Relativism and the Concept of Self-Esteem

This post will continue the discussion of the effects of relativism on early childhood practices and theories.  This post will zero in on the concept of self-esteem.

The Concept of Self-Esteem
Self-Esteem can be defined as self-love or feeling good about oneself.  No one will dispute that it is important for our emotional well-being to love ourselves.  However, there are times when it is also important to not necessarily like the person we have become.  Change especially positive change in a person's life requires coming to a place where you do not like life the way that it has become.  You may not like the person you have become.  You will still love yourself but will understand you cannot always feel good about yourself.  This is the point where relativism has skewed healthy self-esteem into the unhealthy version we have shoved down our throats on a consistent basis.  Because relativism does not recognize right and wrong, there should never be a point where we should not feel good about ourselves.  Relativism preaches self-esteem without basis in reality.  When we lie, cheat, steal, etc., we still feel good about ourselves because right and wrong are all relative.  What we do is right in our own eyes.  Therefore we never have reason to feel remorse and shame.  In the early childhood world this manifests itself in the mantra "you should never shame a child."  Shaming a child makes them feel bad about themselves and a child should always feel good about themselves.  Really?  Should a child ALWAYS feel good about themselves?  Or should a child always love themselves?  There is a difference.  The first leads to narcissism.  The second leads to self acceptance.

Self-Esteem and the Rise of Narcissism
It does not take much hunting in the national news feed to find at least one article on narcissism nowadays.  It seems millenials have brought this particular personality quirk to the forefront but why?  What is narcissism?  Narcissism can be defined as an egotistical self-love; having an inflated view of one's own appearance and/or accomplishments.  It comes from the Greek myth of Narcissus who fell in love with his own reflection.  Does it surprise anyone that millenials who grew up when the push for self-esteem in children was beginning to really hit its stride now have a problem with narcissism?  These children were taught to always feel good about themselves.  Shaming children ceased to be an accepted way of dealing with bad behavior.  They hardly ever had to truly answer for their mistakes.  Instead everyone else always received the blame.  They grew up in a "victim" culture.  Now we have a generation of entitled, completely self-absorbed young adults that have no sense of responsibility, but they sure do feel good about themselves.  What went wrong?  We did not tie self-esteem to reality.  Children should feel good about themselves when they accomplish something.  Being a productive member of society should have been stressed over just feeling good about simply being.  At this point, I am sure some of you are screaming that children should love themselves no matter what, and you would be correct.  However, there is a huge difference between loving yourself and feeling good about yourself.  This leads me to self-acceptance.

Self-Esteem vs. Self-Acceptance
Whereas self-esteem is feeling good about yourself, self-acceptance is having a healthy view of both your strong and weak points.  Self-acceptance means you love yourself but understand where you need improvement.  We all have weak areas.  We all have sins that easily beset us.  When we understand these areas and accept them, we put ourselves in a position to change them.  You will never change what you do not accept as needing change.  That is the main problem with an overemphasis on self-esteem.  When everything is relative and we are doing what is right in our own eyes, we will never see how we hurt each other.  We will never understand why we never accomplish any goals.  We will never see our own weaknesses.  Narcissists do not see beyond their own point of view.  They feel like you need to improve, but they are fine.  However, when we have a realistic view of who we are as people, we understand our faults and flaws.  We also tend to be more forgiving of other people's faults and flaws.  This helps us to have better relationships.  Narcissists cannot have healthy relationships.  It has been proven.

Conclusion
How does all of this relate to the early childhood world?  Are you teaching children to have a realistic view of themselves or are you teaching them to always feel good about themselves?  If you never point out a child's faults, that child will never understand he/she has a fault.  Remember, the "no shame" mantra comes from the relativism camp.  There is a difference between shaming a child to repentance and shaming a child in a manner that belittles.  The first type tells the child they are better than their behavior.  The second type tells a child they are worthless.  We must bring back the shame that leads to repentance if we want to teach children to have self-acceptance.  Children will continue to grow up to be narcissists until we decide maybe teaching children right and wrong might be a good idea.

I hope you have enjoyed this post.  Goodbye and God bless!! https://linktr.ee/natawade

Language Development for 4 to 5 year olds - Communication (Part 6)

This post will continue the discussion of the component - Expressive Language.  We will finish this component and then move on to begin the component - Speech.  Remember I am taking my information from the Tennessee Early Learning Developmental Standards (TN-ELDS).

Continuing the learning expectation - Uses conventions of speech while expressing ideas, the next performance indicator is:  Understands and uses colloquial expressions in daily conversation.  While people from other cultures may struggle greatly with picking up colloquial expressions when learning English as a second language.  Children in America usually have no issue with this.  Proper grammar proves much more difficult.  In fact, our colloquial expressions often hinder the instruction of proper grammar.  Maybe that is why children pick this up so easily.  Many adults tend to use colloquial expressions in their daily speech rather than proper grammar.

The next performance indicator is:  Talks in more complete and more complex sentences; sentences are related to each other and fit together in thought.  Most children by the time they are 5 years old will conquer this one to some respect.  The complexity of the children's sentences may vary wildly according to whether or not a language delay has come into play.  However, even those with language delays will be putting together complete thoughts using their limited vocabulary unless a moderate to severe developmental delay exists.  Five year olds that have not conquered this particular performance indicator should be tested for developmental delays and/or autism.

Now, we will move on to the learning expectation:  Participates in conversations.  The first performance indicator is:  Takes turns in conversation and interrupts less frequently.  It has been my experience in the last several years that interrupting by 4 year olds has gotten considerably worse.  It may be that the language delays many 4 year olds have been manifesting slow down the development of conversational skills.  However, I blame the overindulgence of American children.  Learning not to interrupt requires that a child develop patience.  Patience does not develop when a child is not corrected.  Children today are hardly ever corrected.  They are redirected.  They have their environments micromanaged in order to avoid power struggles.  They are allowed free rein to do whatever the heck they want to do.  Correction to today's children is a foreign concept.  Therefore, today's children do not develop the patience necessary to have good conversational skills.

The next performance indicator for this learning expectation is:  Engages in "give and take" conversations with friends on topics of interest.  I have seen a few children in the last several years conquer this performance indicator.  However, most children I have observed recently tend to talk "at" each other instead of "with" each other.  I have seen the same trend in adults recently as well.  Americans are becoming very guilty of talking about what they want to talk about without any sense of carrying on a conversation.  The children are picking this trait up from the adults.  Cohesive conversations might be on the verge of extinction.  I blame this on the disappearing of the family dinner table.  Children of the past learned their conversational skills from listening to the adults carry on conversations at the dinner table with family and guests.  We have become a society that talks "at" each other instead of "with" each other.

We will now switch to the component - Speech.  The learning expectation for this one is:  Speaks clearly enough to be understood.  The first performance indicator is:  Generally produces all sounds of language accurately and is easily understood by others.  Most 4 year olds usually speak well enough to be understood by those that spend time with them.  However, I am definitely seeing an uptick in speech problems.  I call the new trend "lazy tongue" because most of the problems deal with the placement of the tongue.  I have worked more in the last two years helping children develop their tongue muscles than ever before.  Children are having problems with more than just a few of the consonant sounds nowadays.  It is becoming necessary to do activities where the children strengthen their tongue muscles.  I blame the sippee cups, and I now have the evidence in which I have been looking for a long time.  I recently started a new two year old child that could not drink from a regular cup.  He had exclusively drunk from a sippee cup since being weaned from the bottle.  It took us a couple of months to conquer drinking from a regular cup.  Therefore, I have watched this child for the "lazy tongue" problems I have seen in other children.  Lo and behold, he has developed every single one of the issues I have been encountering.  It may take us until this child is 5 years old to straighten out all these issues.  He is the worst case of lazy tongue I have encountered.  People, please teach children to use regular cups and only use sippee cups sparingly.

The second performance indicator for this one is:  Learns to say new words easily, even those with 4 or 5 syllables.  With all the speech problems I have been encountering many children are not conquering this one at all.  A lot of children attempt these words but leave out or jumble middle sounds.  At this age it is the middle sounds I have to work on so hard.  With 3 year olds I work on the onset sounds at the beginning of a word only to have to work on the same sound in the middle and end of words at 4 years old.  If I ever go back to school for a second masters, I do believe I will get my degree in speech pathology because I do that job already.

I am going to combine the last two performance indicators for this one.  They are:  Uses a dialect that matches peers and adults in family, neighborhood and part of county in which he lives.  Uses dialect that patterns the rhythm, pitches, stress and intonation of geographic area and cultural background.  Dialect tends to be something children do pick up easily.  If a child has not picked up the dialect of at least their family by 4 years old, I immediately look for developmental delays or other issues.  That is a definite red flag.

I hope you have enjoyed this post.  Goodbye and God bless!! https://linktr.ee/natawade

 

Relativism and the Concept of Child Discipline

This post will continue the discussion of relativism and how it affects early childhood theory and practice.  This particular post will look heavily into history and take a logical approach to some assertions among leading experts on this topic.  Sometimes when one takes a statement and weighs it against history and logic, the philosophical bias becomes more evident.

Relativism and Good and Evil
The most basic premise of relativism involves the nonexistence of a definite good and evil.  Everything falls into different shades of gray.  Therefore, punishing a child because they have done "wrong" contradicts the very foundation of relativism.  Children should be led to better choices not punished for wrongdoing.  However, in the real world we really cannot get away from the concept of good and evil.  Even liberals have their own concept of evil and it usually involves conservatives.  Let a conservative in public life make a mistake or misstep, and liberals will very quickly pounce and label that person with every "evil" label in their arsenal.  How many people have been labeled "bigots," "racists," "homophobes," "sexist," etc. when they took a stand against a liberal point of view.  Believe me, liberals really do have their own concept of good and evil.  It just does not match the conservative point of view.  Therefore, in reality relativism stands for the removal of what has historically been morally right in order for them to push the boundaries of what is acceptable.  They want to do what is right in their own eyes.  History contains a plethora of examples of people following this very philosophy.  Those societies usually imploded.  Please keep that in mind.

A Look at Corporal Punishment from a Logical Point of View
Now, we will turn our attention to corporal punishment.  In this, I am going to play devil's advocate and take the statements made by progressives and liberals on this subject and apply logic to it.  First, we will look at the statement "spanking makes children more violent."  This statement represents the "common knowledge" of today's parenting experts.  I am using an If/Then approach for the rest of this discussion.  If this statement is true, then children should be less violent than they were 30 or 40 years ago.  As more and more parents adopt a "no spanking" policy, we as a society should see a significant drop in the level of violence in children.  Are we seeing a drop in the level of violence?  For this you would need to speak to someone old enough to have seen society both ways.  What do those that have been in childcare for 20 to 30 years say about children today?  Most of them will admit that children have become more violent not less.  I keep up with several childcare chat groups, and it is not uncommon at all for providers and other children to be punched, cussed, or otherwise physically assaulted by 3 and 4 year olds.  I am old enough to know that this type of behavior was not common 30 to 40 years ago.  Up until about 30 years ago most children were still spanked by their parents.  That was the point in our history spanking began to fall out of favor.  Now, spanking has nearly completely fallen out of favor.  Therefore, if the assertion that spanking makes children more violent is true, then we should be seeing a significant drop in the level of violence among children.  We are not.  I will leave it at that.

Is all Corporal Punishment Child Abuse?
Next, we will look at the second most popular stance on corporal punishment.  Many progressives and liberals assert that all corporal punishment is child abuse.  Using the If/Then approach again, let us discuss that.  If all corporal punishment is child abuse, then every or almost every child born before say 1960 was abused.  If every single child from the dawn of time until 1960 suffered abuse as a child, then every person from the dawn of time until 1960 should have shown the effects of toxic stress.  Now, I know some progressives and liberals that would run with that statement and really do some rewriting of history.  However, as an avid student of history I have much more respect for history than that.  Have we had stable communities and societies since the dawn of time?  Yes and no.  However, if even one community or society remained stable for even a few years, that would dispute the claim that all children before 1960 were abused.  Children that endure toxic stress have trouble functioning as adults.  Those children would have problems establishing stable communities and societies.  We have had lots of stable communities and societies that have lasted in some cases thousands of years and in some cases hundreds of years.  All of these stable communities and societies were filled with people that had been spanked as a child.  Remember, there is a huge difference between normal stress and toxic stress.  Normal stress produces fully functioning adults.  Toxic stress produces people incapable of handling the normal stresses of life.  Maybe, just maybe spanking does not fall into the toxic stress category.

The Dangers of Too Liberal of an Interpretation
Progressives and Liberals fail to understand one very important concept.  Laws and regulations need to be specific in their interpretation in order for them to be enforceable.  When laws and regulations are too broadly defined, they leave too much open for interpretation and become nearly impossible to enforce.  When you too broadly define child abuse, you water down the effectiveness of enforcing what is true child abuse.  Have you ever heard of the old proverb, "Strain out a gnat and swallow a camel?"  True child abuse has been around since the dawn of time.  Be careful not to become too broad in what you consider child abuse or you may find yourself going after people that are not abusing their children and completely missing the ones that do.

I hope you have enjoyed this post.  Goodbye and God bless!! https://linktr.ee/natawade

Language Development for 4 to 5 year olds - Communication (Part 5)

This post will continue the discussion of the component - Expressive Language and the learning expectation:  Uses conventions of speech while expressing ideas.  Remember I am taking my information from the Tennessee Early Learning Developmental Standards (TN-ELDS).

We will start with the performance indicator:  Understands "yesterday," "today," and "tomorrow."  Like so many other performance indicators in the language development section, this one very much depends on the child's language exposure.  Those children that have language delays will have trouble with this one.  Those that do not will conquer it easily.  These concepts are picked up in conversations with adults.  For the adults, this will mean that they will have to constantly correct the child's wrong notions of time over and over and over when they are 3 years old.  Many adults do not bother with this very critical step.  Therefore, many children will not conquer this one until they are 5 or 6 years old.

The next performance indicator is:  May use slang (e.g., "Give me five," "Cool!").  Unlike proper language, slang tends to be the one thing most children pick up quite quickly.  I had one little boy that was three years old.  He called the police "Po Po," which we all found quite amusing.  However, this little boy really thought that is what the police were called.  Obviously, every adult around him called the police that, and so he thought that is what they were called.  Adults sometimes forget how powerful their influence can be on the children around them.  Many, many a cuss word has come out of small children's mouths because the adults in their life do not filter their language around the children.  Children pick up slang without effort.  Please, remember that.

That brings us to the next performance indicator:  Generally uses sentences with correct grammar.  This one depends so greatly on a child's language experiences that it should shame adults into using better grammar around their children.  Children that have educated parents and have been read to regularly conquer this one easily.  Children with uneducated parents that never or rarely read to them, use the same level of grammar correctness of the people in their lives.  Children with uneducated parents that try to read to them regularly but still use horrible grammar in their everyday speech will still have children that struggle with this performance indicator.  Remember, I told you in the previous paragraph that children pick up slang without effort.  Picking up correct grammar usage takes time and practice.  It is like everything else in life.  The bad comes easy.  The good comes with hard work and effort.

The next performance indicator is:  Pronounces new words easily.  This one hits on the growing issue of speech problems I have touched on in other posts.  I am seeing more and more speech problems with 3 and 4 year olds than I have seen before.  Children are having more and varied problems with consonant and blend sounds.  I have called this phenomenon "lazy tongue" because most of the problems have to do with tongue placement and usage to create the sounds.  I still have not pinpointed what is causing this problem.  It may be a conglomeration of many different trends coming together to create this particular issue.  Whatever the cause, I am having to work much harder at teaching phonemic awareness and letter sounds these days.  For many of the sounds I am having to break it down to its mechanics and teach the children where to place the tongue and lips to make each sound.  What amazes me is how hard it is for many of the children to do.  The tongue muscle is so underdeveloped that is takes days and sometimes weeks of trying to get the sounds correct.  I have never seen anything like it.

The last performance indicator for this post is:  Has expanding vocabulary (keep in mind that a child knows more words than he says).  This holds true for most 4 year olds.  However, the amount of vocabulary from one four year old to another four year old can vary astronomically.  Some 4 year olds have vocabulary of 1000 words or more.  Some 4 year olds have barely 100 words.  Language delays play heavily into the level of vocabulary a child has.  This one is also heavily affected by how much the child has had an adult read to them.  This diversity of ability makes the jobs of preschool and Headstart teachers difficult.  Trying to catch the children at the bottom end of the skill level up with those at the top level proves impossible in just one year of preschool.  Therefore, this problem spills over into kindergarten and beyond.  Truthfully, those children at the bottom never catch those at the top.  Many of those children at the bottom of the skill level need two years of preschool before kindergarten not just one.  I fear politics will never allow these children to receive the additional instruction they need because many would construe the practice as racist since minority children tend to be the majority of children at the bottom of the skill level.  That is unfortunate for these children.

I hope you have enjoyed this post.  Goodbye and God bless!! https://linktr.ee/natawade

Relativism and the Concept of Choices

This post will look in more depth at the concept of choices in early childhood theory.  We will start with the concept of right and wrong versus social norms.  We will then move on to how social norms play out in society at large.  Finally we will look at the importance of obedience.

Right and Wrong vs. Social Norms
Whether you realize it or not, our society has moved from the concept of right and wrong toward social norms.  Instead of everything being cut and dry or black and white, everything has now become different shades of grey.  The lighter the grey the more "accepted" it is.  The darker the grey the more "misunderstood" it is.  The liberal population of this country want to take us away from set principles of right and wrong.  Why has this happened?  To be brutally honest, liberals do not want to answer to an all-powerful God and His ideas of right and wrong.  They want to do what is right in their own eyes.  What is wrong with that?  A hundred years ago most everyone could answer that question without using too much brain power.  However, since our society has gone down this path for several decades many people do not see the harm in that statement.  What is wrong with everyone doing what is right in their own eyes?  That brings me back to the Boston Marathon Bomber.  In his eyes killing infidels (Americans) was right.  However, what he did was not right in the eyes of anyone in Boston.  This brings us to social norms.  It is the liberal's answer to the conundrum of situations like the Boston Marathon Bomber.  However, the social norms do not necessarily follow the old traditional path of right and wrong.  Many, many behaviors and lifestyles that were once considered wrong have gained prominence in the idea of social norms.  AND if you dare to follow the old ideas of right and wrong and cross their social norms, you are the evil one not the other way around.  For those of us that still hold to the traditional view of right and wrong, it feels like our culture is upside down and backwards.  One of my favorite quotes that I see quite often on Facebook is this:  "Just because a majority says that something is right does not make it right."  A student of history would know this.  Need an example?  The Nazis of Germany were followed by the majority at least in the beginning.  As time went on, the people of Germany began to see the error of their way.  Maybe just maybe Americans will begin to open their eyes and understand the peril of the path they have chosen.

Social Norms and Political Correctness
Moving toward social norms also moves us toward choices over obedience.  In the social norms' mindset everything is a matter of choice.  Removing right and wrong makes the concept of obedience obsolete.  However, has anyone ever stopped to consider the logical conclusion to the path our society has chosen?  When you remove absolutes, everything from laws to customs becomes subject to the whims of the popular mindset of the day.  We already have this to some degree.  It is called political correctness, and more and more it becomes the law of the land.  Many people may not see the harm in political correctness, but as many people are sick to death of constantly doing and saying the wrong thing innocently because they have not gotten the memo on the latest correct thing to do and say.  It has now become politically incorrect to say "you guys."  I say that all the time.  Where does it end?  Where do we reach the point where we achieve absolute political correctness?  We will never reach the end because there will always be someone that wants to push it in a different direction.  Do we really want a society where everything is subject to the whims of the political correctness police?  It has already reached the point of ridiculous.  Personally, I am ready to send the political correctness police packing.  Without absolutes a society drifts from one crazy notion to the next crazy notion.  A society needs stability.  Whether you like them or not, a society needs absolutes.

The Importance of Obedience
Now let us take this into the early childhood realm.  Most of us in the early childhood world understand that children need structure.  However, when you move that structure over into the realm of boundaries many liberals cry "foul."  Can you have one without the other?  Can you provide structure for children and give them complete choice?  The answer to that question is a big NO.  I am sorry, but you cannot have it both ways.  If you want to have structure for children, boundaries must be in place.  To enforce boundaries, obedience is necessary.  Children will not choose of their own accord to be restricted.  It goes against their fallen nature.  The concept of choices in the early childhood world equates the concept of social norms and political correctness in the adult world.  It represents the removal of absolutes from the picture.  I am sorry if this upsets many in the early childhood realm, but the fact remains.  You cannot remove absolutes without creating chaos.  I have seen so many early childhood professionals following the theory of giving children choices thinking they were doing the most wonderful job in the world.  Usually, I leave those classrooms with my teeth chattering because it was utter and complete chaos.  I have been in other classrooms where boundaries were the norm.  Not only were the children well-behaved, but they were also light years ahead of the other classrooms academically.  Children thrive with boundaries in place.  They do not thrive in utter and complete chaos.  The evidence should be overwhelming, but some people are so dead set on removing absolutes that they do not allow themselves to see the true consequences.

I hope you have enjoyed this post.  Goodbye and God bless!! https://linktr.ee/natawade

Language Development for 4 to 5 year olds - Communication (Part 4)

This post will continue the discussion of the component - Expressive Language.  First we will finish the learning expectation:  Uses language for a variety of purposes, and then move on to the next learning expectation.  Remember I am taking my information from the Tennessee Early Learning Developmental Standards (TN-ELDS).

The first performance indicator for this post is:  Talks about something this is not in front of him ("Last night, we went to the movies.")  This performance indicator does usually manifest before a child's fifth birthday, but for some children it may be the month of the child's fifth birthday.  Those children will language delays will not conquer this one until closer to their fifth birthday.  Those without language delays may conquer this one shortly after their fourth birthday.  Some advanced children may conquer this one while they are three years old.  A child must reach a certain level of language maturity to be able to carry out this performance indicator.  In today's society some children will simply not get enough language exposure to develop this one on time.  A great deal of the language delay we see in early childhood settings these days is caused by lack of experiences rather than a physical reason for the delay.  I am sorry, but parents remain the main cause of this type of delay.  Too many parents in America put too little emphasis on reading to their children and other activities that build language skills.

The next performance indicator is:  Easily expresses his feelings, fears, ideas, wishes, and dreams.  This one goes straight to what is called "emotional intelligence," and it is something American children struggle with horribly.  Much has been written and said in recent years trying to help children express their feelings.  Part of the problem involves the language delay we are seeing in so many children.  However, it goes deeper than that.  Unfortunately, a great number of adults cannot easily express their feeling, fears, ideas, wishes, and dreams.  This rubs off on the children in the sphere of influence of these adults.  The bullying epidemic we have seen explode over the last several years has as its root cause this lack of emotional intelligence.  Children do not come by emotional intelligence naturally.  It must be taught and modeled.  However, the adults must possess it first in order to pass it along.  I know we fight against the tide sometimes, but make it a priority to help children develop emotional intelligence along with academic intelligence.  Both are necessary to function in the adult world.

The last performance indicator for this learning expectation is:  Says full name and full address; knows more about where she lives (state, country).  Again ten years ago this was a prerequisite for kindergarten and everyone had to learn this information.  Now, it is not that simple.  Many, many children have more than one address.  Custody division is as such sometimes that they divide weeks between two residences or even within the same week.  Very often children do not share the same last name as their mother anymore, and sometimes not even with their siblings.  Many schools require this information still.  Therefore, the last 3 or 4 months before kindergarten becomes a marathon session of learning this information.  Whereas, years ago children acquired this information in a much more natural way.  The children I presently have in my care that will start kindergarten in a few months knowing their full name but not their address.  One of them has two addresses.  This will be something we have to conquer in the next two months before they start school.  Both of them are already five years old.  As for the knowledge of state and country, unless a child has been in a quality preschool setting, they do not know this information.  It is another item that seems to fall through the cracks these days.

Now we will move on to the learning expectation:  Uses conventions of speech while expressing ideas.  The first performance indicator is:  Uses past, present, and future verb tense.  Again, this one is affected by language delay.  Those children that have not had good language experiences will struggle with using past, present, and future tense correctly in conversation.  Those children that have had good language experiences will conquer this one.  Good books and good conversation experience develop this particular performance indicator.  Nothing can replace the importance of having adults read and talk to children.

I hope you have enjoyed this post.  Goodbye and God bless!! https://linktr.ee/natawade

 

The Role of Relativism in Early Childhood Theory

This post will continue the discussion of philosophical bias in early childhood theory.  Specifically, it will look at the role the philosophical theory of relativism plays in the foundation of many early childhood theories and conclusions.  Remember, theories in the humanities cannot be divorced from their philosophical base.  It is very important, then, to understand the effect this philosophical base plays in the conclusions drawn from said theories.

The Definition of Relativism
The concept of relativism we will discuss for this article is the absence of absolute truth.  All truth is relative to the cultures and circumstances of the situation.  Universal truths for the relativist do not exist.  Therefore, the concept of right and wrong cannot be taught.  Everything comes down to choices based on the what is acceptable and appropriate according to the situation and societal norms.  I should not have to point out that this philosophy is mainly embraced in the agnostic and atheistic Western world.  Most of the world's religions dictate a definite right and wrong, and thus take issue with this philosophy.  Therefore, when dealing with a theory that has as its base the theory of relativism, the first item of business for you to decide is whether or not you believe in a definite right and wrong.  Are there behaviors that are universally wrong?  Are there behaviors that are universally right?  I find it interesting that even in the Western world, some circumstances make even liberals throw out their relativism.  Case in point, the trial of the Boston Marathon Bomber.  In a state that absolutely abhors the death penalty, he received the death penalty to satisfy everyone's sense of justice.  If there are no absolute right and wrong, why would these people need justice in this situation.  For everyone that has a hard time with this concept, I suggest you read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis.  I have never seen someone tear apart relativism like Mr. C. S. Lewis.

Relativism and Choices
Probably the most obvious sign of relativism in early childhood theory is the prevalence of choices over obedience.  Since right and wrong are all relative, it is not proper to teach children right and wrong as they did in the old days.  Children must be led to appropriate choices.  Does this sound familiar early childhood people?  Instead of making a child choose between right and wrong, we give them two positive choices to teach them how to make good choices.  However, when in life as adults do we ever get to choose between two positives?  Do we not most of time have to choose the lesser of two evils or it is a clear choice between a positive we should do versus a negative we want to do?  Is not the latter really the choice that faces most children?  How does two positive choices prepare children for the choices of the real world?  It does not.  However, when you remove the concept of right and wrong, you must find another way to instill social norms.  Do not get me wrong, liberals have their own concept of right and wrong.  They just do not want to call it that.  They want a world without having to answer to a higher authority.  They want to do what is right in their own eyes, but believe me, if you cross their social norms, you will feel the wrath.  They will make you feel like you are the most evil person on the planet because you crossed what they feel is socially acceptable.  I am afraid God built into us a sense of right and wrong that we just cannot shake.  It comes out despite our best efforts to create the world in our own image of reality.

How Relativism Affects Environmental Structure and Practice
You might be wondering how in the world does relativism come into play in how I set up my environment.  The answer to that is one word - accessibility.  How many times does that word accessibility show up in rating scales and accreditation standards?  The concept of accessibility has its roots in the foundation of choices over obedience.  In the world of relativism children should be allowed to grow and discover on their own terms and not the terms of the adult.  Adults should not exercise authority over the children but lead them down appropriate paths.  Children should have access to a multitude of choices and limiting those choices through inaccessibility will hinder their development.  I hope that sounds as silly to you as it does to me.  Early childhood practitioners in parts of the world outside the Western world find this notion of accessibility to be one of the worst concepts of Western philosophy.  They look at this as the reason our children are spoiled brats.  Of course, I have already spoken to how people outside the Western world feel about our notion of choices over obedience.  They understand that the notion of accessibility flows from the concept of choices.  It flies in the face of their cultural foundation.  When I dropped down to unregulated, one of the first things to go out the door was accessibility.  The children in my care have been so much better for it.  I have spoken in other posts about the "poof" environment where everything that is broken or lost is immediately replaced.  Accessibility plays heavily in the "poof" environment, which is not healthy for children.  They will never learn responsibility if everything magically reappears when they have destroyed or lost it.  When my children reach preschool age the destruction of my materials is almost nonexistent.  Toddlers still destroy things but even they soon learn better when those things go away when they destroy them.  My good materials only come out for special occasions, and that has not in the least stifled the development of the children in my care.

How Relativism Affects the Teaching of Academic Content
In the world of relativism adults should never dictate to children but lead them into appropriate choices.  It should be obvious how teaching academic content to preschool children and relativism would clash.  Academic content takes teacher directed lessons.  Relativism wants child directed lessons.  In recent days I have come across an article that states that teaching academic content to preschoolers actually hurts them in the long run.  The bias for that article is so intense it makes blood boil every time I see it.  Remember I told you that it is impossible to divorce a study's philosophical base from its results.  You must take a study of this type and filter it through its philosophical bias.  The philosophical bias for this is relativism.  Adults should not dictate the content of preschool.  The children should dictate the content of preschool.  That is the bias of that particular article.  Let us look at this logically.  Are they saying that children unlearn concepts when they get older?  Does a child that learns their colors at two or three develop learning problems later in life because they learned their colors too early?  Does learning your letters and numbers at three and four cause you to have learning difficulties in elementary school?  This is so ridiculous I do not even want to comment, but I will.  In all my years as a preschool teacher that teaches academic content to two and three year olds that were ready for said content, I have never EVER seen negative results.  Now, there have been many children that were not ready for academic content at three or even four because they had language delays and immaturity issues.  You cannot teach academic content to those children before you fix the language delays and immaturity issues.  I would wager lots of money that the above study used children with language delays and immaturity issues to prove their point.  Trying to teach them academic content would make them hate school and do worse in elementary school.  However, a good half of the population can be taught academic content in preschool and do well for the rest of their life.  Remember, I do not take age into consideration.  I take skill level no matter how old they are.  Maybe one of these days grouping by age will go out the window, and we will understand that not all two-, three-, four-, five-, six-year olds, etc. are created equal.

How Relativism Affects Child Discipline Practices
In the world of relativism adults should not dictate right and wrong.  No where in the early childhood field does the effects of relativism become more evident than in the area of child discipline practices.  Teaching children to be obedient is equated with child abuse in many circles.  Children must be given choices not told "no."  Toddlers must be redirected not told '"no."  Punishment leads to violent tendencies in children.  We must facilitate children's upbringing never dictate.  I am actually very thankful that few facilities follow this philosophical train wholeheartedly.  A great big majority of preschool teachers tell children "no" often, but just not when the state people are present.  Also, when it comes to certain aspects of a child's environment, dictating by the rules is completely acceptable.  Case in point - handwashing and other sanitary practices.  It is perfectly acceptable to force children to wash their hands a thousand a times a day.  However, when you hit the areas that have for generations upon generations been considered "wrong" behavior, you had better redirect or give two positive choices.  People it really is all about removing God and all He stands for from the classroom.  These discipline rules are ridiculous.  I will in a future post look at most of these topics in more detail.  I just wanted to give you a taste of how relativism finds its way into nearly every aspect of early childhood "best practice."

I hope you have enjoyed this post.  Goodbye and God bless!! https://linktr.ee/natawade