absolute favorite thing to do, even now, is curl up with a workbook and a pen or pencil.


----------



## Violet2 (Apr 26, 2007)

It is getting silly. I remember one of DD's walker things (kids are walking but need some help with balance, not a traditional walker) had the ABS in bas relief all down the side.

Like the poor kid can't even keep her balance yet and walk at the same time and she's going to absorb the ABCs like that?









Silly.

V


----------



## nainai0585 (Aug 3, 2010)

I work in a school based daycare and my personal views on "educational" and my supervisors are VERY different (ages of children are 4-12 yrs - no infants or toddlers).
Take for example a simple craft (can be anything from finger painting to making a castle). My supervisor will have her assistant create EVERYTHING before hand, even how she wants the craft to look. All the child has to do is follow the example and duplicate, there is no cutting, just glue and draw the way she wants it.
My way - "Today we're going to make a castle using x,y,z. You can make it anyway you want and you can use as many or as few of the supplies you want." There is nothing to duplicate (b/c I refuse to make a copy of it before hand), and the child must use his/her imagination.

As a parent (5 yr old) I would rather see my child running, climbing, playing, and using their imagination (with simple toys such as legos, dinky cars, pots and pans, etc), then only being able to use something that's deemed "educational" by someone else. EVERY moment is educational for a child, let them learn and explore without the structured confinements of an adults personal views of what is and is not educational.


----------



## MisaGoat (Jul 10, 2006)

I think what seems to be the main point is that most of us don't like the coerced educational ideas of certain toys. Plenty of toys are 'educational' that most of us like, (art supplies, blocks, etc).

I think the way the dislike of the 'educational' toys is similar to how I view 'diet food' the more it markets itself as 'educational' or 'low fat/trans fat free/no sugar' etc the less likely I am to be interested. Many foods and toys are healthy/educational without having to advertise that fact. Does that make sense?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeanine123* 
But he wouldn't be interested in those kinds of kits. He's not interested in science much at all, I think he had a vague interest in the exploding volcano at science camp but that was it. I would love it if he'd have an interest in that but it's just not on his radar right now. What is is counting games, math games and workbooks, workbooks, workbooks. We have dozens of workbooks and they're still not enough for him. His favorite thing to do right now, at age 7, is sit and read his 4th grade math workbook with his Magna Doodle on his lap to write out the answers on. One of his favorite toys when he was a toddler was a lunchbox full of magnetic numbers. Some kids just aren't wired to enjoy manipulatives or open ended games or toys, they're more interested in having set answers to figure out and a set end goal to work towards. So instead of judging people for buying those types of toys understand that while they'd love to buy less "rigid" items it would be a waste of money for them since their child has little to no interest in playing with it.

No, I'm not talking about babies, educational toys for babies (I'm thinking those under 12-18 months) is very pointless IMO. It was pretty obvious with my guy from a very early age that imaginative, open ended toys held little to no interest for him as evidenced by the pile of Haba blocks and play silks that gathered dust around here. It's frustrating and annoying that if I wasn't given a chance to explain on a random messageboard what my child is like I would be judged, and likely still am going to be judged, for the fact that I bought and continue to buy scads of workbooks, educational software and Leap Frog videos and games for my child simply because that's what he's interested in. This is the danger of making sweeping judgments of people you know little to nothing about based simply on the fact that they buy their child toys you have no use or understanding for.

The other thing with him is, he enjoys getting answers wrong on games and toys simply because it makes a funny noise when he does. He knows the right answer, he just wants to hear the noise. Over and over again, LOL. He hardly ever plays a board game "by the rules". He takes the game and plays it to suit him and his whims at the time. So while he doesn't currently have the imagination to take a play silk and turn it into whatever suits his fancy like my youngest does he can take a very linear game or interactive toy and apply some imagination to it to achieve an other than intended result. He had no interest in playing with toy food and his play kitchen for years, not until he started watching cooking shows and reading cookbooks (his fav b-day present by far this year was a new Barefoot Contessa cookbook). He needs to have some sort of practical touchstone to base what little imaginative play he engages in off of.

I can't even begin to think of how much money I spent on the wooden open ended toys and games that I thought I should buy in order to avoid stifling my child that ended up sitting in the corner unused and gathering dust. Far too much money, that's for sure. Thank goodness my youngest has gotten and is getting some use out of them now.

I would never judge someone for buying the educational toys. (We have a bunch of workbooks kicking around here, even though I tend to the unschooling philosophy, because dd1 was very into them for a while, and ds2 _loves_ them, now that his fine motor skills are up to them.)

I really don't object to any of the "educational" toys (educational is in quotes, because I believe that everything is educational, not because I believe they have _no_ educational value). But, I also know what OP means about the attitude and such. It gets old when someone is always patting themselves on the back and seems to be looking for medals/awards for not "wasting" their child's time with toys that are..."just" toys. If a child _likes_ blinking, flashing, "educational", "talking" or whatever toys, then I really don't see a lot of value in refusing to let him/her have them. But, I also don't think they have any inherent educational superiority over blocks, playsilks, mud, bubbles, balls, playsilks, water, crayons, dolls, etc. etc. etc.


----------



## jeanine123 (Jan 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nainai0585* 
I work in a school based daycare and my personal views on "educational" and my supervisors are VERY different (ages of children are 4-12 yrs - no infants or toddlers).
Take for example a simple craft (can be anything from finger painting to making a castle). My supervisor will have her assistant create EVERYTHING before hand, even how she wants the craft to look. All the child has to do is follow the example and duplicate, there is no cutting, just glue and draw the way she wants it.
My way - "Today we're going to make a castle using x,y,z. You can make it anyway you want and you can use as many or as few of the supplies you want." There is nothing to duplicate (b/c I refuse to make a copy of it before hand), and the child must use his/her imagination.


I love your idea of a craft activity far better than the other one. I always hated the pre-made art projects at the son's pre-school that were just assemble and color. Though it didn't matter to him since he disliked everything except a bit of painting, and then no finger painting at all. LOL


----------



## jeanine123 (Jan 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I would never judge someone for buying the educational toys. (We have a bunch of workbooks kicking around here, even though I tend to the unschooling philosophy, because dd1 was very into them for a while, and ds2 _loves_ them, now that his fine motor skills are up to them.)

I really don't object to any of the "educational" toys (educational is in quotes, because I believe that everything is educational, not because I believe they have _no_ educational value). But, I also know what OP means about the attitude and such. It gets old when someone is always patting themselves on the back and seems to be looking for medals/awards for not "wasting" their child's time with toys that are..."just" toys. If a child _likes_ blinking, flashing, "educational", "talking" or whatever toys, then I really don't see a lot of value in refusing to let him/her have them. But, I also don't think they have any inherent educational superiority over blocks, playsilks, mud, bubbles, balls, playsilks, water, crayons, dolls, etc. etc. etc.

I fully agree. Though I don't think the parent who is patting themselves on the back for buying a blinking, talking "educational" toy is any different than the one who pats themselves on the back for buying a beautiful set of wooden blocks or play silks.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeanine123* 
I fully agree. Though I don't think the parent who is patting themselves on the back for buying a blinking, talking "educational" toy is any different than the one who pats themselves on the back for buying a beautiful set of wooden blocks or play silks.









I think patting ourselves on the back at all is a good way to sprain a shoulder, and the main result is tripping and falling over our own egos at some point down the road...

I tend to kind of pat myself on the back for some of the things I've bought ds1 over the years (because I've bought him some really offbeat stuff, because that's what he was interested in), but I know I'm being a twit.


----------



## jeanine123 (Jan 7, 2005)

Then I'm being a twit right along with you. I patted myself on the back quite a bit for buying DS1 a cookbook for his birthday since it was one of his favorite gifts. It feels good when you finally guess right, especially if you have a kid with atypical likes or interests for his age.

I do have to say that I used to roll my eyes at those very same "educational" toys when DS1 was a baby. I also rolled my eyes at how academic kindergarten was and a variety of other things. Then DS1 started getting older and showed me that the very things I was rolling my eyes at were the exact things that made him happy as a clam. Crow can be a hard thing to eat at times. LOL


----------



## treeoflife3 (Nov 14, 2008)

wait.. are workbooks educational toys? I've never thought of them as toys...

and my issue is DEFINITELY with people trying to get only 'educational' toys assuming 'plain' toys are somehow beneath the 'educational' toys. I think leapfrog is pretty cool... I love the nifty little reader pen thingies that make it easier for a kid to read on their own while still learning of a parent can't do it right then... or if the kid wants to do it on their own with no mommy/daddy help. It's just not superior to a plain old book hehehe


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *treeoflife3* 
wait.. are workbooks educational toys? I've never thought of them as toys...

Depends on child, I think. DD1 and one of my nephews definitely considered them to be toys. I guess it all depends on how we define "toy", though. I can see a workbook being a toy, but my definition of "toy" isn't super strict. I know people who don't consider a jigsaw puzzle to be a toy, and I'd guess they wouldn't consider a workbook to be one, either.

Quote:

and my issue is DEFINITELY with people trying to get only 'educational' toys assuming 'plain' toys are somehow beneath the 'educational' toys. I think leapfrog is pretty cool... I love the nifty little reader pen thingies that make it easier for a kid to read on their own while still learning of a parent can't do it right then... or if the kid wants to do it on their own with no mommy/daddy help. It's just not superior to a plain old book hehehe
I'm not crazy about Leapfrog (my ex and I picked up something like the learning pen for ds1, and he wasn't interested for more than about a day), but I know some kids love them. I agree with you about this. They have their place, but the fact that they have lights and sounds and are marketed as "educational" doesn't make them superior to a "non" educational toy.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jeanine123* 
But he wouldn't be interested in those kinds of kits. He's not interested in science much at all, I think he had a vague interest in the exploding volcano at science camp but that was it. I would love it if he'd have an interest in that but it's just not on his radar right now. What is is counting games, math games and workbooks, workbooks, workbooks.









Sorry, I wasn't clear. I'd let a kid have that kind of thing if that's what they were into, I just wouldn't think of it as "educational". If my kid specifically asked for toys that let them learn, I wouldn't suggest a worksheet or a leapfrog type toy.

(Mind you, with my own background, if my dd gets into worksheets and other repetitive pattern memorization work, I will be making sure she also does open ended creative thinking work. Just because it's a particular weakness of mine to need/want little boxes to mark off and that's been a hindrance in my life.)

ETA: have you thought about introducing him to musical notes? As a kid who was into worksheets, I enjoyed writing the note names on sheet music, and it was really good for that kind of rote memorization.


----------



## MusicianDad (Jun 24, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
I agree so much.

I hope you got a picture! Maybe I need to do that with my littlest one. I bet she'd love it.


Yeah, we got a picture. You can find recipes on the net for finger paints that include only stuff from the kitchen (plus the food colouring) so there is no worry if some of it gets ingested.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Violet2* 
It is getting silly. I remember one of DD's walker things (kids are walking but need some help with balance, not a traditional walker) had the ABS in bas relief all down the side.

Like the poor kid can't even keep her balance yet and walk at the same time and she's going to absorb the ABCs like that?









Silly.

V

Maybe it's for older siblings? "Sweetie, let the baby use her walker, hey can you tell the baby what those letters are??"


----------



## lilyka (Nov 20, 2001)

My SIL only let her kid watch "educational" videos. I suggested she try some straight up brain candy. It was way more fun that way. I assured her my kids did not turn out stupid or violent from watching non educational tv but scored 100% for fun and entertained. She was not impressed







I do think she lets her kids have toys and stuff without defined educational value now.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

The ad is "Jumpstart 'Making learning fun!'" um....yeah...right there, that's the problem. Learning *is* fun even if some ways of teaching aren't.


----------



## kcstar (Mar 20, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sapphire_chan* 
The ad is "Jumpstart 'Making learning fun!'" um....yeah...right there, that's the problem. Learning *is* fun even if some ways of teaching aren't.











That's why I like the Montessori system. The whole idea is to maintain that natural love of learning.

I am so grateful to Jeanine for sharing about her experience! I agree that I want DS' TV to be educational. But I don't define educational value strictly as academic. The value of Clifford is in the relationship skills & values, and similar for Little Bear.

DS at almost-three sounds similar to Jeanine's son. Last Christmas I made a point to buy him a few block sets. He has stacked some, but usually he's not interested. He has already been through a phase where he was alphabet-obsessed. That same Christmas, HE wanted one of those educational "write the alphabet" toys. We got him a toy laptop so that he would have his own while I was studying on the computer. He got to where he would spend a long time playing that, learned all his letters and numbers.

He has, finally, gotten away from just wanting to write the alphabet. Now he wants to draw. But even with that, he has a theme. He wants to draw muppet faces. All the time. I just bought him more art supplies, and unlined paper, this weekend, and he was SO happy to use them.

The other thing DS loves right now is puzzles. Picture puzzles, at this stage. Anything with a goal. I've watched him assemble and dump the same puzzle 20 times in a row.


----------



## ollyoxenfree (Jun 11, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *meemee* 
why does everything have to be 'educational'?

.....

why oh WHY are we so focused on 'educational'? why does it always have to be a teachable moment?

In some ways, it's similar to the current focus on promoting and marketing products as "environmental".

Our society places great emphasis on being virtuous. We always have to show that we are improving ourselves and our circumstances. It becomes a competitive sport - how educational are you? How green are you? If we aren't good enough, if we aren't showing enough progress, then fear and shame will rain down on us from all around, for not keeping up.

OTOH, I see a thriving anti-intellectualism as well, that is especially worrisome when important social and political issues are being discussed/debated. It's hard to reconcile these different attitudes but they definitely co-exist.


----------



## CatsCradle (May 7, 2007)

Quote:

Our society places great emphasis on being virtuous. We always have to show that we are improving ourselves and our circumstances. It becomes a competitive sport - how educational are you? How green are you? If we aren't good enough, if we aren't showing enough progress, then fear and shame will rain down on us from all around, for not keeping up.
I agree. And, I don't believe for one minute that the companies marketing "educational" toys have our best interest in mind. Corporations are only concerned with their bottom line. If they project that a product will sell based on certain trends in society, then they will market items into the ground to make a buck. In my opinion, that is why most toys marketed as "educational" are crap because the emphasis is not on education, but how to appeal the senses of the buyer (parents, grandparents, etc.). Many people fall for it. Just like people fall for diet pills, hair products and things marketed as "healthy."

I think there are well thought-out toys out there...my own DD likes the Starfall website, which at its heart is educational but also fun. I think the key is finding stuff that fascinates your child and going with it. Ignore the rest. Eventually there will be other trends, other hot items. The shame in all this, however, is the mass amount of waste going into landfills.


----------



## ErinYay (Aug 21, 2008)

It kills me how modern American society is in such a rush to grow our babies up- baby videos, flashcards, Your Baby Can Read, etc, send our 3-year-olds to pre-K, but then we keep our 4-5 year olds in pullups. Then we insulate our pre-teens and won't let our 8-year-olds walk to the park by themselves, and our 25-year-olds live at home while they work on their 6th year of college.


----------



## Bellabaz (Feb 27, 2008)

I totally feel you on this. We say the same thing all the time. I belong to a playgroup and I recently stopped going to pretty much anything, for various reasons, one being that they started turning every meet up into a themed developmental education opportunity. It wasn't just -Let's go run around the park, its now gross motor skills meet up. Its gets on my nerves. Can kids just be kids? the learn so naturally why do I have to make everything focused on a particular skill?


----------



## New_Natural_Mom (Dec 21, 2007)

I don't do specific "education" play, but I think a parent's job is way more than keeping kids safe. My parents didn't get me involved in anything expecting me to ask them if I wanted to participate in something. Well, I never knew I had options to participate in ANYTHING. No dance classes, no clubs, nothing. I regret it now. By the time I was old enough to know my options it was too late. All th kids in those avtivities my age were already way advanced.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *New_Natural_Mom* 
I don't do specific "education" play, but I think a parent's job is way more than keeping kids safe. My parents didn't get me involved in anything expecting me to ask them if I wanted to participate in something. Well, I never knew I had options to participate in ANYTHING. No dance classes, no clubs, nothing. I regret it now. By the time I was old enough to know my options it was too late. All th kids in those avtivities my age were already way advanced.

I don't understand what this has to do with marketing toys as educational. Could you elaborate a little?


----------



## ellemenope (Jul 11, 2009)

Yes, I hate it, too. We avoid them. I just find them so obnoxious.

I have pretty high expectations for what I bring into my home. I am a minimalist. Loud, obnoxious, beeping, blinking, battery-operated, plastic junk just does not have a place in my house.

It is bizzare to think that an annoying voice reciting the ABCs over and over is really going to teach a toddler how to read.

FWIW, DD learned everything these toys promote they teach before she was two, without owning a single one. She did not watch educational videos for that matter either.

She plays. We read. just mommy-child interaction. It is very educational.

Side note: On, the flip side, I also have qualms with major companies marketing cheap wooden junk made in china as anything but that.


----------



## Youngfrankenstein (Jun 3, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MisaGoat* 

I think the way the dislike of the 'educational' toys is similar to how I view 'diet food' the more it markets itself as 'educational' or 'low fat/trans fat free/no sugar' etc the less likely I am to be interested. Many foods and toys are healthy/educational without having to advertise that fact. Does that make sense?

ITA, I am a fat lady who knows darn well that any 100 calorie pack isn't going to make me any thinner!









It is sad to me that parents feel they "need" to get some of this stuff.

I also remember another mom telling me how much "kids need to know before they get to Kindergarten" so I'd better be teaching them these things at home or send them to pre-school. My kids all knew how to read at age 4 just on their own. (Although I think the little one learned it all from the internet







) My point is that they do teach all of that stuff in Kindy, you don't need to know it before hand but it seems that it's a common misconception therefore more "educational stuff".


----------



## JudiAU (Jun 29, 2008)

I think all play is" educational". Everytime the LO builds blocks, puts on a fireman's cape, plays the drum, squeezes play dough, rides a trike, does a puzzle, or reads a story he is learning everything he need to know at that age. But if he does it all at the same time, well, that deserves a picture.

So is stealing my wallet and hiding my credit cards again, throwing the baby's toys in the potty, using his fruit salad to build a building etc.

I should maybe say that I buy nothing junky and nothing electronic. We don't do media for the kids. Most of the "teaching" by companies like Leapfrog will happen on its own in a way that sounds better, looks better, and is grounded in daily life. I personally think there is a very, very strong downside to tv/media for children so when we do allow it at a much older age I will expect it to accomplish nothing.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Youngfrankenstein* 

I also remember another mom telling me how much "kids need to know before they get to Kindergarten" so I'd better be teaching them these things at home or send them to pre-school. My kids all knew how to read at age 4 just on their own. (Although I think the little one learned it all from the internet







) My point is that they do teach all of that stuff in Kindy, you don't need to know it before hand but it seems that it's a common misconception therefore more "educational stuff".

Slightly off-topic, but sadly, at least in my area, this isn't the case any more. When I was in school to become a teacher 15 years ago, the focus was on making sure you were able to teach any child who came to you, regardless of prior knowledge. Nowadays, with No Child Left Behind, the focus is on making sure "every child is ready to learn," which to our school district at least, means they are expected to come in knowing all the stuff they used to teach in kindy. If they don't already know it, they have to go to a remedial program over the summer to learn it. Kindergarten today isn't what it was when I was little, at least not in our school district.


----------



## Drummer's Wife (Jun 5, 2005)

I do find myself slighly annoyed when I hear parents say something like, "I ony let him play educational games on his DS/wii/etc"... Because, frankly, my kid enjoys playing the latest Mario game more than any others - the point, to me, is for him to play a game to have fun! Surely, there are 'educational' momements when he has to remember patterns and how to get through the castle and such.


----------



## Youngfrankenstein (Jun 3, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
Slightly off-topic, but sadly, at least in my area, this isn't the case any more. When I was in school to become a teacher 15 years ago, the focus was on making sure you were able to teach any child who came to you, regardless of prior knowledge. Nowadays, with No Child Left Behind, the focus is on making sure "every child is ready to learn," which to our school district at least, means they are expected to come in knowing all the stuff they used to teach in kindy. If they don't already know it, they have to go to a remedial program over the summer to learn it. Kindergarten today isn't what it was when I was little, at least not in our school district.









I haven't noticed a change here. My son and now others kids have been moving through the schools here for 6 years and had to sit through letter introductions and then got to letter sounds eventually. Also, they do all day kindy at this school but with other activities, I don't really know if they're getting more learning time.

I wonder what things "your" kids don't know by kindy? I'm seriously asking, not trying to sound flip. They begin trying to teach sight words by the end of the year. Are yours supposed to know other things before kindy? (I just typed 'kidney' first)


----------



## Hoopin' Mama (Sep 9, 2004)

I dislike the marketing, immensely. I think there truly are people who really buy into the whole educational thing.
Now that my son is 5, he does choose things that I know are marketed as educational, but I like to believe that we aren't fooled by it. He really wants the leapfrog reading pen. I will get it for him for Christmas because he likes it, it entertains him, and it looks great for travel. I do not believe it to hold higher value as and educational toy.

Ds also loves Magic School Bus videos and books. I do think they are cute and clever.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Youngfrankenstein* 
I haven't noticed a change here. My son and now others kids have been moving through the schools here for 6 years and had to sit through letter introductions and then got to letter sounds eventually. Also, they do all day kindy at this school but with other activities, I don't really know if they're getting more learning time.

I wonder what things "your" kids don't know by kindy? I'm seriously asking, not trying to sound flip. They begin trying to teach sight words by the end of the year. Are yours supposed to know other things before kindy? (I just typed 'kidney' first)

Well, my kids are homeschooled.







But before we knew for sure our daughter had to be "tested" for kindergarten and they were tested on knowing their alphabet, numbers, being able to write their names, basic numeracy and literacy concepts-- all stuff they used to teach in kindergarten. They come out able to read, which used to be a first grade skill.


----------



## NewMoonMum (Aug 18, 2010)

oh man, you know what really kills me?
Those little sound systems they sell for expecting mothers to strap to their bellies, so the baby is "learning in the womb"!!









Uggghhh and I can't even tell you how much Baby Einstein garbage my sister handed down to me-every thing absolutely horrible, but you can't really say anything but thank you!!(not with my sister anyway). How is it over a year after we got rid of the stuff my son will stumble upon a DVD we managed to miss and ask to watch it?

I also like to teach by having my son DO things. I don't see how a beeping electronic toy asking him to push buttons is supposed to help him grasp any concept. SO much more fun-and inexpensive-to introduce a little chemistry by mixing baking soda and vinegar!


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
Well, my kids are homeschooled.







But before we knew for sure our daughter had to be "tested" for kindergarten and they were tested on knowing their alphabet, numbers, being able to write their names, basic numeracy and literacy concepts-- all stuff they used to teach in kindergarten. They come out able to read, which used to be a first grade skill.

My class when I was in Kindy learned how to read in Kindergarten but started with an assumption that no one knew the alphabet. And it was half day with no homework.


----------



## New_Natural_Mom (Dec 21, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
I don't understand what this has to do with marketing toys as educational. Could you elaborate a little?

Well, I was responding to a number of things while a croupy toddler was nursing, so I prob didn't explain well. I think that a parent's job is to educate and not just protect. If we don't help guide and educate our kids, how will they learn everything they need to know? Sure, they will learn things on their own, but it does them a disservice by not exposing them to greater horizons. I don't see why educational toys are so bad. Why *not* making learning a fun activity? I used to love math games and word games. My son sings the alphabet like 20 times a day, and someone gave us a toy that sings the alphabet and identifies letters. He likes playing with it.

I don't like the competitive culture where people are doing flashcards with a 6 month old and trying to get them to recite Chaucer, but I don't see how incorporating learning into play is so bad.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *New_Natural_Mom* 
Sure, they will learn things on their own, but it does them a disservice by not exposing them to greater horizons. I don't see why educational toys are so bad. Why *not* making learning a fun activity?

That question presupposes that learning isn't already a fun activity. I, personally, loved learning...until school messed me up. I've been getting the love of learning back over the last few years, but it's been a slow, painful process, and that bugs me.

I'm totally about exposing my kids to greater horizons, but I don't think "educational" toys have much to do with that, honestly.

Quote:

I used to love math games and word games.
Me, too. But, I also made up my own math and word games all the time.

Quote:

I don't like the competitive culture where people are doing flashcards with a 6 month old and trying to get them to recite Chaucer, but I don't see how incorporating learning into play is so bad.
I don't think it's necessarily bad, and if the child enjoys it, then sure...why not? But, imo, the whole point is that we don't _need_ artificially "incorporate" learning into play. Play _is_ learning.


----------



## Sierra (Nov 19, 2001)

The abc toys are the ones that get under my skin. Knowing the abcs isn't necessary for literacy. In fact, it can be a distraction. I chose not to teach my kids the abcs, and I had to basically be counter-cultural to do it. Somehow we kept receiving abc toys and books from folks (the books we translated into letter sounds, but the toys we passed on or used rarely).

I firmly believe that the names of the letters should come after learning the sounds of the letters. A few of the abc toys teach sounds, but they confuse the issue by bringing in the names too.

I have a kid who taught herself to read at age three, and while I know that isn't something every kid will do (my son seems to be working on reading now, but he is five...some kids will learn to read at 3, some at 8, and it isn't a big deal either way), I really think if she had learned the letter names first it would have gotten in the way and taken her longer. She loves to read, and it has really reduced her frustration level in life...so I am glad I didn't slow her down with trying to teach her letter names.


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Youngfrankenstein* 
I wonder what things "your" kids don't know by kindy? I'm seriously asking, not trying to sound flip. *They begin trying to teach sight words by the end of the year.* Are yours supposed to know other things before kindy? (I just typed 'kidney' first)

uuughhh!!! yup!! here they start sight words in K by the THIRD month.

as far as i remember my dd had to know how to write her name, colours, numbers till 10. plus she had to be independent. tie her shoes, undo her jacket, be mostly able to open her lunch pail...

the point is i understand parents who start preK at 4. esp. if they had a hard time in K. they dont want their kids to go thru that. but it pains me to see the mass hysteria around it.

ESPECIALLY... ESPECIALLY when teh kids tank by middle school. i like how the rest of the world has tougher education standards so that they do 3 years of college instead of 4. A LOT of college general ed is covered in high school. so when kids dont go to college they have a good baseline when they graduate HS. there is no social promotion. you go to the next grade when you show you can do the work. i was talking to someone from argentina today. she said by HS she had done so much science as well as world history and world geography and world politics so that they are well informed of the world and making their own decisions when voting or when reading hte newspaper. of course its not a foof proof system and they have their faults too.....

what i really object to is that what is defined as 'educational' is really NOT. there is no encouragement of group work or critical thinking. just 'vomiting' out facts is not educational. which means the child notices that just my shirt is not blue, but the sky is blue too.

for instance that - was it leapfrog? alphabet caterpillar - horribly educational but they had a great feature. you could turn off all the alphabet stuff and play just the music for each alphabet. that was pretty cool. that part was never ever advertised as their selling point, but the letter sounds and phonetics were.


----------



## EdnaMarie (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:

I don't see how incorporating learning into play is so bad.
But there is so much learning beyond 26 letters and 9 digits and 0! There is just SO MUCH about music beyond a riff of Boccharini! It's the "educational" toys that are so... not educational.







Kids learn physics, they get that physical instinct, by playing with water and splashing and building with sand and dirt and mud. They get their sense of gravity from running and jumping. They get their sense of sound from a wide variety of traditional music and singing and playing on things as diverse as pots and pans and xylophones.

I think the OP was talking about these toys aimed at basically making parents feel their children were being surrounded by pre-k skill set educational opportunities, which might actually be right for a school system that teaches to bubble tests.

But for those of us concerned about real intellectual, physical, and emotional growth, there is nothing compared to climbing a tree and making up alternative versions to old double-dutch rhymes... "Cinderella, dressed in yellow, went upstairs to kiss a fellow, got real mellow, slept on a pillow...", making up narratives, playing hopscotch and counting it out...

Those skills are all over.

It's like nutritional facts, as someone pointed out. If it says "healthy" on it... it's probably one of the least healthy things you can eat.


----------



## theatermom (Jun 5, 2006)

I agree with so many of you here. Much of what is deemed "educational" is redundant at best, and damaging at worst. There's nothing in a toy designed to educate that you couldn't learn in some other, often better, way. After all, the vast majority of these toys didn't exist 50 years ago, and definitely not 100 or 200 years ago, and people then were hardly morons.

Play *is* education. Puppies taken from their mothers and siblings too soon often have a harder time socializing appropriately (i.e. not biting, listening to a pack leader, etc.) than puppies who have had that play time. I think that many of these artificial toys/activities, if foisted upon the child, hinder his/her natural development by essentially removing them from their natural order of play. And irritate the heck out of most parents.

That said, just because something has educational value (mazes, some kinds of activity/work books, crosswords, picture books, even some kinds of flash cards and manipulatives, and so forth) doesn't automatically mean that it's contrived and damaging. These things always have to be viewed in context of the bigger picture of the child's life, and how s/he incorporates them into her/his life.

To the parents of a child who thinks literally, certain non-open ended toys may be a blessing. But certainly they're not the only option. Obviously, we've had literal minded children for most of time, and these toys are brand new, relatively speaking. In fact, most of the children I know like this are much more taken with real objects and doing real activities. They don't want to pretend to be a banker, they want to do some banking. They don't want to play camp out, they want to pack up and do it.

Again, though, it's the trend that's troublesome more than anything else. Keeping up with the Joneses has become as much about having a non-average child as it has about money and possessions. And annoying, "educational" toys marketed by big companies play a very real role in encouraging this trend to continue.


----------



## EdnaMarie (Sep 9, 2006)

Quote:

Keeping up with the Joneses has become as much about having a non-average child as it has about money and possessions.
So well said!


----------



## meemee (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *theatermom* 
Keeping up with the Joneses has become as much about having a non-average child as it has about money and possessions. And annoying, "educational" toys marketed by big companies play a very real role in encouraging this trend to continue.


Quote:


Originally Posted by *EdnaMarie* 
So well said!

yes YES YES!!!! well said!!! i soooo agree. i think THIS is the crux of the matter. yup yup. i see it all around me. parents always, always comparing children and it makes me sooo sad esp. when my dd is seen as the more advanced.

the saddest was when a mother would belittle her 3 year old son publicly because my two year old was already potty trained completely. at that time the only way i knew to counter that was to compare the two kids and show where dd was behind and the son was ahead. thankfully we didnt have much social interaction. they moved. but it was sooo gut wrenchingly upsetting to me to see the mom behave that way. and she just couldnt listen to any of the moms telling her otherwise.


----------



## Laurel (Jan 30, 2002)

I also hate the term "learning" when it is only used to refer to academic learning. My personal belief is in not pushing academics on young children, but I've had friends say things like, "But they just _love_ to _learn_ at that age!" And I'm thinking, duh! Of course they love to learn! But that's an entirely separate issue from whether or not they are ready for academics! _Learning_ is not synonymous with ABCs and 123s! Everything a young child does is learning!


----------



## lonegirl (Oct 31, 2008)

But everything has an opportunity for learning. Play time is part of learning time.....playing in a splash pool or tub....a child will learn about things that sink/float/hold water/drain.....all while playing. Drawing/scribbling/printing all helps to fine tune fine motor skills. Playing hopscotch, jumprope etc...helps teach balance and strengthens muscles.
My son has always loved the Leapster2 he got it when he turned two as a gift. I love that it has helped him to read, print, draw and form an appreciation in all things as such. He loves to play with his flashcards....he creates his own games with them. Shape puzzles he mastered very young and loved to play with them....
I think that some kids are just drawn to things educational because they see them as fun play...just as marketed. His fave pc games are Jumpstart, Pajama Sam, Freddi Fish....these are all educational.
One of his fave toys is a maze in a ball (marketed to 6-106y) he does the maze he makes his own games and worlds within it. It requires a lot of dexterity and his helping to develop it in him.
So really we all learn and can learn in all we do. Whether marketed that way or not.


----------



## asraidevin (Jul 30, 2010)

I highly reccommend Buy, Buy Baby: How Consumer Culture Manipulates Parents and Harms Young Minds by Susan Gregory Thomas http://www.amazon.com/Buy-Baby-Consu.../dp/0618463518

from the amazon page (because i'm snuggling a sleepin baby):

It's no secret that toy and media corporations manipulate the insecurities of parents to move their products, but Buy, Buy Baby unveils the chilling fact that these corporations are using -- and often funding -- the latest research in child development to sell directly to babies and toddlers. Susan Gregory Thomas offers even more unnerving epiphanies: the lack of evidence that "educational" shows and toys provide any educational benefit at all for young children and the growing evidence that some of these products actually impair early development and could harm our kids socially and cognitively for life.


----------

