Why teach a child to read at the age of three?

Let me give you an analogy. Natural development — you planted a seed in the ground and patiently water it, and fertilize the ground. A sprout appears, it stretches, the leaves unfold. You keep watering and fertilizing it, that’s all. «Early development» — you plant a seed, impatiently water, throw fertilizer, constantly add expensive supplements. Finally, a sprout appears — and you grab onto it and let’s pull: “Grow! Faster, I say, grow! Stretch!»

Why teach a child to read at the age of three, for example, using the “Zaitsev cubes” method? Not even so: why does the child himself need to read at 3-4-5 years old? The answer is he doesn’t need it. He wants to run, explore the world, climb somewhere, draw, yell, turn the apartment upside down. This is what develops the intellect, since in children the physical development directly affects the intellectual. But not vice versa! The pool promotes the development of the child much better than any super-early super-methods for the development of super-intelligence. Or geography lessons at age five.

• They are (too) concerned about the success of their children!

But «early development» perfectly develops the vanity of parents. In fact, this is its main function. “We already know all the letters and read them by syllables!” — the mother of a four-year-old child, tortured by many developmental programs and activities, will proudly say on the playground. The industry of “advanced techniques” is built on vanity, promising genius in three years. “No, we all have time, and he / she likes it all very much!” — say offended in the best feelings of the parents. I doubt. Parents really want the child to really like, in addition to the kindergarten, to attend sections of dancing, drawing, modeling, English (!) And swimming, plus music separately. And they will ignore the signs of overwork of the child, and then there will be surprise: “Why does he not like anything? He walked with such a desire! It was so interesting!” (One clarification can be added: “I had so much fun there!” This is the second function of the “schools of early development” — to occupy the time of parents, entertain them and make them feel that they are doing something important and valuable.)

My eldest daughter, Marina, goes to a music school — she sings and plays the flute. She went there because she just loves to sing at home. My wife and I decided this: Mariska will walk as long as she likes it. I have no ambition to raise a great star out of my daughter (the problem is that some teachers may have this ambition …) Therefore, I ask her every week: “Well, shall we go to a music school?” And if it sounds stable: “I don’t want to, I’m tired, I don’t like it there” — we will close the issue with the school. And no «through I can not.»

• Losing a job: what are we losing? And we find

A month ago, the head teacher of the school approached me, in the preparatory group of which my eldest daughter goes: “Your Marina sings so wonderfully! Come here … — we have a school ensemble. I say: «Marishka goes to the music school with us.» «Yes? Well, let him be in the ensemble.” «Not. I don’t want to overwork my daughter,” I didn’t say that I didn’t want to overload myself for the sake of my daughter’s imaginary triumphant successes in the future either. “Well, many of us go like this — they managed to go to a music school, and to a kindergarten, and to a preparatory group, and also to our ensemble and to the pool!” My words about the overload obviously did not find a response.

This is clear. A competitive society that has put success as the basis of its ideology ceases to see a living person and begins to look at him through a prism in which there are only two sides: my success is my failure. And a child is one of the tools for creating a sense of «success» in oneself. And all the juices must be squeezed out of the child: in order to create the illusion of a “good and successful parent”. But what about the child? If he himself reaches for something — good. But if not?