|
If
movement and stimulation are good for babies, it only makes sense
that more movement and stimulation - perhaps facilitated by a trained
professional - is even better for them! Not exactly.
There's
no doubt infant swim programs are highly popular (about five to
10 million infants and preschoolers participate in formal instruction),
and infant exercise programs are becoming more popular all the time.
But the American Academy of Pediatrics has issued warnings about
both of them. Why? We'll take a look at swim programs first.
Drowning
is the leading cause of unintentional injury and death in young
children, with rates highest among American children ages one to
two. Still, the AAP feels strongly enough about the issue of infant
swim programs that it has released two policy statements on the
subject, the first in 1985 and an update in 2000.
According
to the association, children are not developmentally ready for swimming
lessons until they're four years old. Although they may be able
to perform elementary swimming motions at about 12 months, these
motions are more along the lines of a dog paddle than a traditional
swimming stroke, or front crawl. And, as with other skills learned
before children are developmentally ready, aquatic skills take longer
to learn and are limited by the children's neuromuscular capacity.
Furthermore, starting early doesn't translate into "a higher
level of swimming proficiency compared with those taking lessons
at a later age."
In
other words, the situation is the same as it is with hurrying other
motor skills. Earlier isn't better, and it's certainly not going
to help create a future Olympic swimmer. Also, the training itself
may have a long-term effect on the child's sense of autonomy (self-sufficiency),
as motivation is an essential ingredient in the learning of any
skill - and motivation is not yet in the infant's emotional repertoire.
But
there's much more to consider here. Even when the program's intention
is to focus on water safety knowledge rather than actual swimming
skills (as is the intention of the aquatic programs of the YMCA
and the Red Cross), caution is the key. Warns the AAP, "When
instruction attempts to optimize learning by reducing fear of water,
children may unwittingly be encouraged to enter the water without
supervision."
Says
David Elkind, in Miseducation, if parents enroll their babies in
swim programs specifically to prevent drowning, they may unintentionally
be shifting the responsibility for not drowning to the children
themselves!
Furthermore,
a child without the necessary cognitive skills may be unable to
transfer his knowledge from one context to another. A story told
on-air by Kelly Ripa, co-host of Live with Regis and Kelly, illustrates
this point. Ripa was relating a story about her family's trip to
Hawaii during which her preschool son was standing in a koi pond
feeding the fish. He suddenly slipped and fell facedown into the
pond. But, since he'd been enrolled in swimming programs - several
days a week for years - and possessed many certificates proclaiming
he could swim, she and her husband merely waited for their son's
swimming skills to kick in. But they never did! He remained facedown
and then began to sink. It appears the child knew what was expected
of him in one situation (swimming lessons) but not in an entirely
new situation.
As
Dr. Elkind points out, there are other hazards as well. Infants
in swimming classes are at risk for "middle-ear infections
and potential permanent hearing loss, for autoasphyxiation from
swallowing water, and for diarrhea, since the babies are not toilet-trained
and the water may be polluted."
Similar
dangers exist with infant exercise programs. Specifically, the AAP
warns against programs in which the baby's limbs are exercised,
held in various positions, or otherwise manipulated. While no parent
would intentionally take things beyond the baby's limits, it is
nonetheless all too easy to do, as an infant's bones are not completely
solidified. Nor do infants have the strength or reflexes required
to protect themselves from external forces - no matter how well
intentioned.
And
if we can try for a moment to put ourselves in the baby's "shoes,"
we have to wonder how all that involuntary manipulation feels. It
seems it would be much like having physical therapy - certainly
a necessary procedure when there's a physical problem to be addressed
- but not one an individual would sign up for voluntarily!
If
the purpose of the program is to provide social contact for parent
and baby, that's great. If the purpose is to ensure parent and child
have quality one-on-one time, during which the baby has a chance
to reach for objects, creep on the floor, and rock to the rhythm
of a song in Mom's or Dad's arms, that's wonderful.
But
if the purpose of the program is to improve physical prowess or
to provide a "head start" in the acquisition of motor
skills - well, suffice to say, there's only disappointment in store
for parent and child.
Article Author:
Rae Pica
Article
Source: http://www.ArticleBlast.com
|