why do we want our children to be challenged?

[Anonymous]

Genuine question. I don't have school aged kids yet so maybe the answer will magically present itself to me when I do, but I've been thinking about it for a long time. Life is hard. There are a ton of challenges. Why are we so focused on our kids being challenged especially in elementary school? Why don't we just want them to play? Is it that people want to give their kids the best shot of succeeding-based on our own personal standards, not the ones that our children may eventually have?
Hoping for honest nonjudgemental conversation here. I am genuinely curious. I feel like I don't want my children to be bored, but I don't necessarily want them to feel challenged either--certainly not all the time. Some of the time, yes, of they will be intolerable adults, and I do think some level of challenge is necessary for growth. But I don't think I really want my young children to feel academically challenged. It seems like life offers up more than enough non academic challenges, perhaps especially for young children who have to learn to navigate a world that can be very confusing and overwhelming.
Very curious to hear other thoughts!

[Anonymous]

I want my children to be engaged in elementary school. So far, it hasn't happened. Challenge is one way to keep a child engaged. Interesting work is another better way. But math worksheets are repetitious and uninteresting, and the reading centers aren't much better. Science/social studies can be interesting, but is the first thing to get cut when time is short.

[Anonymous]

If you know anything about child development, it is when a child is challenged that real learning occurs.

Vygotsky calls it the Zone of Proximal Development - that space between what a child can do independently and what a child can do with assistance. This is the area where challenge should occur.

Piaget has pointed out that children go through stages of development and in essence, learning occurs during periods of disequilibrium.

So, for children to learn, they need challenges. However, this does not mean that EVERYTHING must be a challenge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I want my children to be engaged in elementary school. So far, it hasn't happened. Challenge is one way to keep a child engaged. Interesting work is another better way. But math worksheets are repetitious and uninteresting, and the reading centers aren't much better. Science/social studies can be interesting, but is the first thing to get cut when time is short.

OP here. Total agreement on all of this (I am a teacher and I HATE math worksheets, reading centers, and the lack of time for the other stuff!) Maybe part of what I am trying to work through is the line between engaging and challenging, or being engaged in a way that feels pleasingly challenging vs adding stress.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you know anything about child development, it is when a child is challenged that real learning occurs.

Vygotsky calls it the Zone of Proximal Development - that space between what a child can do independently and what a child can do with assistance. This is the area where challenge should occur.

Piaget has pointed out that children go through stages of development and in essence, learning occurs during periods of disequilibrium.

So, for children to learn, they need challenges. However, this does not mean that EVERYTHING must be a challenge.

Yes, I have 2 degrees in early ed. Totally agree about ZPDs. I guess my concern is more that we are challenging too much and/or that that seems to be the main focus for many people. Does that make sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know anything about child development, it is when a child is challenged that real learning occurs.

Vygotsky calls it the Zone of Proximal Development - that space between what a child can do independently and what a child can do with assistance. This is the area where challenge should occur.

Piaget has pointed out that children go through stages of development and in essence, learning occurs during periods of disequilibrium.

So, for children to learn, they need challenges. However, this does not mean that EVERYTHING must be a challenge.

Yes, I have 2 degrees in early ed. Totally agree about ZPDs. I guess my concern is more that we are challenging too much and/or that that seems to be the main focus for many people. Does that make sense?

You are probably right. I am a retired teacher (and posted before you). I remember the days when teaching and learning wasn’t only challenging, but it was actually fun..... cooking with kids, encouraging block play (even in 1st and 2nd grade), having a sand table, using puppets...... I could go on and on. I think my kids were learning AND were challenge - but it was fun (for them AND me). We didn’t feel the need to move through the curriculum at such a rapid pace... and, ironically, I think my kids learned more than kids today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know anything about child development, it is when a child is challenged that real learning occurs.

Vygotsky calls it the Zone of Proximal Development - that space between what a child can do independently and what a child can do with assistance. This is the area where challenge should occur.

Piaget has pointed out that children go through stages of development and in essence, learning occurs during periods of disequilibrium.

So, for children to learn, they need challenges. However, this does not mean that EVERYTHING must be a challenge.

Yes, I have 2 degrees in early ed. Totally agree about ZPDs. I guess my concern is more that we are challenging too much and/or that that seems to be the main focus for many people. Does that make sense?

You are probably right. I am a retired teacher (and posted before you). I remember the days when teaching and learning wasn’t only challenging, but it was actually fun..... cooking with kids, encouraging block play (even in 1st and 2nd grade), having a sand table, using puppets...... I could go on and on. I think my kids were learning AND were challenge - but it was fun (for them AND me). We didn’t feel the need to move through the curriculum at such a rapid pace... and, ironically, I think my kids learned more than kids today.

(OP) YES so much this. Children learn best through play and we know it. I would argue even older kids learn best through play. And yet we just seem to care--maybe especially in this area--about rigor. And I am not at all anti-rigor!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you know anything about child development, it is when a child is challenged that real learning occurs.

Vygotsky calls it the Zone of Proximal Development - that space between what a child can do independently and what a child can do with assistance. This is the area where challenge should occur.

Piaget has pointed out that children go through stages of development and in essence, learning occurs during periods of disequilibrium.

So, for children to learn, they need challenges. However, this does not mean that EVERYTHING must be a challenge.

Vygotsky and Piaget both say that children learn best when they are engaged in activities that are challenging to them. But neither says that the challenge has to come from the teachers.

People here talk about "challenge" as something that adults provide to children, rather than as something that children do for themselves if you prepare the environment and step back. In fact, when public schools attempt to do that, through structures like independent reading or writer's workshop, people complain because they want their kids pushed through structures like spelling lists and reading groups that remove the responsibility for challenge from students and place it on adults. These things essentially teach kids to be passive learners, reducing the likelihood that they'll seek out challenge in the future. There's nothing in Vygotsky or Piaget that supports that thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you know anything about child development, it is when a child is challenged that real learning occurs.

Vygotsky calls it the Zone of Proximal Development - that space between what a child can do independently and what a child can do with assistance. This is the area where challenge should occur.

Piaget has pointed out that children go through stages of development and in essence, learning occurs during periods of disequilibrium.

So, for children to learn, they need challenges. However, this does not mean that EVERYTHING must be a challenge.

Vygotsky and Piaget both say that children learn best when they are engaged in activities that are challenging to them. But neither says that the challenge has to come from the teachers.

People here talk about "challenge" as something that adults provide to children, rather than as something that children do for themselves if you prepare the environment and step back. In fact, when public schools attempt to do that, through structures like independent reading or writer's workshop, people complain because they want their kids pushed through structures like spelling lists and reading groups that remove the responsibility for challenge from students and place it on adults. These things essentially teach kids to be passive learners, reducing the likelihood that they'll seek out challenge in the future. There's nothing in Vygotsky or Piaget that supports that thinking.

I am the pp and totally agree with your comments.

[Anonymous]

When I say "challenged" I mean teach my child something new. Stretch her mind. Ask her to consider something she hasn't before. it is the reason I send my daughter to school. To become an educated human being and I don't see how this occurs without being "challenged."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I say "challenged" I mean teach my child something new. Stretch her mind. Ask her to consider something she hasn't before. it is the reason I send my daughter to school. To become an educated human being and I don't see how this occurs without being "challenged."

All the verbs you use are passive ones. They assume that your kid can only learn through what is spoon fed for her.

Kids learn so many different ways, through so many different types of activities. Being taught something specific by a teacher is just one small part of that.

[Anonymous]

I have a very bright child for whom many things are easy. I was very similar when I was a child. I was not asked to stretch early or often enough. By he time I reached high school, I had become intellectually lazy. By that, I mean that I only pursued subjects that were interesting and easy for me. I never learned to persevere through subjects that were harder or somewhat boring. I want my daughter to be chellaneed so that she learns to push through difficulties, and doesn't avoid anything that isn't easy for her.

[Anonymous]

OP here--thanks for the very thoughtful responses. Love the idea that we are obsessed in this area with challenge coming from the adults! (I don't love that that's a thing. But I love that someone articulated it so well!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a very bright child for whom many things are easy. I was very similar when I was a child. I was not asked to stretch early or often enough. By he time I reached high school, I had become intellectually lazy. By that, I mean that I only pursued subjects that were interesting and easy for me. I never learned to persevere through subjects that were harder or somewhat boring. I want my daughter to be chellaneed so that she learns to push through difficulties, and doesn't avoid anything that isn't easy for her.

Have you seen the research on praise? I am wondering if your issues are from people telling you you were smart more than it was them not challenging you. Kids, even young adults, who are told they are inherently smart give up way more easily than those who are told they worked hard.

Just a thought. I could be totally off base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Genuine question. I don't have school aged kids yet so maybe the answer will magically present itself to me when I do, but I've been thinking about it for a long time. Life is hard. There are a ton of challenges. Why are we so focused on our kids being challenged especially in elementary school? Why don't we just want them to play? Is it that people want to give their kids the best shot of succeeding-based on our own personal standards, not the ones that our children may eventually have?
Hoping for honest nonjudgemental conversation here. I am genuinely curious. I feel like I don't want my children to be bored, but I don't necessarily want them to feel challenged either--certainly not all the time. Some of the time, yes, of they will be intolerable adults, and I do think some level of challenge is necessary for growth. But I don't think I really want my young children to feel academically challenged. It seems like life offers up more than enough non academic challenges, perhaps especially for young children who have to learn to navigate a world that can be very confusing and overwhelming.
Very curious to hear other thoughts!

Great question OP. I wonder this too when I hear people lamenting that their kids aren't challenged. My daughter is in 5th grade and so far school has been a breeze for her. I'm so glad she's able to finish her homework in class and come home to be free to do what she wants. Oh and she's not "bored" in school either. She finishes her assignments quickly and then moves on to what she really wants to do - read, write, or draw. I'd be thrilled if it could stay this way through high school, but I'm sure things will become "challenging" soon enough.