5 Year Old Student broke down crying....

[dagny_taggart]

I am teaching a new family, three kids: 5, 9, and 15. The 5 year old is very difficult: he does not listen to instructions very well. But the most annoying thing is, he will not let me play! When I attempt to play something for him, to show him what it should sound like, he pushes my hands off the keyboard (literally) and says, "no, let me do it!"...and and course, he cannot do it.

He also keeps turning pages to ask me a question about something on another page (probably to stall) and I tell him: "No. We are not on that page" and must flip back to the one we are working on.

Eventually he learned how to play Mary Had A little Lamb with fingers, 2,3,4 on the black keys. When I wanted to teach him how to use 1,2,3 on the white keys, he had no idea which fingers were 123. I asked him to show me on his fingers. He refused and just kept playing. I was asking him to show me his fingers but he would not listen. Then he broke down crying while still playing. It was awful!!!

Has anyone had a similar experience or does anyone have an advice about this that they can share? I do not want to traumatize this child and lose the business from this family. Should I tell his mother about his crying episode (she was not home)?

[keypeg]

How long have you been teaching him?  Are you his first teacher?  What kinds of things (concepts included) have you taught him so far?  What has worked with him, and what has not?

[dagny_taggart]

How long have you been teaching him?  Are you his first teacher?  What kinds of things (concepts included) have you taught him so far?  What has worked with him, and what has not?

I have been teaching him for one and a half months now (approximately 5 lessons). I am his first teacher. (I do know that he is more concerned with watching TV screens than he is playing on a piano. He is always glued to some kind of screen when I am teaching his brothers.) What has worked? Well, the only time he began to listen to me was when I threatened to tell his mother he was not listening. I would hate to continue threatening, though. He is interested in the lyrics to the songs (he keeps asking me to read them and I do) and he likes asking questions (though his questions are usually about something on another page). He asked me of his own accord what the difference between a half note and quarter note was, which showed some interest in the pursuit of knowledge, but he wants to control the direction of the lesson and he is all over the place: "What's that? What's that? What's that?" Pointing to various things. How much do I let him indulge in his natural course of curiosity and how much do I control? As I said, the only thing which made him silent and actually listen to be for a substantial period of time was the threat to tell on him.

[dagny_taggart]

I forgot to tell you what we are working on: I am using the Prep Alfred's Book. I used Bastiens on another 5 year old which worked well but I wanted to try Alfred's this time around which has a completely different set up. I think it moves too quickly, much quicker than Bastiens. He is currently able to play two pieces using 2,3,4, and 2,3 on the black keys. We are essentially still exploring the keyboard and the black keys.

[birba]

I had that experience when i was teaching in a private international school on the appian way, here in rome.  It was a year i will always remember.  SOOO enlightening for me and eventually very gratifying when i actually organized a recital at the end of the school year.  Kids from 4-10 years old.  There was a little japanese girl.  5 years old.  Cute as a button.  She was very serious in her "studies" and loved her "lessons".  At this particular lesson, i corrected her on something.  I think i said something like, "no, tomoko, this is 'f'.  See the color blue?"  I swear, that was all i said.  We continued, and i noticed tears running down her cheek.  I was devastated.  She never said a word.  I took her in my arms and did my best to make ammends.  But i realized an important thing.  You can never get into the head of a five-year-old.  They are already an entity unto themselves and we can only try to impart something they may or may not want to accept.  There are all sorts of methods and games to facilitate this adventure.  But they never work for all of them.  Each one is an individual rebus to be cracked.  This kid you talk about sounds like a little pistol.  I think 5 is a very young age to begin formal lessons.  It really has to be a game for them. Something THEY want to do.  I found that i would take the clue form them and work around it. 
But you sound like you have experience and know what you're doing.  Do you ever have them move to music?  Like playing a march or a waltz or a polka, and see what they do with their bodies?  Just to have them sit at the piano for more than 15 minutes was a miracle for me!

[perfect_pitch]

I once had a little 6 year old girl in tears because despite making a mistake in a little game we had - she only got a silver sticker instead of a gold...

She REALLY wanted that gold.

[ppianista]

...does anyone have an advice about...?

Difficult. From what you're telling, the boy seems to be quite headstrong, perhaps a little above the "normal" level. Perhaps he's undergoing the pressure of competition - being the youngest in a musical family. But he might also be a candidate for ADHD (attention deficit-hyperactivity-disorder). Hard to tell.

I also guess he might be a little overchallenged by your lessons... When I have a pupil that young, I go on for months without reading notes, and I'm trying to spare him/her the experience of failure as much as possible. Everything the kid is asked to do should be fun and in reach of his/her capabilities. And the lessons shouldn't be longer than 15 minutes. - I always keep in mind: there's nothing as exhausting for our brains as playing the piano...

[ajspiano]

Stop telling him what to do.

Ask him what he wants to do.. and then shape your ideas to fit into his desires. I have a student who is male, 5 and exhibits this exact same behavior (minus the crying episode). I do composition with him when he's sick of reading from the bastien book. In that lesson situation, he chooses all the notes, and I write them down like they appear in the book..  then we read and play his song, which is pretty rubbish musically but he likes it so he's motivated. You can also shape their compositions into something better by offering a few options instead of using free choice..  like "do you want "C" or "D" next?" and then he chooses, this also (most of the time) stops them wanting to do something that is going to be far too difficult.. and the bastien primer book that you're using is (put very simply) a massive lot of "lets just play different configurations of notes in 5 finger positions, and learn to read a bit while we do it" so you don't have to play what it says on any given page, you just have to play something that utilizes the same concepts.

This can then be supplemented with the "fair share" idea.. where he chooses something, then you choose something, repeat. You aren't overly authoritative.. you talk about/explore the piano together, when he doesn't want to do what you want to do this upsets you because you just did what he wanted to do.. "can't I have a turn?" you say. Your demonstrations will not be you telling him what to do.. they are just your turn..  and you let him decide what he thinks of your playing.

...........

Also - wherever you are at, consider what the book is doing.. 

Right now..
You're teaching keyboard topography - recognizing groups of black keys.
Practicing movement of fingers 2-3, and then 2-3-4 in a comfortable effective manner.
playing different note lengths, and counting them (crotchets and minums).
playing with consistent timing.

^none of this requires that you look at the book, get the book and read it once he knows the concepts and can execute them. The book is there because he needs to be able to practice it for the rest of the week when you aren't there. It guides the student and the parent when you are not around...

And in future, I would suggest to the parent that with a 5 yr old it is compulsory that she attends and pays attention at lessons. Because she should be helping direct his practice throughout the week, and she'll screw it up something chronic if she hasn't observed it done properly.

[pairra]

I agree 100% with everything ajspiano said above.

At this stage, you don't need to use a book, teach him the very basics and some by rote songs. Or have him compose his own music using finger numbers or letter names if you've gotten that far. If what you're doing isn't working, don't be afraid to try something completely different.

some ideas:

Finger # songs on the 3 black keys - mary, hot cross buns, au claire de la lune, gently sleep.

By rote song - Twinkle Little Star variations from Suzuki (add different rhythms)

Oh, and definitely ask the parent to sit in if you think that would help.

[dagny_taggart]

^none of this requires that you look at the book, get the book and read it once he knows the concepts and can execute them. The book is there because he needs to be able to practice it for the rest of the week when you aren't there. It guides the student and the parent when you are not around...

And in future, I would suggest to the parent that with a 5 yr old it is compulsory that she attends and pays attention at lessons. Because she should be helping direct his practice throughout the week, and she'll screw it up something chronic if she hasn't observed it done properly.

Yes, I compose with my students and they find it delightful to act like little composers. I am teaching him today: perhaps I will ask him to play a piece for me on the 3 black notes while I write it down.

 I really like your suggestion to put the book away and focus entirely on the keyboard. Since the book serves to distract him and give him something to play with, it is actually a hindrance to the lessons. I will teach him the songs by rote from the book and then assign the book for homework.

Unfortunately, the mother cannot attend lessons because she is working. However, an adult friend of hers, who is also taking lessons with me, is in the house during lesson time. Perhaps she should listen in!

I told his mother how it important it was for him to sit down at the keyboard every day, even if only for a couple of minutes. She actually developed an interesting idea: she told the boy that he had to tell his brothers to practice every day, so he could be an authoritarian on practice and understand how important it was by dictating to others to do it. Ha -- I thought this was clever.

So, today, I will stop attempting to control him, take the book away, play by rote (without the book he cannot swipe my hands away and say he will do it since there is nothing to guide him!), and see what happens! I will let you know the results!

[dagny_taggart]

Difficult. From what you're telling, the boy seems to be quite headstrong, perhaps a little above the "normal" level. Perhaps he's undergoing the pressure of competition - being the youngest in a musical family. But he might also be a candidate for ADHD (attention deficit-hyperactivity-disorder). Hard to tell.

I also guess he might be a little overchallenged by your lessons... When I have a pupil that young, I go on for months without reading notes, and I'm trying to spare him/her the experience of failure as much as possible. Everything the kid is asked to do should be fun and in reach of his/her capabilities. And the lessons shouldn't be longer than 15 minutes. - I always keep in mind: there's nothing as exhausting for our brains as playing the piano...

He most definitely has ADHD, but because of a bad lifestyle of incessant TV watching. It can be overcome. The lessons are half an hour, though a few times I had to cut them short. His attention span is, however, increasing with every lesson. I think he is acclimating to someone forcing him to focus which is new for him. And you are certainly right: there is NOTHING more exhausting than studying music/playing the piano! The second I ask any student to exert REAL effort of any sort, they begin yawning haha -- not from boredom but because concentration drains one immediately! It happens to me, too, especially when I am trying to memorize (which is very taxing) or when I am analyzing music.

[dagny_taggart]

  Do you ever have them move to music?  Like playing a march or a waltz or a polka, and see what they do with their bodies?  Just to have them sit at the piano for more than 15 minutes was a miracle for me!

That is also a great idea! I should play something for him and ask him to listen. I need to find something that is dance-worthy-- ha, because I don't have any dance pieces in my repertoire (unless you count Brahms waltzes!). What would you play?

[birba]

Oh, I just improvised simple waltzes, marches, polkas, gigues, etc.  (I also played for a ballet class so I knew how to do those things.)  But you can do it, I'm sure!  It's just important you bang out the left hand for the beat.

[keypeg]

He most definitely has ADHD, but because of a bad lifestyle of incessant TV watching.

I would leave psychological diagnoses to trained professionals.  Those initials are over-used and misunderstood.  And do you actually know this child's lifestyle?  The confusion over fingers seems quite understandable given his age, and you bringing in several variables at once.  You have finger numbers at a young age, black keys becoming white keys, trying to imitate what you play which is also not easy, and all of it is thrown together.  You cannot tell from this whether the child has a serious problem such as ADHD.

[dagny_taggart]

I would leave psychological diagnoses to trained professionals.  Those initials are over-used and misunderstood.  And do you actually know this child's lifestyle?  The confusion over fingers seems quite understandable given his age, and you bringing in several variables at once.  You have finger numbers at a young age, black keys becoming white keys, trying to imitate what you play which is also not easy, and all of it is thrown together.  You cannot tell from this whether the child has a serious problem such as ADHD.

I did not diagnose him. I carefully worded what I said by saying he has it in terms of lifestyle: people can give themselves attention/concentration problems if they live the wrong type of lifestyle or do not take care of themselves. He has attention problems due to that. I did not state it was a medical condition. Lifestyle induced problems are separate from medical illnesses. For instance, someone can be unintelligent due to lifestyle: if they do not study, read books, or care to learn, etc.: this is self-induced stupidity -- but then there are people who have low intelligence due to an actual mental deficiency out of their control.

[keypeg]

Ok, but ADHD is a serious problem.  You mean that he does not seem to be able to pay attention.

[dagny_taggart]

I taught the boy last night after applying some feedback, and it went particularly well. He cried again briefly (his brother actually confirmed to me that he cries when frustrated -- so I suppose I will be dealing with this for awhile) and I said to him: "did you go to school today?" He said "yes". I told him, "well this is like school. You are learning here and do not need to worry. Do you cry at school? Learning takes time. It is okay -- do not worry". He seemed better after that.

I took the book away a few times and had him focus on the keyboard. I asked him to copy me (it is interesting how difficult it is for a beginner to press the same key you are pressing even if you point to it or put their finger on it, ha) and this did help.

His 15 year old brother then came over towards the end of the lesson. I told him we were teaching his younger brother how to read the notes on the piano. Then he shouted out letters on the piano for the child to hit, testing him. The child instantly listened to his brother and showed him the right notes. I am now thinking that this should continue to be a regular occurrence: that, as someone suggested earlier, perhaps an adult can be present for part of the lesson, even if just the last five minutes. They will need to know precisely what the child is learning anyway to help him practice.  If the child knows his family is directly participating in lessons, perhaps he will be more apt to listen as he did to his brother (it introduced the incentive of competition, almost like a game, when his brother is testing him).

I basically have to figure out how to turn the entire lesson into a game: like his brother did. Does anyone else play games at the keyboard with children? If so, what kind of games do you play?  

[bmbutler]

Sounds like he is a spoiled brat who never has been told "no" and is used to being disrespectful.

[keypeg]

Sounds like he is a spoiled brat who never has been told "no" and is used to being disrespectful.

Sounds like we don't know anything about the child, have never seen the child, don't know the family, and assumptions are not a good idea.  A child who cries can just as easily be a child who is over-controlled and anxious, expected to do perfectly and anxious etc.  We don't know.

What we do know is that the involvement of the relative seems to be working.

[ajspiano]

Sounds like he is a spoiled brat who never has been told "no" and is used to being disrespectful.

Children of that age need to have been severely neglected so far as behaviour management for you to not be able to adjust their behaviour just by having a simple positive conversation with them. And they more often than not act out because they are either tired or hungry than actually badly behaved in general.. Or because they have some other problem with the task at hand but are unable to communicate it due to there limited vocabulary, conversation skills and knowledge/understanding of their capabilities and emotions.

Even if the child would benefit from a more authoritive approach generally.. A piano teacher will want to be extremely cautious with such an approach as even if it works it is likely it will also develop a negative association to the teacher or the lessons for the child. The child must choose to be interested and involved because they want to..  otherwise they wont practice except when forced to and will ultimately give up all together.

[meli]

 
For this little guy, maybe you need to disguise your teaching as games? So far, I have had success with young kids (my youngest is 5). Luckily, no crying incident yet! I have another student who cried, but that was another story! I also insist that a parent be in the lesson - at least they know what's going on.

Make it like a race or game and whoever wins gets to go first (tick toe or whatever) gets a prize. For example, note-reading, try flashcards or shout the letter, give them 1 min (use a stopwatch) to look for it. It sounds like he enjoys playing game with his brother. Why not use that opportunity?

For fingering, try finger wiggling exercises, or whoever touches their toes first gets a prize. I now it sounds silly, but if that will make them learn, so be it. Another trick I learnt for practicing is playing 'hangman' or tick tack toe. If they play it 3x correctly (1x each - they get to go). Or vice versa, if they make mistake, they draw whatever part of hangman. For rhythm, try something like playing 'copycat'. Clap something, they copy you.

Another game I play is 'no peaking' - I call the letter, they find the notes by feeling the 2 & 3 black keys with their eyes closed. They enjoy testing me also! Sometimes, I purposely make mistakes and they actually correct me! I make it harder for myself by placing hands on my lap first. They get to place fingers on the keyboard first.

You could play games with the brothers - maybe some sibling rivalry? Try to do it, so er.. he wins. ( you could talk to his older bro, and tell him - I think he will help out the younger kid). You might be pleasantly surprised. I hope this helps!
 

[bernadette60614]

Forgive me for drifting into this conversation of professionals, but we have a son who will cry when he 1) feels that he cannot measure up to the expected standards 2) feels overwhelmed 3) feels that he cannot measure up to his own internal standards of perfection.

IMHO, a child who didn't care..and perhaps care too much...would be smirking, not crying.

When we work on a skill, I frame it as :  Okay, today we're going to have some fun with x.  Just describing it as "fun" automatically shifts the framework from "learning" (stressful, full of adult expectations, etc.) to something which he can enjoy.

I don't know this particular child, but something I try to remember:  Expectations of children have greatly increased in these days over constant testing and hyperparenting. 

[j_menz]

Expectations of children have greatly increased in these days over constant testing and hyperparenting. 

Quite so. They were far more relaxed when they were up a chimney with a broom or down a pit with a canary.

[keyofc]

What do you mean?

[mahlermaniac]

Jmenz is referring to potentially dangerous jobs youth in the past performed prior to child labor laws.
Chimney sweep, mining, etc

The canary refers to this:

(An allusion to caged canaries mining workers would carry down into the tunnels with them. If dangerous gases such as methane or carbon monoxide leaked into the mine-shaft, the gases would kill the canary before killing the miners.)

[keyofc]

Thanks Mahler!

That's very interesting - something I should have known = since I had a relative that was a coal miner!
Yes - I guess looking at things like that - the expectations of kids don't seem as severe!

[keypeg]

I'm thinking that child labour with chimney sweeps and miners was not about expectations of children at all, but pure exploitation.  When you have expectations of children, then you are thinking of what that child can reach.  The kid being stuck down a chimney wasn't expected to reach anything.  He was just a convenient size.

[ajspiano]

I'm thinking that child labour with chimney sweeps and miners was not about expectations of children at all, but pure exploitation.  When you have expectations of children, then you are thinking of what that child can reach.  The kid being stuck down a chimney wasn't expected to reach anything.  He was just a convenient size.

Perhaps, but they were put to work doing a job that they could do.. in the same way that anyone with certain skills does a certain job. We think of it now as unreasonable exploitation.. years ago though kids were expected to earn their keep at a much younger age, and they were able to do so because they were not legally required to go to school for such a long time.

[keypeg]

Perhaps, but they were put to work doing a job that they could do.. in the same way that anyone with certain skills does a certain job. We think of it now as unreasonable exploitation.. years ago though kids were expected to earn their keep at a much younger age, and they were able to do so because they were not legally required to go to school for such a long time.

Samuel Clemens lived in those days, and he was against it.  In fact, his own father was put into pauper's prison along with the whole family at one point.  The kids grew up - if they managed to survive - unskilled, and perpetuating the same cycle of poverty.

Actually, we were talking about expectations that were for the sake of a child's growth.  The chimney sweep story does not fit this, because it was not done for the sake of the child.  It was done for self-serving reasons.  You cannot compare the two.  If you expect things of a piano student, it is not because the child playing well will do anything for you.

[lilla]

I have had students cry on the bench from time to time.  Most recently, there were big crocodile tears brimming in their eyes which I only saw when I looked directly at them.  In both cases I was reminding them that they must practice.  That we couldn't make progress if they didn't do their part during the week.  This is after much patience, many weeks of no progress, many reminders, much instruction on how to practice, notes to parents, etc.  Out of frustration, I finally reprimanded them for not practicing.  Kindly, patiently, but seriously.  One a first grader, and the other a fifth grader.  One from a large family, one an only child.  One from a blended well to do family long established in the community.  The other from an immigrant family.  In my opinion, the large tears come from the fact that children today are seldom held accountable.  They are not used to being criticized.  When I was a child, if you stepped out of line, or didn't complete your work, you heard about it.  From parents, teachers, neighbors, coaches, etc.  We are under-estimating our children today by insulating them from repercussions of not completing their responsibilities.  That's why they cry.  (this is not addressing the students on my bench who are in tears due to stress.  Another situation having to do with over-scheduling and over expectations from parents.  JMHO

[keypeg]

.

[anakha13]

I've had a 5 year old student cry in a lesson as well (a girl). So I know how it feels and how frustrating it can be, especially when you've tried everything to get their interest and did not raise your voice or do anything inappropriate (she cried coz she didn't want to do a particular song, so I said OK, and then she asked for a lolly, and I denied it to her).

Students need to know their boundaries. This kid has gotten better over time, and I have spoken to her mother on several occasions concerning her spoilt brat behaviour. Thankfully her mother took my side and told her because she is the only grandchild she is spoilt rotten. I think it's not cool seeing a kid cry, but sometimes you have to be firm. With littler children, if they don't want to do something I introduce them to something else, like clapping or improvising, or clapping with the metronome, but they can't refuse to do things all the time. I also make them work to get a reward or say 'so and so got 3 lollies the other day because they were so good. I wonder who is going to get the big prize at the end of the year for being the best student'.

Personally, I think it's just having to deal with other parents' problems training their children that sucks as a teacher.

[dima_76557]

[...]  JMHO

I am student myself, but not child anymore. Sounds like you have very sad view on children's psychology. Crying by children can have many more reasons than you say. Blocked physically, blocked emotionally, fear to make mistakes, uncertainty, doubt, some prefer man teacher, some woman teacher but cannot say, some cannot solve problems without qualified help during homework, etc. etc. Open your antenna for their true feelings and problems please.

[bernadette60614]

Let's assume:

He's doing the best he can...whether he has ADHD or something else.

He has to continue lessons...whether it is because his parents have forced him to or he asked to and his parents have made him commit to taking lessons for a certain time period.

What is your goal and how do you achieve it?

Our son has a learning disability, and he does try his utmost.  He has cried from frustration, feelings of stupidity (it is heart breaking to hear him say: "Oh, Mom, I think my brain is broken.").  My goal as his teacher is to help him reach the maximum of his ability (of course, before I ship him down to the most lucrative coal mine assignment.)

If he's crying, we'll stop...take a break and we'll try a different approach. There is, in my experience, more than one way to teach a skill...and knowing how to tailor teaching to our son's personality and abilities has resulted in significant progress.

[keypeg]

lilla, I have been pondering your post for a day.  Your conclusion was that your two students had tears in their eyes because these days children are not "held accountable".  I didn't see the connection.  Then finally realized that the clue may be in "held accountable".

My philosophy centers around "taking responsibility", and "experiencing consequences".  Yours is in "being held accountable" and again, "consequences".  I have a feeling that there is a difference between the two ideas.  First I thought they were different words for the same thing.  If a child takes responsibility, then he is involved in his own learning, and does what he needs to do.  Your students didn't practice.  The consequences of not taking responsibility (not practicing) is that you end up playing poorly, and messing up in front of the teacher.  If I point out to my student that his playing is horrid because he has not practised, and if he practises his playing will not be horrid, this will not lead to tears.  But you said that your scenario ended up in tears.  That's where we must be thinking of different things.  So I thought about "being held accountable".

When I read these words, I see something being done to the student, rather than the student doing something (taking responsibility).  My mind jumped immediately to crimes: you have stolen, and you get punished, or are forced to give restitution.  You were reckless and hurt someone in an accident, and get punished, pay a fine.  You were rude and hurt someone's feelings, and you are forced to apologize.  You are being held accountable - nobody is bailing you out - and somebody is doing something to you.  The "consequences" in these scenarios are unpleasant things, punishment, judgment.  Yes, that would make somebody cry, especially if they've been bailed out all the time.  So is that it?  That the children were not used to somebody being displeased with them?

Or is it that both children have been told that everything they do is wonderful, so that this bursts their bubble?  One would think, though, that being told they're wonderful ultimately is boring, because it does not lead to practising.  Humans - any intelligent living creature - is designed for challenges and achievement.  That's why kids play video games, where they can continue upping their skills.  How do we channel that back into learning, and how did it disappear from learning in the first place?  What's happening in the schools?

[keypeg]

Still on the tangent of accountability, and the way the world has changed from what it was in the past - which lilla wrote about.  I'm almost 60 so I don't know whether we're the same age and thinking of similar pasts.  It appears that those who began school in the 1950's had a different experience than those who began in the 1960's.  Not only did the hippy movement blossom in the late 60's, but when I began school they were experimenting and changing things.  Every year we'd hear, "Class, we're going to try something brand new this year."

I came upon some old films from the 1950's, where they were guiding young people.  There were clips on good manners, on posture, healthy eating,  grooming, "saying no".   They must have been put out by the government, and were meant to guide society, and offer up ideal models.  They were offering guidance, and they also modeled a world where parents and teachers were the proper guides for young people.

An interesting thing about these clips is that the adults did not relate to the kids through reward and punishment.  They treated them as intelligent and capable of thinking things through.  "Consequences" were the results of your actions - if you don't study, you don't do well; if you're mean to people, they won't want to be around you.  The outlook was surprisingly modern.

Another feature is that the adults were there for the kids.  They were not frantically chasing two careers to make ends meet, selfishly pushing kids to get high grades to make them look good, enrolling them in too many activities with everyone rushing around.  They did less things, and they had time.  Somehow I think our kids are not being "spoiled" - I think they're often lost, because nobody is around anymore to give guidance and have time for them.  Ultimately it's our society that has been whipped into a frenzy, and this has to stop.

[nyiregyhazi]

Still on the tangent of accountability, and the way the world has changed from what it was in the past - which lilla wrote about.  I'm almost 60 so I don't know whether we're the same age and thinking of similar pasts.  It appears that those who began school in the 1950's had a different experience than those who began in the 1960's.  Not only did the hippy movement blossom in the late 60's, but when I began school they were experimenting and changing things.  Every year we'd hear, "Class, we're going to try something brand new this year."

I came upon some old films from the 1950's, where they were guiding young people.  There were clips on good manners, on posture, healthy eating,  grooming, "saying no".   They must have been put out by the government, and were meant to guide society, and offer up ideal models.  They were offering guidance, and they also modeled a world where parents and teachers were the proper guides for young people.

An interesting thing about these clips is that the adults did not relate to the kids through reward and punishment.  They treated them as intelligent and capable of thinking things through

Who says they worked? Kids don't care about consequences. Left to their own devices, they neglect countless things in their own interests. So do adults. Humans are not rational creatures. Realising that you don't improve without practise doesn't make it happen. I've seen some extremely enthusiastic students who I repeated this to week after week and spent lesson after lesson showing them how to practise in a way that creates progress. Still nothing. It was sad to see such genuine enthusiasm leading nowhere- and rationalising the fact that you don't improve if you don't practise did nothing.

I'm not a disciplinarian myself, but the other poster makes perfectly valid points. Kids don't base their amount of practise on having thought things through. There's good reason why children have to be told that going to school is compulsory- because as far as most are concerned they'd sooner be left to do as they please than consider the consequences of receiving no education. Kids who practise because you ask them to consider that it's the only way to improve are a lucky exception, not a rule. They naturally live life in the moment, not in consideration of the future. The reason many kids do their homework fine but don't practise for lessons is that they get punished for missed homework, but are let off with mere rationalisations if they miss practising. Although not really in my nature, I often feel I should be far less tolerant and understanding. If their school teachers simply said to a kid that they missed out on some education by not doing their homework, they wouldn't be in a habit of doing that either.

[keypeg]

Who says they worked? Kids don't care about consequences. Left to their own devices, they neglect countless things in their own interests. So do adults. .........

I.....  Kids don't base their amount of practise on having thought things through. There's good reason why children have to be told that going to school is compulsory....

When you teach, you are dealing with the results of parenting choices.  It's not far enough down the chain to see the nature of things.  If kids are able to take responsibility for their choices, then they will do so.  I raised my own children that way, and the results are as I expected and hoped they would be.  And by the time they did enter the school system, they were also doing things out of choice, weighing things.  Each of them at some point told a teacher that they wanted to do more than was asked, in regards to some assignment.

By the way --- telling children that going to school is compulsory, is a lie.  If that were so, homeschooling would not exist.  And often homeschooling is chosen BECAUSE you want the children to be able to learn at full capacity.  It depends what country you are in, but in many parts of the world, homeschooling is a choice.

[nyiregyhazi]

When you teach, you are dealing with the results of parenting choices.  It's not far enough down the chain to see the nature of things.  If kids are able to take responsibility for their choices, then they will do so.  I raised my own children that way, and the results are as I expected and hoped they would be.  And by the time they did enter the school system, they were also doing things out of choice, weighing things.  Each of them at some point told a teacher that they wanted to do more than was asked, in regards to some assignment.

By the way --- telling children that going to school is compulsory, is a lie.  If that were so, homeschooling would not exist.  And often homeschooling is chosen BECAUSE you want the children to be able to learn at full capacity.  It depends what country you are in, but in many parts of the world, homeschooling is a choice.

I don't think it's a "lie" to fail to tell children that school is not compulsory if their parents would like to quit work and teach them at home. And isn't it called home-schooling for a reason- ie that it's the compulsory going to school that I mentioned (and not something that the kid can decide to drop out of). A school is not merely a physical building, otherwise it wouldn't be called home-schooling.

Anyway, that much is beside the real point, which is that average children are a world apart from the example of your own children. If broad premises are to be made about kids, it makes no sense to draw them out of a miniscule exception rather than out of what is overwhelming more typical. Make things optional and most will not bother- including a lot of students who have enthusiasm yet no capacity to weight practise against scope for improvement. Your premise begins with a conditional "if" that is rarely so.

[keypeg]

I don't think it's a "lie" to fail to tell children that school is not compulsory if their parents would like to quit work and teach them at home. 

Telling children that school is compulsory - which is what you suggested - is a lie, because it's not true.

Anyway, that much is beside the real point, which is that average children are a world apart from the example of your own children.

At the time that we homeschooled, we also interfaced with other families who had made the same choice.  By and large the behaviours and attitudes were similar, and we were all "exceptions".  There was also feedback at the time.  Homeschoolers here will take advantage of programs offered to schools for field trips if they can get the numbers together.  The facilitators would comment at the alertness, interest, good attitude that they found among homeschooled children versus those being schooled.  School teachers getting formerly homeschooled kids who were reintegrating into the system also saw greater maturity, independence, taking responsibility etc.

I chose to homeschool after having taught in the public school system, and weighing what I saw there.  I hypothesized about the nature of people and children, along with the possibility that our educational system and maybe parenting choices were actually causing the kinds of attitudes you deplore.  If it's the norm, is it because of human nature, or because of what we do?  I had also read John Holt at the time.  (My children are now in their late 20's).

You can take an analogy to childbirth practices - another thing we challenged at the time - where the mother was drugged to the hilt, and the infant was taken away for several hours and fed lots of formula to flush the bilirubin.  It was considered "normal" for newborns to be groggy, need monitoring to see if they were still breathing, and to have jaundice.  But if the drugging was taken away, the babies were alert.  If they were allowed to nurse immediately after birth, the colostrum in the first mother's milk solved the bilirubin problem.  These babies were "not normal" because they were alert, healthy, and didn't suffer from jaundice.  It's often a chicken-egg thing.  What is the norm because everyone does a certain thing, and what is the norm because it actually reflects nature?

[nyiregyhazi]

Homeschooling is still school- not merely by definition but by the word itself. Regardless, the situationally relevant issue is that children cannot opt out of school- even if they are in a position to be home-SCHOOLED, rather than attend a physical school. If kept there by being treated as adults who appreciate cause and effect and are allowed to choose, virtually all simply wouldn't be there at all. Even those who choose got there by having their right to choose restricted. Do we tell toddlers they can eat whatever they like and go wherever they please? No. If you haven't learned to make good decisions, you need to have them made for you- not merely advised on how to make your own decisions.

The rest of what you say is a whole different subject that I won't personally get involved in. I'm not out to change the world but to deal with it as it actually stands right now. As you say, the home schooled children you met were the exception. Your idea of using reason may work on such kids, but it does not work on the average kid. Average kids go to school because they have to and do their homework because they have to. I'm not an authoritarian, but we shouldn't forget the fact that given a choice the average kid will not bother. It's the existence of punishment that makes kids go to school and do homework. If merely told it's in their own interests, 90 percent (to give what is probably a very conservatively low figure) wouldn't bother. When looking at general issues we need to consider general reality- not an idealised reality than only accurately applies to the exceptions. It's all very fashionable to think that treating kids as adults will make them do stuff off their own bat, but that usually works poorly enough on adults, nevermind kids.

[keypeg]

We began with the idea of what is the "nature" of children, as you set it out.  But you get children who have already been raised a certain way, and who attend school.  Therefore what you are seeing does not necessarily indicate what their nature is.  It is the combination of their nature, and how they have been educated and raised.  You may be seeing the results of that.

In the homeschooling that I did, I hypthesized that the nature of children or humans, period, is such, that the are actually intrinsically motivated to learn, and that we as a society interfere with that.  This was also the premise of John Holt, who was an educator and made careful scientific observations.  The type of homeschooling that I did differed from what happens in school, because I made room for intrinsic learning.  Schools that do the same thing would have the same results.  Only that in a situation of teaching many students at the same time, that is much harder to do.

So going back to the idea of what the nature of children and people really is, you must take into account that the people that you see have gone through a particular process, and that this process will affect their behaviour.  You cannot, therefore, say that their nature is a particular way, because unless you have examined two types of processes, you don't know enough.

You are all for investigation and experimentation in physical playing.  It would be good to extend that to this as well.  I.e. open mindedness, and open to possibilities beyond what we know from our present experiences.

And with that I'll end my side of this tangent, because it is getting away from the topic.

[nyiregyhazi]

We began with the idea of what is the "nature" of children, as you set it out.  But you get children who have already been raised a certain way, and who attend school.  Therefore what you are seeing does not necessarily indicate what their nature is.  It is the combination of their nature, and how they have been educated and raised.  You may be seeing the results of that.

In the homeschooling that I did, I hypthesized that the nature of children or humans, period, is such, that the are actually intrinsically motivated to learn, and that we as a society interfere with that.  This was also the premise of John Holt, who was an educator and made careful scientific observations.  The type of homeschooling that I did differed from what happens in school, because I made room for intrinsic learning.  Schools that do the same thing would have the same results.  Only that in a situation of teaching many students at the same time, that is much harder to do.

So going back to the idea of what the nature of children and people really is, you must take into account that the people that you see have gone through a particular process, and that this process will affect their behaviour.  You cannot, therefore, say that their nature is a particular way, because unless you have examined two types of processes, you don't know enough.

You are all for investigation and experimentation in physical playing.  It would be good to extend that to this as well.  I.e. open mindedness, and open to possibilities beyond what we know from our present experiences.

And with that I'll end my side of this tangent, because it is getting away from the topic.

I don't greatly care about the background. There's very little I can do to change that in a piano lesson. I care about the pragmatic reality of what I am actually dealing with in the present and what approach fits with that. Rationalising with a child who doesn't practise does not work on the majority of kids. We can theorise all we like about whether kids are geared to learn or not. It doesn't change the fact that given the option, very few children will do things simply because they have been made to understand it's better for them. Take something as simple as eating vegetables. Conversely, most kids WILL go to school and do homework for the reason that are otherwise punished (and would not do so if it were left to them to choose).

The background to leads to this may be interesting, but it does have any bearing on what we have to deal with in the present day real world- which is not brimming with keen children who are desperate to work and practise when left to their own devices. Such children are exceptions and you cannot build useful strategy around the exceptions. With all your frequent talk about not applying generalisations, I'm surprised to see you so keen to apply one based on what is not even a regular occurrence, never mind a prevailing trend.

[keypeg]

It began with the idea that this was the NATURE of children and of human beings.  If it is not their nature, but is actually caused by upbringing, then it can be changed.  As an educator, when a behaviour is due to a cause, then I can address the cause and change the behaviour.  If you ignore the cause, then you can't change anything.

[keypeg]

This is getting side tracked.  I posted a number of ideas, and was addressing Lilla and her post.  One detail has been taken out of what I wrote.  I'm interested in hearing especially from Lilla, and also from others about the other ideas.

[nyiregyhazi]

I don't know how many kids you have taught academic subjects, or tutored when they were having problems.  I have done both.  These are the kids who have had learning knocked right out of them.  The damage from this kind of approach is very hard to do.  The cause of their school problems is DUE to this attitude by their elders.

Maybe, maybe not. But it's not a simplistic binary scenario of punish ruthlessly or leave kids to do anything they please. What we can say for definite is that when children only have to do things that they feel like (and that our only tool is to explain why behaving in certain ways is in their own interest) the overwhelming majority will not act in their own interests. If adult smokers are more interested in short term gratification than health risks, it's plain silly to think that an average child might be any different. There's no pragmatic way to look at the issue without accepting this as objective fact. Anything that refuses to accept it is based on wishful thinking that tries in vain to apply a rule of the few to the many.

This is no "detail". You portrayed it as if outrageous to think that the concept of punishment for poor behaviour might ever be useful (and justified it with reference to a minority scenario that has no realistic bearing on most ordinary kids)

[keypeg]

What we can say for definite is that when children only have to do things that they feel like (and that our only tool is to explain why behaving in certain ways is in their own interest) the overwhelming majority will not act in their own interests.

No, we cannot say that, for definite or otherwise.

[nyiregyhazi]

No, we cannot say that, for definite or otherwise.

Well, if you'd happily send young kids off to a desert island unsupervised and trust that it wouldn't end up like "Lord of the Flies", you're remarkably trusting and optimistic. Even if there's a certain age at which most people learn to act in their own interest, there's no question that a majority of children beneath a certain age will not. A parent who leaves it up to their child as to whether they want to run across a main road or not will not have children for long. Things that are learned have been enforced. You don't simply explain to the child that it's bad for them to run into a road and then trust them not to from the start. Similarly, practise requires some form of enforcement. Saying it's good for them will go nowhere, if they haven't learned to put effort in. No two situations are the same and it's ridiculous to suggest that punishment (actually it was merely the term "accountability", come to think of it) is never appropriate.

[timothy42b]

Just a rare on-topic thought.

It isn't always a bad thing for a child to have a safe place to cry without fear of being judged for it. 

[keypeg]

Nier., you're making an awful lot of assumptions, and then building on them.  I'm done.