Neither the Flynn effect nor the existence of exceptionally gifted children are contrary to Piaget's theory; improved early childhood nutrition and education provide a better foundation for later intellectual development to build upon, and exceptionally gifted kids would go through the same developmental stages as their peers, just faster, the same as some exceptional children develop physically much quicker than other children.
Piaget's theory suggest that at particularly
ages we all go through different stages of development. It is the common way to view things, but unfortunately, it hinders the growth of many many children who do not fit the "expected" mold.
Many revolutionaries in education began their work because they realized something was wrong with Piaget's theory. In part, this is the reason many children "don't fit in" in traditional schools.
One of those revolutionaries was Daniel Green, who started the Sudbury Valley School. At Sudbury Valley, children from the age of 4/5-18 create the school that they want through town hall meeting. There are no "teachers". The adults are equal to the children, and the school is run by a vote, with everyone carrying one vote. Naturally, the children hold a majority. The bylaws, the budget, the judicial committee, the corporations, are all run by the children beginning at age 4. The public, and many private schools, may be convinced of Piaget, but after spending a few days in a school like this, most people will have forgotten him.
From what I've seen, if a child is with adults who constantly explain the "whys" and the "hows" and are willing to go deeper and deeper into a subject, by the time the are 3-4ish, many are thinking critically. There are so many things that are possible in the world, and every generation we find this to be true.
Critical thinking in young children - Google Books
I'll echo others statements that spanking can't be shown to contribute to general societal ills, and that children who are raised to be obedient to parents are not predisposed to be indiscriminantly obedient to other adults. For that matter, children that are trusting/cooperative with parents are not particularly likely to be trusting/cooperative with outsiders unless they are specifically taught and habituated to be so, which in turn is VERY reflective of adult society (research the differences between "bridging" social capital and "bonding" social capital). Finally, a child who is old enough to know what action causes a spanking will not subsequently view its mother-centric world as insecure/unjust/hostile unless the mother applies the punishment inconsistently.
The ideology/pedagogy that supports spanking can be show to contribute to societal ills. Raising obedient/spanked children(the general American pedagogy) does not produce happy, healthy, adults. Can you show me something that says that spanking and obedience produces happy, healthy, emotionally/socially competent adults? If not, what does spanking "work" to do in the long-term?
A violation of the child usually does take trust, and I don't know too many children who are weary of other adults(besides their parents) beyond the age of 4 when most children enter pre-school. And even if they are weary of adults, they are nonetheless expected to go in and "put on a happy face". Beginning around 3, and sometimes before if the child was in daycare, they are expected to listen to and follow the rules of a number of strange adults. The mother or father may have very well just met the strange caretakers the very day the child is to attend, or perhaps a few days before; but nonetheless, the parents and the child are expected to trust this strange person to put the needs of the young child(and however many others) first. Children are taught, at a very young age, that other "adults" are to be respected, and upheld as authority figures-even if they don't know them, and even if these other adults can and do pose a very real threat to the child's existence and mental health(the adult is aware of this).
The message seems very clear to me. The child does not need to really "know" the adults who care for him in order to be expected to obey them. The child does not need to approve of the actions of the adult in order to feel compelled(through teaching) to listen to the adult against his own desires or will. This is the entire point of Western pedagogy, to bring the will of the child in line with the dominant culture-to "socialize". That other adults are given parental pre-approval seems irrelevant to me. Most children who are killed are killed by their parents. Most children who are molested are molested by a family member or close friend. It is the case that not all parents love their children in the first place, but it is true that all children love their parents. This is all so easy to take advantage of. Obedience is convenient to the adult, but has been quite dangerous for the child.
There is a book called "Inventing The Child" which put a lot of this into perspective for me. The book analyze culture and literature; particularly, it examines how the cultural stories we repeat over and over essentially help us to reinforce the ideas of the dominant culture(in this case, dominant pedagogy). Analysis are made of Grimm's Little Red Riding Hood, and appropriate questions are asked. Firstly, why do we repeat this story? It is a story of a young, trusting, little girl whose mother sends her into the woods with a predator(the wolf). The mother is aware that predator exist in the woods, so offers her daughter a light precaution, but no protection(the mother doesn't go into the woods herself). The child is sent off to give her grandmother a fruit basket. You know the story...The moral is that "the world out there" is a dangerous place. An alternative view is that the danger was in Little Red Riding Hood's house, and the dangerous "thing" was her mother indeed. As it was her mother who took advantage of her trust, and literally threw her out with the wolves.
The author examines Hansel and Gretal, again children left alone to be devoured by predators. He then compares the above stories to our modern day stories, particularly stories that we all love created by Disney. Over and over the theme is: children left alone, with parents who have often been tragically murdered or killed somehow. The child is left to fend for himself, but in the end, all is well when they go off and marry a prince(or, in the case of the prince, rule the world/land). The message these stories send? The author believes it is that children are all alone in this world, left to encounter danger and death-to no fault of their parents, of course(after all, they died, or were weak, or just couldn't help). But in the end, we all turn out
just fine, and so what
really is the big deal with the way children are treated anyway? Most of us grow up mysteriously happy and healthy, no matter what was done to us.
Although, there is such thing as economic violence, and psychologist Robin Grille has made some interesting connections between a country's pedagogy, and the degree of economic violence that occurs within.
Very cool way to put it all(ie, jellyfish, brickwall, backbone).
