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.
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.
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!