Published on 12, July, 2020
A parent who's eldest son has AS has serious doubts that it is genetic in origin as nobody else in the family has it. She thinks that it is caused by teaching children reading, maths, and academic subjects at too young an age. Her theory is that the human brain of a baby is very 'plastic' but hardens with age. If academics are taught at a very young age then the brain is shaped and wired towards this often at the detriment of people skills. If academics are not taught then the brain will shape and wire itself towards people skills. In other words, teach academics and the child will be able to read a book but struggle to read people. Do not teach academics and the child will be able to read people but will not be able to read a book until later in life.
Her eldest son was pushed with academics at a young age and he could read and do simple sums whilst at nursery – something not taught until reception class – but he rarely interacted with the other children and chose to play with toys alone. His three younger siblings were not pushed academically at a young age but were academically average and have grown up neurotypical.
There is some anecdotal evidence that AS (in Britain at least) is more common in middle class areas where parents value academic education, want their children to do well academically, and have plenty of books in the house, than in lower class areas where parents just prefer their children to muddle along and do not value academic education or have many books at home.
NAS13026 said:As for putting pressure on children to acheive there was once an examination called the "Eleven Plus" which was a standard part of the British education system until the very early 1970s. If a child passed that single exam it determined whether that child progressed to a grammar school, for academic study, which then opened the route to university and a well paid middle class job. Failure to pass the exam (and there were no re-sits) consigned a child to a secondary school and a second class education, where they learned the basic practical skills they'd need to be able to perform as unskilled labourers and factory fodder. So, if a single exam at age eleven exam that determined a child's entire future as an adult wasn't a big incentive to push children academically then I don't know what is.
It's a weak counterargument. The 11 plus is taken at the age of 11 so most of the teaching and studying for it would have taken place in years 5 and 6. If you read the OP then the issue is teaching academic stuff at a very young age of around 3 years old. There were also many LEAs during the 1970s and 80s that did not operate the 11 plus exam.