Myth of the First Three Years Major

¶ … Myth of the First Three Years

Major Points of the Arguments made by Broude and Zero to Three

Broude presents arguments against the myth of the first three years by exposing some of the fallacies propagated by popular neuroscience. The first argument that she makes is that the stage of brain development is not the same as the stage of child development. She argues that the fact that the brain is developing connections rapidly should not be taken to imply that the connections are being formed as a result of rapid learning. She argues instead that the forming of connections among neurons is simply the stage-setting for learning to take place in later years of the lifespan. Her second major argument is that a number of traits are experience-expectant and not age dependent. The fact that most of these experiences are available to children during the first three years of their life is simply a coincidence and should not be interpreted as the cause of acquisition of those traits such as speech or hearing. Furthermore, a number of skills such as scholastic abilities can be developed at any stage in life, which negates the first three years myth. Similarly, certain experiences that are part of the cultural environment are also taken for granted and any learning derived from the cultural experiences is mistaken to be the result of biological developments. Broude's third argument is that subjecting children to artificially-enriched stimulating environments is unlikely to have the desired effect of producing super-learners because children have a tendency to block out more stimulation than they can handle.

Zero to Three presents some important points in defense of the myth of the first three years. They explain that the importance of the first three years should not be evaluated only with respect to the intellectual or cognitive development of the child. Instead, they assert that the first three years are critical to shaping the social and emotional side of the child. They argue that in order to achieve successful intellectual development, social and emotional well-being is crucial, which can only be successfully achieved during the window of opportunity of the first three years. They explain that traits such as trust, self-confidence, self-control, motivation and curiosity can be positively shaped during the first three years alone, and any deficiency during this period may not likely be compensated for in later years. Dowling (2009, p. 12) also states that confidence and trust are nurtured during the early years. Therefore, the first three years is a very crucial period, not in terms of intellectual learning, but for creating the capacity and desire to engage in learning in the later years.

Analysis of Line of Reasoning

Broude adopts an inductive line of reasoning by using logical arguments and reasoning to arrive at her conclusions. She starts with the premise that learning involves the ability to increase cognition and the acquisition of scholastic skills such as music or algebra. She then goes on to state the fact that during the first three years, growth in the number of neurons and their interconnections takes place, whereas in the latter years, the connections are pruned and may be reduced. She then states that learning does not occur when the interconnections are being formed but instead when the connections are being pruned. She explains that this is a life-long process as seen even in the case of people who lose the capacity of sight or hearing often gain additional sensitivity in a different sensory area. According to research, there is little evidence for establishing the link between synaptic densities and learning capacity (OECD 2007, p. 110). This occurs due to the plasticity of the brain cells which ensures learning even beyond the first three years. Wilson (2006, p. 31) also states that the brains remains plastic even in adulthood.

In contrast to Broude, Zero to Three adopts a deductive line of reasoning to arrive at their conclusions. They quote specific instances where early year's intervention has helped greatly to enhance the effectiveness of formal learning experiences in later years. For instance, they quote the example of the Early Head Start program that led to positive results for children in the United States. They also express partial agreement of the claims made by John Bruer by agreeing that the claims of popular neuroscience may be exaggerated at times, but also claim that the importance of the first three years cannot be dismissed outright. They also point out that Bruer only focuses on intellectual development while ignoring the development of social and emotional capacities during the first three years. They also point out to the negative consequences of ignoring the importance of healthy interpersonal relationships and social environments during the first three years on the subsequent development of the child. In this way, they successfully present their arguments in defense of the first three years.

Strong and Weak Points of each Author

Broude makes some strong points in her arguments. She highlights the fact that brain development may not necessarily mean child development. By using the analogy of a canvas, she succeeds at making vivid the difference between the stage-setting for the learning and the actual process of learning. She also uses valid examples to explain that learning is not dependent on age and that the fate of the child's intellectual development is not sealed on their third birthday.

She also makes a few weak points in her article. For one, she fails to address the social and emotional development of the child which is also an important aspect of learning. Instead, she only focuses on the intellectual or cognitive development. She also categorically rejects the claims of popular neuroscience without conceding that some of the claims may be valid.

Zero to Three also make some strong points. They express partial agreement with Bruer which increases their credibility. They also present specific examples. Their strongest point is the emphasis on social and emotional development and the criticality of early year experiences in creating a healthy social and emotional dimension of personality among children. Some of their weak points include where they oversimplify Bruer's description of middle-class American ways of child rearing and parental attention to defeat his claims.

I interpret the essays as logical and insightful. Both the essays reveal the issues involved in early years development as well as the societal consequences of any misconceptions regarding the importance of early years development. However, in my opinion, the arguments of Zero to Three hold greater weight because they are more balanced. They accept that intellectual development is not age-dependent; at the same time explaining the importance of the first three years in setting the social and emotional foundation for life-long learning.