It was the first birthday of a friend's baby last month and we bought him a Brio electric car which has a couple buttons on it for moving forward, left, right and back, with the suggested usage age of 18 months. For my wife and I, this "suggested age" has always been just that, a suggestion which means I was surprised to find that a lot of people actually go by this when choosing toys for their children.
For us, we have used the "what we think she will be able to do" approach - and it has worked out for us well enough. However, this has required actually playing with her and paying attention to where she has skills and where she might be lacking, as while she is well above the average ability in some areas, she is also below in others. In general though, when it comes to language or thought process activity, she is strong.
It is an interesting read for some and I'd suggest that the marketing department have a pretty influential say in the rating, though at that age group and the way kids develop, it is likely pretty aligned on average.
But, it is also interesting to observe the differences in our daughter in comparison to other children. For example, while she is five and goes to daycare, when they give some exercises for the group to do, they have to give her pre- and primary school tasks to complete, otherwise she is very bored due to lack of challenge. However, when they watch a movie (they do this occasionally) like Frozen (age rating 5+), pretty much all the kids have already seen it multiple times, but she is a bit freaked out by it.
The difference likely comes down to exposure, where at home we live a largely analogue life with our daughter and do a lot of practical and thought-based tasks and games, meaning she spends almost zero time in front of a screen. This means that when she comes home singing the "Baby Shark" theme song that her friends sing, she only knows it as a song, not as a show or product.
But, what I have also found is that there are vast differences in the responsibility parents give their children. For example from the linked article above;
One 12-year-old girl who wanted to pretend she had a tongue piercing put the magnets on either side of her tongue, swallowed them, and required two operations and a month’s absence from school.
This girl was 12, is that the toymaker's fault?
I got my first job at twelve, which was a cash in hand position clearing newly built houses and apartments of construction trash, before the painters and finishers came in. Would I have swallowed magnets?
Perhaps - because I love magnets.
But, there are all kinds of responsibilities that a child could have, but what I have observed across my friend network is that the ones who have children who have a high degree of passive consumption activity, tend to have children that can do the least for themselves and, "can't be trusted" to act appropriately in the way they use things.
Now, this is observational and I am sure there is plenty of spectrum involved, but it is interesting to note for me as a parent that right now, my daughter is upstairs playing in her room with all kinds of odds and ends, and we have no fear that she is going to swallow a piece of a toy. There is a first time for everything though, so it isn't beyond the realms of possibility, but she has learned not to put toys in her mouth and why from a young age, so doesn't. She has been doing this since she was a baby.
What I wonder is that when it comes to action and consequence, while the kids sitting in front of an educational program might learn about it, the kids doing active tasks build practical understanding and habits using it. As a result, as they grow they are able to become more independent earlier, as they have habits that have matured through active lessons that demonstrate cause and effect, rather than the theories behind them.
This likely applies to all kinds of things though, where for example they "teach" kids about teasing and bullying in the school, but it is a theoretical lesson, not one learned through doing or being subjected to it. As a result, it is "unrealized" and secondhand experience, as the potential to actually interact with it has been taken away. This can mean that the skills in being able to handle difficult and cruel people do not have the chance to develop and instead, when these types of people are met throughout life, there are no adequate strategies to handle it personally, therefore requiring some kind of arbitrator and authority.
While parents like to think that their child is unique, averages are there for a reason and there are plenty of overlaps in what works and what doesn't. However, I still have the feeling that the environment a child grows within matters a great deal, because it is here that they get to test themselves and discover just what their minds and bodies can do, and how their emotions are going to react to the process and outcomes.
Skills and their improvement can really only be tested practically, as while theory can support the process, all it really does is give suggestions of what could be explored and practiced. But, practical activity is far more labor intensive than passive and for especially young children, it means having parents there as guiding and encouraging figures, which takes time away from other things that have to be done or want to be done.
Unlike childhood toys, there is no suggested path for parents to take and while there are plenty of theories, practical experience comes largely down to what the parent chooses to do, which is often set by defaults from their own past and, their current lifestyle. But, just like any diet, moderation and balance is likely suggested and if there was a "food pyramid" for raising a healthy child, I wonder what it would look like in terms of active, passive, learning, entertainment and all of the factors that go into experience.
Would the base of the pyramid be filled with screen time?
I'd suggest, unlikely.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
