There is mounting evidence that increasingly restrictive schooling, quickly consuming the majority of childhood, is damaging children. Rates of childhood anxiety, depression, behavioral problems, and other mental illness are surging. Teenage suicide rates have doubled for girls since 2007, and have increased 30 percent for teenage boys. Eleven percent of children are now diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and three-quarters of them are placed on potent psychotropic medications for what Boston College psychology professor Dr. Peter Gray describes as a “failure to adapt to the conditions of standard schooling.”

Dr. Gray goes on to explain:

It is not natural for children (or anyone else, for that matter) to spend so much time sitting, so much time ignoring their own real questions and interests, so much time doing precisely what they are told to do. We humans are highly adaptable, but we are not infinitely adaptable. It is possible to push an environment so far out of the bounds of normality that many of our members just can’t abide by it, and that is what we have done with schools.

In the early twentieth century, concern about children’s welfare in oppressive factories was a primary catalyst for enacting child labor laws and simultaneously tightening compulsory schooling laws. Yet, for many of today’s children, the time they spend in forced schooling environments is both cruel and hazardous to their health. Gone are the oppressive factories, but in their place are oppressive schools. Where is the outrage?

In a New York Times Op-Ed article this week, author Malcolm Harris posits that young people are placed into these high-pressure, increasingly competitive schooling environments by corporate interests aiming to push job training to younger ages without having to pay for it.  He writes:

There are some winners, but the real champions are the corporate owners: They get their pick from all the qualified applicants, and the oversupply of human capital keeps labor costs down. Competition between workers means lower wages for them and higher profits for their bosses: The more teenagers who learn to code, the cheaper one is.

Harris’s solution is to encourage students to unite collectively, following a labor union paradigm, to demand better schooling conditions.  He asserts:

Unions aren’t just good for wage workers. Students can use collective bargaining, too. The idea of organizing student labor when even auto factory workers are having trouble holding onto their unions may sound outlandish, but young people have been at the forefront of conflicts over police brutality, immigrant rights and sexual violence. In terms of politics, they are as tightly clustered as just about any demographic in America. They are an important social force in this country, one we need right now.

While Harris and I agree that the conditions of forced schooling are untenable and rapidly worsening, we disagree on the solution. To suggest that students unionize to demand better compulsory schooling conditions is similar to suggesting that prisoners unionize to demand better prisons: It’s a fine idea but it’s completely futile. Children are mandated under a legal threat of force to attend compulsory schools.

The first step to addressing the oppressiveness of forced schooling and its harmful effects on children is to fight the compulsion. Rather than trying to improve the conditions of an inherently unjust, state-controlled system, the system itself must be overturned. After all, humans cannot be truly free when they are methodically, and legally, stripped of their freedom under the pretense that it’s good for all.

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The post Are Factory-Like Schools the Child Labor Crisis of Today? appeared first on Brighter Schooling.

Under Pressure

Boston College psychology professor, Peter Gray, looked more closely at this data and found that children’s mental health is directly related to school attendance. Dr. Gray found that children’s psychiatric ER visits drop precipitously in the summer and rise again once school begins. The May spike likely coincides with end-of-school academic and social pressures.

The suicide rate among 10 to 14 year olds has doubled since 2007.

Dr. Gray concludes: “The available evidence suggests quite strongly that school is bad for children’s mental health. Of course, it’s bad for their physical health, too; nature did not design children to be cooped up all day at a micromanaged, sedentary job.”

School-related anxiety and depression are real, serious issues that can lead to catastrophe, as evidenced by the rising suicide rate among children. In fact, according to the CDC, the suicide rate among 10 to 14 year olds has doubled since 2007. And for girls in that age group, the suicide rate has tripled over the past 15 years.

Beyond these extreme mental health crises, Dr. Gray’s research, and that of others, has shown that generalized anxiety and depression are skyrocketing in children. Dr. Gray maintains that much of this rise in anxiety and depression in children is due to lengthier, more restrictive schooling over the past several decades. He writes:

Children today spend more hours per day, days per year, and years of their life in school than ever before. More weight is given to tests and grades than ever. Outside of school, children spend more time than ever in settings in which they are directed, protected, catered to, ranked, judged, and rewarded by adults. In all of these settings adults are in control, not children.”

A national study of trends in adolescent depression rates found that teens reporting a major depressive episode (MDE) within the previous year skyrocketed from 8.7% in 2005 to 11.5% in 2014. The report, published last November in the journal Pediatrics, reveals: “The risk of depression sharply rises as children transition to adolescence.” The researchers cite stress and bullying as contributing factors.

More Stressed than Adults

A 2013 study by the American Psychological Association found that school is the main driver of teenage stress, and that teenagers are more stressed-out than adults. According to the study: “Teens report that their stress level during the school year far exceeds what they believe to be healthy (5.8 vs. 3.9 on a 10-point scale) and tops adults’ average reported stress levels (5.8 for teens vs. 5.1 for adults).”

“We don’t need to drive kids crazy to educate them.”

The report reveals that 83% of teens said that school was “a somewhat or significant source of stress,” with 27% of teens reporting “extreme stress” during the school year. Interestingly, that number declines to just 13% in summer.

Curious about mounting data showing correlations between school attendance and anxiety, Dr. Gray conducted his own informal, online survey of children who left conventional schooling for homeschooling or other forms of alternative education.

He found that, specifically for children previously labeled ADHD, often with related anxiety issues, “the children’s behavior, moods, and learning generally improved when they stopped conventional schooling…” Results were particularly positive when children engaged in self-directed education, like unschooling, where they had more freedom and control of their own learning.

An advocate of autodidacticism, and founder of the Alliance for Self-Directed Education, Dr. Gray urges parents and educators to think critically about the potential negative impacts of coercive schooling on children’s health and well-being. He asserts: “We don’t need to drive kids crazy to educate them. Given freedom and opportunity, without coercion, young people educate themselves.”

This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

The post Is School Driving Kids Literally Crazy? appeared first on Brighter Schooling.

According to Education Week, in the years 2008-2010 fewer than half of U.S. children under age five attended preschool, and the number of stay-at-home-parents has been rising over the past decade. Additionally, there are more than 2 million homeschoolers in this country and those numbers are increasing dramatically. A 2013 report by Education News found that the number of children being homeschooled in the United States has increased by 75 percent over 14 years. The report noted that “the number of primary school kids whose parents choose to forgo traditional education is growing seven times faster than the number of kids enrolling in K-12 every year.”

Many of these parents who choose to delay or forgo schooling for their children may be influenced by mounting research showing that early schooling is not beneficial to most children, and in fact may be harmful to many. Most significantly, a 2008 longitudinal study by psychology professor, Dr. Howard Friedman, of the University of California, Riverside, concluded that “early school entry was associated with less educational attainment, worse midlife adjustment, and most importantly, increased mortality risk.” In an article in the United Kingdom’s Telegraph, Professor Friedman asserts:

“Most children under age six need lots of time to play, and to develop social skills, and to learn to control their impulses. An over-emphasis on formal classroom instruction– that is, studies instead of buddies, or staying in instead of playing out–can have serious effects that might not be apparent until years later.”

In fact, the UK seems to be taking Dr. Friedman’s research, and that of others, to heart in an attempt to halt the expansion of formal schooling to earlier ages. In 2013, a respected group of more than 130 researchers and practitioners in the early childhood education field argued that formal schooling should be delayed until age six or seven, citing the “profound damage” that early schooling is causing children.

Here in the U.S., a 2015 research paper by Stanford University professor, Thomas Dee, found that delaying school entry led to less hyperactivity and more attentiveness. Children who entered formal schooling closer to age 7 were able to exhibit more self-regulation and had better mental health markers than children who entered school at age 6 or earlier. Even more remarkable is that this effect was sustained until at least age 11.

But what about the poor and disadvantaged children who purportedly benefit from earlier, more formal schooling? Dr. Richard House, a senior lecturer at the University of Roehamptom in London, argues:

“There are of course some children from very deprived backgrounds who on balance would, and certainly do, gain a net benefit from such early interventions. But the evidence is now quite overwhelming that such an early introduction to institutional learning is not only quite unnecessary for the vast majority of children, but can actually cause major developmental harm, and at worst a shortened life-span.”

As efforts mount both domestically and abroad to push academics and expand government schooling to increasingly younger children, it is important for parents to look at the data and implications of such early education policy. While the relatively small percentage of children from “very deprived backgrounds,” as Dr. House states, may benefit from more rigorous early schooling, the vast majority of young children are not helped–and may in fact be harmed–by accelerated institutional learning.

It is no wonder that more and more parents are recognizing the serious effects that play-deprivation and forced academics can have on young children. In growing numbers, these parents are choosing to delay formal schooling–or avoid it altogether–and cultivate a nurturing, play-filled, family-centered childhood in their homes and throughout their communities.

—

[Image Credit: U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Joseph A. Pagán Jr.)

This post The Benefits of Delayed Schooling was originally published on Intellectual Takeout by Kerry McDonald.

The post The Benefits of Delayed Schooling appeared first on Brighter Schooling.

This has been a topic of discussion the past few days at our house. It started when I watched this video about a “no rules” playground in New Zealand. Then one of my daughter’s schooled friends was finding so much joy doing things on our neighborhood playground that wouldn’t be allowed at school, we decided to take a closer look at what are the typical playground rules and do they have merit.

We complied a list of the playground rules my daughter remembered from her short time at public school kindergarten, the rules her friend said were currently being enforced at her school and other rules we pulled from school websites. I was surprised by how many rules were commonly enforced on school playgrounds—and how many appeared to be senseless.

We discussed why certain rules seemed unnecessary, appeared irrational, or could even be counterproductive.

Below is the list of playground rules we compiled:

Playground Rules List

• NO “roaring”, “growling” or other “mean” animal noises when pretending
• NO handstands or cartwheels.
• NO swinging on your stomach
• NO twisting on the swings
• NO side-to-side motion on the swings
• NO more than one person on a swing at a time.
• NO using a swing for more than 30 swings.
• NO standing on the swings.
• NO twisting the seats on the swing.
• NO help from others when swinging. (NO pushing from a friend!)
• NO sitting on the swings facing the incorrect way.
• NO using or even touching the handicap swing.
• NO playing tag or other chasing games.
• NO “negative comments” to peers.
• NO climbing on walls, fences, railings, ledges, dirt hills, trees, or equipment (unless it is meant for climbing).
• NO jumping off any bars or other equipment.
• NO hanging upside-down on any bars.
• NO sitting on the bars.
• NO going the wrong way on the bars. One way only.
• NO running.
• NO talking while in line going in and out to the playground (have a bubble in your mouth).
• NO forgetting your place in line.
• NO waving to anyone while waiting in line to go in or out to the playground.
• NO horseplay.
• NO going down the slides any way except seated feet first.
• NO walking up the slides.
• NO playing in any areas without adult supervision.
• NO going outside playground boundaries.
• NO pens or pencils allowed on the playground.
• NO throwing or picking up dirt, sand, woodchips, rocks, or sticks.
• NO eating or drinking on the playground.
• NO saving swings or seats for anyone.
• NO acting like characters in video games.

What happens when these rules are broken? Perhaps a warning at first if they are lucky, but punishments can be imposed even without warnings. Punishments can be timeouts, loss of recess, lunchroom detention, referral to principal’s office, or even paddling (yes, 19 states still allow corporal punishment in school).

There is overwhelming evidence showing the importance of free play, but can recess with these type of rigid rules and strict punishments still be considered beneficial “free” play? It seems this activity could more appropriately be described as: “Brief exposure to, and extremely limited use of, outdoor equipment under strictly controlled supervision”.

When that school in New Zealand removed rules from recess what was the result? According to the principal: “Concentration is up, incidents of bullying are way down, confidence is sky high, and injuries—far fewer.” I must say that I’ve seen similar results after observing our daughter participate in regular free play opportunities at local parks and playgrounds, where rules are few to none. There aren’t adult rule enforcers on constant lookout for offenders. Kids are free from being ruled by rules. This is what true free play should look like.
—
Further Reading: http://www.kidsplayspace.com.au/pla…

The post Ruled By Playground Rules appeared first on Brighter Schooling.