Children have not always been seen as children.

Waaaay back in medieval times, children were simply viewed as “small adults”. Childhood wasn’t really seen as a critical period, different from adulthood. The same rules, expectations, and responsibilities were applied equally to children and adults. (Hence, the child kings, child brides, child laborers, etc.)

Periods of Reformation, Enlightenment, and Industrialization shifted thinking and paved the way for 20th century theorists who recognized and studied the period of childhood as unique.

Seems obvious, right? I mean, why did it take us hundreds of years to realize that children and adults are not the same? That children don’t think the same way that adults do? That they don’t know the same things adults know? That they don’t behave the same way adults behave (well, most adults)?

Doesn’t it seem obvious now that children — humans — grow and change in a developmental pattern?

Yet it seems to be less and less obvious for some people today.

Two headlines caught my eye recently, and caused me great concern.

First this:

No Child Left Undiagnosed: The Latest Ploy to Make Childhood a Disease {Psychology Today}

I am not a psychiatrist, but I believe the author of this article is. One thing we do have in common is that we are both alarmed that “daydreaming” would qualify as a significant symptom, worthy of treatment with stimulants. When looking at the larger picture, the author, Allen Frances, MD, later points out: “A prospective study using DSM-IV found that by age 21, 81 percent of kids had already qualified for one diagnosis of mental disorder”.

I’m a big advocate of mental health, but when over 80% of children qualify as having a mental disorder, perhaps it is actually our perspective of childhood that is askew, not the children.

Second headline that made me stop in my tracks:

Kindergarten Show Cancelled So Kids Can Keep Studying to Become “College and Career-Ready.” Really. {The Washington Post}

After parents complained about the annual kindergarten show being cancelled, the administration responded with a letter that said, in part, “The reason for eliminating the Kindergarten show is simple. We are responsible for preparing children for college and career with valuable lifelong skills and know that we can best do that by having them become strong readers, writers, coworkers and problem solvers.”

I’m not sure I’ve read a better response than the one in this post from Lenore Skenazy of Free Range Kids:

“Maybe someday those kids will be able to solve a problem like “How to get kids to read and work together?” without cancelling an event that would teach them to read and work together, like a kindergarten show.”

(PS – Those concerned with the kindergarteners’ chances for college admission should take a peek at a different headline: Want to get your kids into college? Let them play! {CNN})

To me, those first two headlines (and far too many others) converge in one troubling camp, where we seem to have defined “rigor” and “performance” for young children, using adult standards and perspectives. It’s as though we’ve decided that “success” means kids who have become “small adults”.

Unfortunately, any awareness of child development will tell you that perspective is a step backward, not forward.

Some seem to hold to a medieval standard where the more adult-like a young child is, the better. Childhood becomes viewed through a deficit model. Childhood is the disease and adulthood is the cure.

Dismissing childhood doesn’t make kids more “prepared for the future”. It only robs them of what they should be experiencing now. That childhood period is extraordinary and powerful in and of itself. It’s a developmental process that we’re naturally wired for.

Childhood IS what prepares kids for the future.

We want our children to become successful adults, of course. But there’s a time and a season to it. It’s supposed to be a long process, and not without its challenges.

As I’ve noted before, child development psychologist Alison Gopnik makes a great point when she says that across many animal species, “there’s a relationship between how long a childhood a species has and how big their brains are compared to their bodies, and how smart and flexible they are.” As just one example she points to the chicken (a not so bright bird with a “childhood” of a few months) and the crow (a rather clever specimen, which matures in about 2 years).

According to Gopnik, it’s that disparity in childhood that explains why “the crows end up on the cover of Science, and the chickens end up in the soup pot.”

The naturally-driven childhood period prepares and shapes the brain. The more intelligent and specialized the species is, the more time is required to progress through the developmental period of childhood.

So why do we still seem to think that moving kids through childhood faster is an accomplishment?

To be clear, I am in favor of rigor and standards — appropriately defined and applied, of course. I’m also a fan of intentional growth and learning. I’m a fan of building skills.

But I am not a fan of treating children like small, broken adults.

I support childhood. Will you?