Information February 20, 2014

Leave the children alone

By Maria Reumert Gjerding and Helle Heckmann

Children have a right to a childhood, cry the critics of testing regimes in nurseries. No one can disagree with that, but it is not the most important argument against the tests. Rather, the main argument is that they disrupt the very learning that test proponents yearn for so much.

When Alexander was two years old, he could make a bead plate using the smallest beads. His fine motor skills were exceptional, his patience great, and his concentration impressive. He never had a shaky hand. On the other hand, he was almost three years old before he spoke in long sentences. Alexander’s younger brother, Kristian, by contrast, is a toddler who always has bruises somewhere. He knocks things over, falls off things, and loses patience with the bead plate before the first two beads are placed. On the other hand, Kristian could speak when he was a year and a half old.

Both are healthy and well-functioning children. They are simply different. They develop in their own ways and have acquired language, motor skills, and concentration at different times. And Alexander and Kristian are not the only ones who are different. All children learn in their own way at their own pace.

Therefore, introducing standardized tests already in day-care institutions is misguided: we simply cannot put small children into boxes and measure them against templates in the same way we measure the skills of school-aged children and adults. Not only do we get nothing useful out of such tests, but we also risk harming the children’s development by losing sight of their most important needs.

The first seven years are crucial

The talk about tests and learning objectives in day-care institutions stems from a lack of understanding of what learning means for a small child. During the first seven years of a child’s life, they undergo a colossal development—physically, mentally, and socially.

It is not only tangible things like speech and motor skills that mature. It is also during these years that self-confidence, self-esteem, empathy, and a sense of one’s own and others’ boundaries are established—that is, the very foundation of adult well-being. Such talents cannot be crammed for or checked off on a form.

A child acquires these traits by observing and imitating their surrounding world, by being a valued participant in the activities of daily life, and by being given the time and peace to build their body and gradually experience how new skills are mastered. Quietly and steadily, the child begins to grasp the norms and rules of play upon which our society is built. They are not encoded in our genes; they must be experienced and practiced in reality.

Gradually, the child’s play evolves into more advanced role-play, where imagination, creativity, and curiosity mature. Most importantly, the child needs adults around them who perform worthy-of-imitation, meaningful tasks related to everyday life, and children need to be part of secure communities. They must feel appreciated and have meaningful roles to play—both in the day-care institution and, for example, when the family makes dinner at home.

If the framework is right, children will play their way into curiosity and creativity, which are prerequisites for learning later in life. If the framework is too narrow or wrong, we risk suffocating the child’s joy of learning.

Tests do more harm than good

A good framework consists of a recognizable, rhythmic everyday life that the child can anticipate and find security in, alongside adults whom the child knows well. But a good framework also requires that the small child is allowed to develop at their own pace and in their own way.

Standardized tests do not provide for this kind of freedom. Because here, the means are adult-led play and a focus on fixed learning objectives that do not suit all children equally. The children who do not live up to the learning objective will experience failure, even though a test says nothing whatsoever about how a child is doing overall.

At best, the snapshot provided by the test thus becomes vapid and meaningless. At worst, the test damages the child’s self-confidence because the child experiences failure. We cannot both evaluate children according to rigid parameters and at the same time give them recognition for what they can do.

We cannot both steer their development according to a fixed formula and give them the support to sense themselves and dare new things in the confidence that it is good enough. Tests are an expression of imposing elements from an adult world onto children. Tests do not contribute to the development of self-confidence, morality, and empathy, none of which can be measured or crammed.

Throw away tests and curricula

The best thing we can do for their future is to throw tests and curricula far away and insert a warning in the history books against letting the competitive state mentality colonize childhood and our relationships with our small children.

Doing so comes at the expense of their highest desire: Time and space! More time with mom and dad, more time and space to play, climb trees, and express themselves among other children. If they are simply given that, children will in the vast majority of cases manage to develop just fine.

And mind you, we are not saying that we must safeguard childhood because we, like the test-happy professor Niels Egelund, are “old romantics.” There is no doubt that children must be allowed to be children, but it is misleading when the debate on tests ends in a brawl between test proponents—who present themselves as the true champions of children’s learning—and childhood advocates, who argue that childhood has value in itself. The latter have come to appear as though they believe children should definitely not learn, but just be allowed to shuffle around and play with sand.

That opposition locks the debate. For our point is precisely that it benefits children’s learning the most when we adults refrain from interfering with tests and schedules. In other words, we agree with Egelund & Co.’s goal—just not their means.

Freedom, space, and time

We must not interfere in our children’s development—but we must get involved with our children. That is simply difficult when they spend over half of their waking hours in day-care institutions every single day.

If we want what is best for them, we must realize that we get nowhere by setting up learning objectives with one hand and cutting day-care staffing ratios with the other. This simply means that the already far-too-few pedagogues (early childhood educators) must sacrifice quality time with children in favor of desk work. They cannot act as role models for the children and become too busy to notice if a child has real developmental problems.

Instead, as a society, we must ensure that when children are in day-care, competent adults can step in on behalf of the parents. This succeeds best in integrated nurseries and kindergartens where the child stays long enough to get to know the pedagogues properly. And it will only succeed if there are enough pedagogues, and thus enough time.

But we must also tackle the issue where it hurts the most and understand that as families we must prioritize our children instead of leaving them to professionals during most of their waking hours. Even if it cuts into our own adult freedom and career plans.

If we do that, the children will surely manage the rest in return. For they are wiser than that and know themselves when and how they are ready to take the next developmental step. Some take them thoughtfully and one at a time, while others blunder clumsily and energetically out into life. We should not be alarmed by such differences, because childhood is a totality, and the vast majority of children reach the finish line in the end.

We just need to be there—together with the children, but at arm’s length, so they are given a safe and free learning space to grow up and mature entirely within themselves.