As a longtime advocate of RIE, it is my view that you are misrepresenting RIE and what it advocates. A lot of what you write gets it right, but what you get wrong, in my view, you get really wrong.
For example, minimizing adult intervention is NOT a standard of RIE, nor does RIE advocate this anywhere in the literature AFAIK. It seems as if you are cherry picking three separate pieces of guidance, picking "adult intervention" as a common denominator among those and hypothesizing it is a standard -- but then you fail to to apply that hypothesis to other parts of RIE to see if that rings true.
For example, in caring for the child (e.g., during diaper changes), RIE advocates MAXIMIZING adult "intervention." Such examples include: always tell a baby what you are going to do before you do it, and "sportcasting" or narrating what you are doing (e.g., "I'm lifting up for feet and taking out the diaper. I'm going to clean you up now... here's your dirty diaper. Wow you really had to go potty. I'm wrapping it up... setting it over here to throw away later... here's a new diaper, do you want to lift up your butt so we can put it under you? ..." etc.. etc..). This is hardly "minimizing adult intervention" and in fact is an aspect of caring for the child that is unique to RIE over traditional caring practices for children.
Another example: Your criticism that RIE's view on toys as having "antagonism toward any that have a clear purpose or educational goal" is just false. RIE's view on toys is simple: that they be OPEN ENDED. That *is* a clear purpose, and they ought to be selected as such in order to fulfill the educational goals that RIE sets forth, including fostering creativity, imagination, and problem-solving.
You may disagree that toys being open-ended is necessary to the child's development, or that there is room for more narrowly focused educational material, but it's quite unfair to characterize RIE's view on toys as having antagonism toward items that have a clear adult purpose in mind
The reason RIE advocates these materials and has a specific "no teaching" policy is out of respect for the baby as an individual. It's about trusting the child will learn what they need to learn when they're ready, and allows the parent to focus on what the child CAN do and does, not what they aren't yet capable of doing. This is a paradigm shift FOR THE PARENT and has an important psychological impact on both parent and child about their developing relationship from the start.
And "no teaching" does not mean there is no learning. RIE is a huge advocate of "teaching" by example. Inviting your child to help you with chores, cooking, etc., is a huge learning opportunity, which you can do by inviting their participation. As mentioned, this is also done during caretaking, where a lot of learning takes place.
One of Gerber's famous quotes is (paraphrasing), "Be careful what you teach a child, it might interfere with what they are learning." The RIE material discusses this, for example, by trying to "teach" your child to walk, you focus on what the child cannot do, and the child may learn "I'm not good at this" or "I can't do this" or "My parent won't approve of me/accept me until I perform what they say I need to do" etc. By focusing on what they CAN do, the child feels seen and understood, which further bonds the relationship.
You also say RIE claims "the child’s personality, character, intelligence, the essentials of his mind, are basically set at birth." That was not my takeaway from RIE. The point of RIE is that these things (character, values, knowledge, etc) ought to be determined, to the best extent possible and whenever appropriate, by THE CHILD, rather than the parent. That is not anti-adult, but pro-self-determination.
Thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts.
You’re right (and I mentioned in the piece) that RIE does not state this as their standard. They state it loosely as "respect." It obviously has a deeper standard, though, because you still have to ask “what *makes* a given action respectful?”
To uncover the standard, I did not cherry-pick. I induced the standard from all the advice, then I picked three main examples that best demonstrate the standard for the purpose of the piece (I can't possibly include them all), but I did add a short list of additional examples at the end of that section.
Here’s more:
• Don’t provide new toys often, the child needs a predictable environment with few changes made by the adult
• Don’t change the schedule or the way you do routines for the same reason
• Don’t bring the child with you while you do chores, he needs his own life
• Don’t intervene (initially or at all) if he experiences some struggle: losing a toy under a piece of furniture, throwing it over the gate and unable to retrieve, gets himself stuck under a shelf
• Don’t pick up the child without asking/telling him first
• Don’t lay baby on his stomach or sit him up until he can get into the position on his own
• Don’t try to stop his crying, acknowledge his feelings
• Don’t hold the him all the time, he needs his own life
• Don’t put anything into his hand or mouth
• Don’t stimulate the him by tickling, kissing, or throwing them in the air, *only* respond to his initiations
• Don’t include the baby/toddler in the family meal
• Don’t take the child with you to run errands, go shopping etc., he doesn’t need the stimulation to learn and he needs his own life
There's more, but I think my basket of cherries is getting full and there's very little left on the tree. Regardless of what the advocates give as their reasons or how much they deny this is the standard, you can still prove it is operative in their thinking and this piece was an effort to prove that.
I don’t think the RIE approach to caregiving routines is maximizing adult intervention. From the very beginning, the adult is instructed to have the lightest touch possible. The adult must wait until the child is at a stopping point (you are forcefully intervening and taking him out of his world if you interrupt him), inform him what you’re going to do before you do it (since you *have* to intervene, it’s only right to let him know first), and allow the child to participate as much as possible (so he doesn’t feel like he’s being manipulated and controlled by a much stronger person). The adult’s perspective is also challenged. The parent sees diaper changes et al as chores to finish as soon as possible. This perspective is wrong and should not impact how the caregiving routine is handled and instead you should do the steps listed above according to RIE.
I already made a thread (https://twitter.com/_samantha_joy/status/1560060900719005697) where I quoted a bunch of passages from 4 different RIE books exemplifying their clear antagonism toward adults and educational toys with a purpose. You seem to be confused about what I mean by a purpose. A specific purpose is one that the adult can identify, plan for, and encourage where there is a measurable objective the child meets (or not.) (like learning how to tie your shoes, how to put a square piece in a square hole, how to visually track objects moving in the wind). The most that RIE ever acknowledges that the child might be learning with open-ended toys is cause and effect (which is fine), but this is not what I mean by a specific purpose. Acknowledging that the child *is* learning things is not the same thing as having a purpose for what the child *will learn*, judging whether or not he has learned what you planned (making adjustments as necessary), and thinking that this is the primary role of the adult. This is Montessori’s view and RIE is explicitly against it.
Montessori is also for self-determination, but it’s within an environment massively impacted by the adult with clear educational objectives. RIE is for self-determination within an environment that the adult impacts as little as humanly possible and where what the child learns is up entirely to his choice (i.e. chance.) Yes, he still learns, but it's not methodical, prepared for, or aided in any way. I'm not opposed to open-ended learning and think that should be *part* of the child's environment, but not its entirety. I think the view that giving toys with a specific educational objective is somehow a horrible imposition on the child is deeply wrong because it ignores swaths of context and mis-conceptualizes self-determination.
I'm an elementary-trained Montessorian and I read Baby Knows Best while I was pregnant and few RIE publications. I felt like the two were compatible, but something wasn't quite right- your article really pinpoints the discrepancies I was feeling.
As a longtime advocate of RIE, it is my view that you are misrepresenting RIE and what it advocates. A lot of what you write gets it right, but what you get wrong, in my view, you get really wrong.
For example, minimizing adult intervention is NOT a standard of RIE, nor does RIE advocate this anywhere in the literature AFAIK. It seems as if you are cherry picking three separate pieces of guidance, picking "adult intervention" as a common denominator among those and hypothesizing it is a standard -- but then you fail to to apply that hypothesis to other parts of RIE to see if that rings true.
For example, in caring for the child (e.g., during diaper changes), RIE advocates MAXIMIZING adult "intervention." Such examples include: always tell a baby what you are going to do before you do it, and "sportcasting" or narrating what you are doing (e.g., "I'm lifting up for feet and taking out the diaper. I'm going to clean you up now... here's your dirty diaper. Wow you really had to go potty. I'm wrapping it up... setting it over here to throw away later... here's a new diaper, do you want to lift up your butt so we can put it under you? ..." etc.. etc..). This is hardly "minimizing adult intervention" and in fact is an aspect of caring for the child that is unique to RIE over traditional caring practices for children.
Another example: Your criticism that RIE's view on toys as having "antagonism toward any that have a clear purpose or educational goal" is just false. RIE's view on toys is simple: that they be OPEN ENDED. That *is* a clear purpose, and they ought to be selected as such in order to fulfill the educational goals that RIE sets forth, including fostering creativity, imagination, and problem-solving.
You may disagree that toys being open-ended is necessary to the child's development, or that there is room for more narrowly focused educational material, but it's quite unfair to characterize RIE's view on toys as having antagonism toward items that have a clear adult purpose in mind
The reason RIE advocates these materials and has a specific "no teaching" policy is out of respect for the baby as an individual. It's about trusting the child will learn what they need to learn when they're ready, and allows the parent to focus on what the child CAN do and does, not what they aren't yet capable of doing. This is a paradigm shift FOR THE PARENT and has an important psychological impact on both parent and child about their developing relationship from the start.
And "no teaching" does not mean there is no learning. RIE is a huge advocate of "teaching" by example. Inviting your child to help you with chores, cooking, etc., is a huge learning opportunity, which you can do by inviting their participation. As mentioned, this is also done during caretaking, where a lot of learning takes place.
One of Gerber's famous quotes is (paraphrasing), "Be careful what you teach a child, it might interfere with what they are learning." The RIE material discusses this, for example, by trying to "teach" your child to walk, you focus on what the child cannot do, and the child may learn "I'm not good at this" or "I can't do this" or "My parent won't approve of me/accept me until I perform what they say I need to do" etc. By focusing on what they CAN do, the child feels seen and understood, which further bonds the relationship.
You also say RIE claims "the child’s personality, character, intelligence, the essentials of his mind, are basically set at birth." That was not my takeaway from RIE. The point of RIE is that these things (character, values, knowledge, etc) ought to be determined, to the best extent possible and whenever appropriate, by THE CHILD, rather than the parent. That is not anti-adult, but pro-self-determination.
Thank you for taking the time to provide your thoughts.
You’re right (and I mentioned in the piece) that RIE does not state this as their standard. They state it loosely as "respect." It obviously has a deeper standard, though, because you still have to ask “what *makes* a given action respectful?”
To uncover the standard, I did not cherry-pick. I induced the standard from all the advice, then I picked three main examples that best demonstrate the standard for the purpose of the piece (I can't possibly include them all), but I did add a short list of additional examples at the end of that section.
Here’s more:
• Don’t provide new toys often, the child needs a predictable environment with few changes made by the adult
• Don’t change the schedule or the way you do routines for the same reason
• Don’t bring the child with you while you do chores, he needs his own life
• Don’t intervene (initially or at all) if he experiences some struggle: losing a toy under a piece of furniture, throwing it over the gate and unable to retrieve, gets himself stuck under a shelf
• Don’t pick up the child without asking/telling him first
• Don’t lay baby on his stomach or sit him up until he can get into the position on his own
• Don’t try to stop his crying, acknowledge his feelings
• Don’t hold the him all the time, he needs his own life
• Don’t put anything into his hand or mouth
• Don’t stimulate the him by tickling, kissing, or throwing them in the air, *only* respond to his initiations
• Don’t include the baby/toddler in the family meal
• Don’t take the child with you to run errands, go shopping etc., he doesn’t need the stimulation to learn and he needs his own life
There's more, but I think my basket of cherries is getting full and there's very little left on the tree. Regardless of what the advocates give as their reasons or how much they deny this is the standard, you can still prove it is operative in their thinking and this piece was an effort to prove that.
I don’t think the RIE approach to caregiving routines is maximizing adult intervention. From the very beginning, the adult is instructed to have the lightest touch possible. The adult must wait until the child is at a stopping point (you are forcefully intervening and taking him out of his world if you interrupt him), inform him what you’re going to do before you do it (since you *have* to intervene, it’s only right to let him know first), and allow the child to participate as much as possible (so he doesn’t feel like he’s being manipulated and controlled by a much stronger person). The adult’s perspective is also challenged. The parent sees diaper changes et al as chores to finish as soon as possible. This perspective is wrong and should not impact how the caregiving routine is handled and instead you should do the steps listed above according to RIE.
I already made a thread (https://twitter.com/_samantha_joy/status/1560060900719005697) where I quoted a bunch of passages from 4 different RIE books exemplifying their clear antagonism toward adults and educational toys with a purpose. You seem to be confused about what I mean by a purpose. A specific purpose is one that the adult can identify, plan for, and encourage where there is a measurable objective the child meets (or not.) (like learning how to tie your shoes, how to put a square piece in a square hole, how to visually track objects moving in the wind). The most that RIE ever acknowledges that the child might be learning with open-ended toys is cause and effect (which is fine), but this is not what I mean by a specific purpose. Acknowledging that the child *is* learning things is not the same thing as having a purpose for what the child *will learn*, judging whether or not he has learned what you planned (making adjustments as necessary), and thinking that this is the primary role of the adult. This is Montessori’s view and RIE is explicitly against it.
Montessori is also for self-determination, but it’s within an environment massively impacted by the adult with clear educational objectives. RIE is for self-determination within an environment that the adult impacts as little as humanly possible and where what the child learns is up entirely to his choice (i.e. chance.) Yes, he still learns, but it's not methodical, prepared for, or aided in any way. I'm not opposed to open-ended learning and think that should be *part* of the child's environment, but not its entirety. I think the view that giving toys with a specific educational objective is somehow a horrible imposition on the child is deeply wrong because it ignores swaths of context and mis-conceptualizes self-determination.
This was really helpful, thanks!
I'm an elementary-trained Montessorian and I read Baby Knows Best while I was pregnant and few RIE publications. I felt like the two were compatible, but something wasn't quite right- your article really pinpoints the discrepancies I was feeling.
Subscribed!