新足迹

 找回密码
 注册

精华好帖回顾

· 女儿的演出 (2007-5-25) Eating · 旅英游记(完结) (2004-12-20) 妖花痴艳
· 牛油果的吃法(谢谢大家集思广益,填坑圆满结束) (2022-6-30) lavender_z · 参加活动-Tom,一个有血有肉的banker-写完了,更新在7楼 (2011-6-28) 盐商格格
Advertisement
Advertisement
楼主:yy88

[childcare] 入托太早真的危害幼儿心理吗? [复制链接]

发表于 2015-2-27 09:56 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 cks 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 cks 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
我女儿不好的习惯都是在CC学的。
Advertisement
Advertisement

发表于 2015-2-27 10:32 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 vivifanfan 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 vivifanfan 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
rosanne 发表于 2015-2-26 14:24
至今也忘不了我小时候被送入陌生的托儿所那种无助煎熬的孤独感。。。所以尽量自己和家人能带多大带多大, ...

我老公56天就被送到托儿所了,全托的那种,我婆婆有时候周末都不能来接(那个年代,大家懂的),所以他也坚定的不把孩子送到cc,让我全职在家带孩子,他薪水比我高不少,我也一直把孩子带到了上小学。我女儿现在在学校很适应,没听她说起过没朋友什么的,而且放学时老多小朋友跟她再见,看起来人缘不错的样子。我一直觉得社交这方面,应该是跟孩子的性格关系很大吧。

我不能理解的是,身边好多妈妈明明不上班,还把孩子送到cc,有的一周就送一天。

发表于 2015-2-27 10:52 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 coeur 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 coeur 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
vivifanfan 发表于 2015-2-27 11:32
我老公56天就被送到托儿所了,全托的那种,我婆婆有时候周末都不能来接(那个年代,大家懂的),所以他也坚 ...

还好你家的是姑娘
我喜欢同班的静静,从出生那天就喜欢。至于谁是静静的班主任,只会影响我偷看静静的方式,而决不会削减我对静静的爱。

发表于 2015-2-27 10:58 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 未名湖 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 未名湖 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
不同的人, 不同的见解。
我闺女不到一岁进的幼儿园。现在3岁多。明显比同龄的孩子懂事。知道share,会照顾小弟弟。跟鬼佬小朋友打成一片。知道要的东西必须付出。昨天在家里拿着小吸尘帮我们吸地。仍小袋垃圾。就为了让爸爸给她一个stamp 做奖励。

发表于 2015-2-27 11:08 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yssn 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yssn 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
本帖最后由 yssn 于 2015-2-27 11:10 编辑

Early child care 'not a factor' for babies: report

While some parents fear sending their babies to child care too early may cause behavioural and developmental problems, new Australian research turns that theory on its head.

A study involving about 1,000 children indicates that entering child care before a first birthday does not impede development.

Study author Associate Professor Linda Harrison from Charles Sturt University researched children aged two and three who had started formal care as babies.

She compared their development with children of the same age who started child care later after having been at home with a parent or other carer.

"Starting child care in whatever type of care as babies was not a factor in terms of how these children were doing in these sort of social and emotional areas of development at age two to three in child care," she told AM.

"There were other important factors about the child's personality or features of the childcare centre they were currently attending.

"But there was no difference based on what kind of care they had attended."

The study used a variety of measures to determine how the children were faring, including how they interacted with others, the level of problem behaviours, and how much they appeared to enjoy their activities.

Associate Professor Harrison says the findings, which were based mostly on reports by teachers, are good news for parents.

"It's quite a struggle making decisions about the kind of child care that suits parents when they are placing their very young children into some sort of care arrangement," she said.

"I think it's up to the parents to make those decisions about when they need child care.

Media player: "Space" to play, "M" to mute, "left" and "right" to seek.
Audio: Linda Harrison talks to AM (AM)

"As we are moving into the new policies with parental leave, most children will be starting child care at a later age than we might have had in the past.

"And I think that's a good thing, certainly for the kind of supportive relationships that children need, to be able to move out into the world and form new relationships with new caregivers and other children."

She says her research has broad implications for the childcare sector, including the push to increase the qualifications needed.

"I think this is absolutely critical," she said.

"Perhaps one of the reasons why we are seeing these benefits of centre-based care in the study at this stage is linked to the sorts of educational programs that are expected and are provided in childcare services.

"In centre-based care you would expect that your caregivers and educators have good qualifications.

"And qualifications of the staff is one of the sort of key predicators of higher quality programs.

"And we know from decades of research that higher quality programs result in better outcomes for children, not just cognitively but in social and emotion area as well."

The research, drawn from data in the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children, will be presented today at the Australian Institute of Family Studies conference in Melbourne.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012- ... of-approval/4156184
相见不如怀念

发表于 2015-2-27 11:08 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 oncollins 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 oncollins 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
未名湖 发表于 2015-2-27 11:58
不同的人, 不同的见解。
我闺女不到一岁进的幼儿园。现在3岁多。明显比同龄的孩子懂事。知道share,会照顾 ...

我也觉得是这样, 上幼儿园能学到很多东西
Advertisement
Advertisement

发表于 2015-2-27 11:11 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yssn 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yssn 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
请大家自己去看我发的文章

澳洲本土自己做的研究

有新闻,有出处,有大学。绝对靠谱 2012年做的研究表明了A study involving about 1,000 children indicates that entering child care before a first birthday does not impede development.
相见不如怀念

发表于 2015-2-27 11:12 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 cks 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 cks 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
托儿所不是幼儿园。
托儿所就是放羊,哪里能学多少?
3-4岁幼儿园才是学习和接触新东西的。
而且专门的幼儿园和那些托儿所+幼儿园那些混合的又不一样。

发表于 2015-2-27 11:13 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yssn 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yssn 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
而且她还做了对比,2-3岁从小就送CC的和同等年龄在家照顾的。我觉得这个数据有说服力了吧!

发表于 2015-2-27 11:25 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 rockbox 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 rockbox 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
yssn 发表于 2015-2-27 10:41
请大家自己去看我发的文章

澳洲本土自己做的研究

有意思的研究,这个有影响发展的评判标准会直接影响数据和结果判断。这对送cc的家长应该算是有帮助的信息。

虽然从数据上的确这个研究证明没有差异,但是我个人觉得应该用无法证明有差异来总结更为准确。这两个结论还是有差别的。

对孩子的心理评估的全面性和家庭样本的多样性复杂性,本来就使得这样的取样是很难简单作出送与不送之间的差异对比的。

所以有人对主楼的结论有异议也不出奇,每个人身边也会有各自不相同的实例,无法证明任何一个结论。

从我了解的心理学角度来考虑,各人还是比较倾向主楼文章提及的理念。而你提的这个反例研究,因为数据噪音过大,无法证明罢了,对于我还不足够有说服力。

世间生死劫未尽,天下苦乐事不停。(Copy right reserved.)

发表于 2015-2-27 11:28 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yssn 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yssn 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
本帖最后由 yssn 于 2015-2-27 11:44 编辑

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ ... ealth-problems.html

然后那个Steve Biddulph,搜狐网中的史蒂夫·比杜尔他关于3岁之前入托会危害幼儿心理的文章是2006年的,已经9年过去了

A paragon of bronzed Australian manhood, Steve Biddulph is not. He is tall, thin and toothy, with dark hair frosting at the temples, and a voice so soft you strain to hear it. Endearingly, when asked to describe himself, he says: "I'm awkward, anxious, gangling and uncoordinated, but it has proved…" He pauses. "No, it's too self-indulgent to talk about it." Oh, go on, I say. "No, I can't." I think he was going to say that it has proved to be an advantage - because, paradoxically, his mildness of manner gives weight and potency to his words.

This 53-year-old author of some of the world's most popular parenting books - four million sales and counting - is, in his quiet way, angry about the increasing use of day care for babies. He argues that placing children younger than three in nurseries risks damaging their mental health, leaving them aggressive, depressed, antisocial and unable to develop close relationships in later life. This, indeed, is the subject of his new book, Raising Babies, published tomorrow.

The Tasmania-based therapist, whose previous bestsellers include Raising Boys, directs his gentle wrath at the one in 20 British parents who "slam" their children into full-time nursery care, from 8am to 6pm, from the age of six months.

But isn't he just stating the obvious, I ask? No mother uses day care as a first choice. In an ideal world, most would rather stay at home, for the baby's first year at least, but financial considerations force them back to work. "Mmm, mmm," Biddulph says in that earnest, empathic way therapists have. "Money certainly comes into it. But the 'slammers', as I call them, tend to be affluent, urban professional couples -so they do have a choice. It is the cultural norm for everyone in their circle to use day care."

In a whispery, Antipodean accent, Biddulph concedes that what he is saying can seem obvious, however: "Only, now, there is hard science to back up the common sense. One in five children put into nursery too early develops mental health problems. If you treble the hours of care, you treble the damage.
Related Articles


A new study in the UK, which followed the lives of 3,000 children from babyhood, has shown that a baby's brain grows whole new structures in response to the love and caring firmness given during its first two years of life. If this kind of intense love is not given at the right time, these areas of the brain do not develop properly.

"The National Institute of Child Health and Development in the US, meanwhile, conducted a recent study of 1,000 children, which showed that three times as many children - 17 per cent - had noticeable behaviour problems in the 'more than 30 day care hours a week' group, while only six per cent had these problems in the 'under 10 hours a week' group."

In Britain, nearly 250,000 children under three attend nurseries full-time, Biddulph adds, and the Labour Government has made expanding nursery places a key part of its family policy. To this end, it has created more than 1.2 million new child-care places for the youngest children since it came to power in 1997. "The Blair Government is all about control-freakery," Biddulph says. "They want women working and babies in crèches. They even have a 'toddler curriculum' in which 'development boxes' are ticked. Who speaks for human values in all this?"

So what advice would he give Tony Blair, or indeed that father of a new-born child, David Cameron? "I'd say they should give parents an actual choice: a guaranteed return to work; the possibility of job sharing; flexible work hours and financial support for while they are still at home. I'd also say look at the Scandinavian model. They have 12 months' parental leave there. It's not gendered, so you can swap. You can do half and half, or both at the same time. It works. Even though the Swedes spend six times as much as the British on crèche facilities, they hardly ever use them. There are only 300 six-month-old babies in Sweden who go to nursery, whereas it is 30,000 in the UK.'

Biddulph paints a grim picture of British nurseries: "Babies lying in rows of cots, then milling about in garish rooms through their toddler years, aching for one special adult to love them." What no one likes to talk about, he says, is that, in nursery care, children are often looked after in bulk - on a 1:3 or 1:8 ratio, compared with 1:1 at home. "It's like fast food, we can enjoy the convenience of drive-through." The nursery staff, he adds, are often underpaid teenagers with minimal qualifications, with a turnover rate of 40 per cent a year. "The worst nurseries are negligent, frightening and bleak - a nightmare of bewildered loneliness."

I ask if there is anything more than anecdotal evidence to prove that sending under-threes to nursery leads to mental health problems. "You can measure rising levels of the stress hormone cortisol in a baby's saliva. It is so sensitive, you can take a sample from a stressed baby then, after it has had a cuddle from its mother, take another reading and it will have dropped.

The cortisol readings for children in nursery were double what they were at home." For babies under a year old you need a one-to-one carer - the same one - so that the baby can build up a relationship. "Brain development depends upon this fine-tuning between the baby and the carer."

I tell him that we have three young children and that, when my wife went back to work, each time we hired a nanny. "Well, nannies come out a lot better in the research than nurseries," he says, "because it is a reasonable imitation of what would happen with the mother at home. Stable, kind and committed. Nannies can work well as a halfway solution, but only if parents are lucky with the person they find."

Isn't all this utopian theorising of his just about making working mothers feel guilty, I ask? "Mothers are adults and we infantilise them if we say we mustn't make them feel guilty. They are grown-ups who can think for themselves. They know that guilt is in their minds for a reason. Guilt is the reason we don't drive at 100 miles an hour through a built-up area."

Some "slammers", he suggests, end up never bonding with their children: "They can never get the rhythm. The danger for people who are only with their children half the time is that their children won't want to know them when they grow up. There are many people in Britain who barely see their parents. Perhaps once a year at Christmas. The British never had a very good handle on love."

Crikey, as Australians are wont to say. But Biddulph can get away with this generalisation because it turns out that he was born and raised in Yorkshire. His father was a draughtsman in a steelworks there. "My childhood was pretty rugged one way or another, so I learned what not to do. Self-esteem wasn't encouraged. Suppression of feelings was. But my parents did their best. At least they didn't put me in a nursery."

How was his relationship with his father? "Attenuated: 10 phone calls a year. But we really got to work on it over 12 months, then he got liver cancer and was dead within 12 weeks. We had done the hard stuff and could just enjoy each other's company and hang out."

So Biddulph wasn't in day care as a baby - yet he turned out "awkward and anxious". We'll let it go, because he also turned out to be successful in his career. And, judging by his books, he seems to have been a good father to his two children: a son, aged 22, and a daughter, 15.

Does he feel under pressure to have a perfect family? "I never do media in my own country, so as not to expose my children to that pressure." He and his wife, Shaaron, have been together for 30 years, he says, and married for 22. "We were hippies. We got married because the hospital in Tasmania wouldn't let de facto fathers be present at the birth - so we had to have a licence."

It is time for his close-up now. The Sunday Telegraph's photographer has arrived. As the picture desk has requested a baby to be in the shot, we are also joined by my one-year-old son, Joseph, and his nanny, Stacy. Biddulph muses that it was lucky that he said positive things about nannies.

As a final thought, I ask him about the self-help book industry: doesn't it work by creating problems? "I hate the self-help industry," he says. "I think it's a dreadful genre." So he doesn't think he's part of it? "No. I don't think you can change your life overnight. A book can be like a friend who helps you get a sense that other people have been there. But there are no formulas for happiness. There is only one thing that will buy wisdom in this life and that is suffering."

Crikey again. He sounds like a flagellant. "No, it's not that. It's just, if you can get through a bad time in a marriage, say, you're going to be much better and stronger for it. Some day you will wake up and feel stronger because you have dealt with something other people haven't."

In his case? He pauses before answering. "A miscarriage. It was a tough time in our relationship. But what I mean is that, generally, impressive people never have an easy life."

Life is so unfair for people who have had an easy time of it, I tease: I blame the parents. "Well, it's a high-risk strategy to advocate bad parenting," he counters dryly. Touché.

搜狐翻译的部分原文
相见不如怀念
Advertisement
Advertisement

发表于 2015-2-27 11:34 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yssn 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yssn 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
本帖最后由 yssn 于 2015-2-27 11:37 编辑

文章里面我只看到一个有用的数据就是来自美国的的研究,同样我不知道是否适用于澳洲本土

美国做过一个研究就是2006年以前吧应该是,也拿1000个孩子做研究17%的孩子出现行为的问题如果放CC超过30小时每个星期,那些只放10个小时一星期的,只有6%的比例出现问题。

但是同样这个研究我个人认为不完善,17%的算法有没有算孩子所在的社区是否暴力事件频繁,是否有家庭暴力,父母的养育方法如何?而且几乎是10年前做的。而那个澳洲的史提夫没有做过半点research,完全是他的一家之言,而且是针对英国政府的。


评分

参与人数 1积分 +3 收起 理由
hilltop-bear + 3 感谢分享

查看全部评分

相见不如怀念

2016年度奖章获得者

发表于 2015-2-27 11:41 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 hilltop-bear 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 hilltop-bear 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
还是看孩子性格吧,我儿子在幼儿园学了好的坏的,总体还是好的多。

发表于 2015-2-27 11:41 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 duolaaimeng 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 duolaaimeng 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
我小的的时候家里没有老人帮带,妈妈产假三个月就跟妈妈去她们单位的托儿所,当然妈妈会时不时来看我一下,小的时候还会喂个奶啥的,现在也没有什么心理阴影。。。

我老公也是类似的情况,也是几个月就进了他妈妈单位的托儿所,貌似现在也没有啥心理问题。

不过赞同的一点就是,的确小宝宝还是在家里照顾的好,纯粹从身体方面考虑。
保佑我的桑卓拉宝宝,健康快乐的成长

发表于 2015-2-27 11:43 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 wellye 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 wellye 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
未名湖 发表于 2015-2-27 11:58
不同的人, 不同的见解。
我闺女不到一岁进的幼儿园。现在3岁多。明显比同龄的孩子懂事。知道share,会照顾 ...

我可以说我闺女15个月已经做这些事情了吗 虽然做的不好 但她希望help 。她不去cc 。所以我感觉这是性格使然。

发表于 2015-2-27 11:45 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 rockbox 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 rockbox 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
我想作为一般父母,除非个人有兴趣,没有太大必要再作过于深入的调查研究吧?!

观点都摆在那里,你同意哪一个,家庭的具体情况,孩子的具体情况,cc的具体情况,都不得不各自考虑。最后的结论或说决定一定还是千差万别的。

这个也是无法调和的差异。

育儿理念的的确确也是一直在变更,父母做到问心无愧也就可以了。
世间生死劫未尽,天下苦乐事不停。(Copy right reserved.)
Advertisement
Advertisement

发表于 2015-2-27 11:46 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 newone1211 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 newone1211 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
比较赞同这个观点

发表于 2015-2-27 11:55 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yssn 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yssn 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
说真的,我们所处在一个快速发展的信息时代,高效发展不可能倒退,我们回不到古代,都说看ipad iphone伤害眼睛,早在80年代专家就批判看电视伤害眼睛了,但是无法阻止科技继续发展,而孩子们去适应一个快速发展的一个时代。

人类面对的污染是200年前的N倍,各种疾病辈出,那么需要人类继续的为之抗衡和斗争,人类的寿命虽然在污染下但是延长了许多。同样的心理问题,孩子们无可避免的要早一些进入到一个“社会”的状态,这个不是单纯的由父母任性的决定,是一个社会高速发展的一个产物,人只有去适应,而带来的结果就是有可能或者没有可能的某些低于20%可能性的心理疾病。

同样对于心理疾病的定义,我们人类又从200年前到现在进步了多少呢?人类在200年前的心理学是什么?老佛罗伊德都没出生呢,直到美国上个世界的的5-60年代还在搞行为流派,但是现在我们处处谈心理学,这种人文关怀的服务在最近的20年高速发展,我们是否有在享受和被恩惠到呢?

所以人类就是在不断的被伤害,被修复,之间成长。不然我们大家都回到原始社会,像猫那样弟弟可以操姐姐。没有文明,心理伤害就是个P。


相见不如怀念

发表于 2015-2-27 11:59 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 rockbox 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 rockbox 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
yssn 发表于 2015-2-27 11:25
说真的,我们所处在一个快速发展的信息时代,高效发展不可能倒退,我们回不到古代,都说看ipad iphone伤害 ...

这个就扯太远了......
世间生死劫未尽,天下苦乐事不停。(Copy right reserved.)

发表于 2015-2-27 12:03 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yssn 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yssn 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
rockbox 发表于 2015-2-27 11:59
这个就扯太远了......

总结原意就是

父母根据自己的情况送或者不送孩子上CC,然后想办法补救

没有人能在实验室或者乌托邦里成长,不是这边受伤就是那边受伤,自己看着办。
相见不如怀念

发表于 2015-2-27 12:05 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 WTFAUS 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 WTFAUS 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
家里如果有老人或孩子脾气坏,还是要多送CC作规矩
Advertisement
Advertisement

发表于 2015-2-27 12:09 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yssn 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yssn 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
再废话一句就是如果父母过多牺牲自己想保全孩子减少得心理疾病的比率而勉强留在家里照顾孩子,这个只是美好的愿望

谁能保证孩子某天做巴士,被一个脑残土澳种族歧视一下,结果得了创伤后遗症?谁能保证不受伤害? 所以想太多自己累啊
相见不如怀念

发表于 2015-2-27 12:12 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 rockbox 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 rockbox 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
yssn 发表于 2015-2-27 11:39
再废话一句就是如果父母过多牺牲自己想保全孩子减少得心理疾病的比率而勉强留在家里照顾孩子,这个只是美好 ...


这个说法有点矫枉过正......该避免能避免的时候也得避免,该尽力能尽力的地方还是要尽力的。意外是另一回事......
世间生死劫未尽,天下苦乐事不停。(Copy right reserved.)

发表于 2015-2-27 12:28 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yssn 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yssn 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
rockbox 发表于 2015-2-27 12:12
这个说法有点矫枉过正......该避免能避免的时候也得避免,该尽力能尽力的地方还是要尽力的。意外是另一回 ...

可能用意外被歧视来说不够有说服力

那我们就拿学校bully这个行为来说好了,这个蛮普遍的。我的原意就是人是无法避免暴露在社会环境下不断的受到伤害,包括孩子在有爸爸妈妈全职照顾前三年的情况之下,本身这个就需要大量的人力物力去支持,那么父母是否有安全的人格,相对舒适的环境对于孩子的成长也至关重要啊。

研究表明只有不到5成父母是安全型人格,那么又有多少孩子是under risk在焦虑型,偏激型以及忽略型的父母但是全职照顾孩子的环境中成长呢?

所以伤害仍然无法避免。

你如果很赞成楼主的观点,你自己身体力行,言传身教就好了。那么你的孩子蛮幸运。
相见不如怀念

发表于 2015-2-27 12:34 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 rockbox 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 rockbox 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
本帖最后由 rockbox 于 2015-2-27 12:06 编辑
yssn 发表于 2015-2-27 11:58
可能用意外被歧视来说不够有说服力

那我们就拿学校bully这个行为来说好了,这个蛮普遍的。我的原意就是 ...


这里有一个积累效益在里面,但凡讲教育,一个良好的教育环境制度的推动,其社会收益都起码要一整代人的循环才能看的出来。

你把这一代孩子教好了,他们将来就是好的父母。5成这个数字就能提高,三代人之后,就有可能是80%。

而坏的理念起副作用有时候也不是一年两年可以得到反应。这也就是为什么一个好的教育理念那么难以推行的原因之一。
世间生死劫未尽,天下苦乐事不停。(Copy right reserved.)

发表于 2015-2-27 12:43 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 flyinwind 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 flyinwind 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
亲爱的 发表于 2015-2-26 13:21
我就是1岁左右上的,没有什么反社会啊,攻击行为什么的。但是,我这人真的是离家不想家的,对父母也没什么 ...

我快4岁才上幼儿园,我妹妹只上过一天幼儿园,但现在跟你的情况一模一样。
我觉得每个人都不一样,什么时候上幼儿园这个问题根本没有这么严重。
Advertisement
Advertisement

发表于 2015-2-27 12:46 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 yssn 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 yssn 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
一个好的教育理念如果和社会现状不符合,只是一个美好的理念。

同样一个好的母亲没有一个好的父亲和一个相对平和的社会 支持,那么她能养育出安全型宝宝的可能性就会大大降低,你在谈理念,而我在谈现实。
相见不如怀念

发表于 2015-2-27 13:04 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 rockbox 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 rockbox 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
本帖最后由 rockbox 于 2015-2-27 12:39 编辑
yssn 发表于 2015-2-27 12:16
一个好的教育理念如果和社会现状不符合,只是一个美好的理念。

同样一个好的母亲没有一个好的父亲和一个相 ...


一个不符合现实的理念就不能算好的理念。但同时一个理念是不是附和现实,你要先执行应用才知道好不好。很多好的改革制度在施行之前也是备受质疑的,实行之后,有好有坏才能见分晓。

而我说的这个教育理念推行的的周期性恰恰就是现实。有谁会把自己的孩子拿去实验一个自己不能完全接纳的理念?所以在单一孩子身上,你无法去做实验。也没有两个完全一样的孩子会给一个研究拿来当试验品。而现有研究的取样又因为各种复杂的因素无法得到真实可靠的数据。

要拿整个国家或社会的教育体制来做实验,则是需要起码对一个理念的大致统一的认识,还要面对各种各样的困难,经济的政治的人文的。更不要说一种本来就还有争议的理念。这就是一个死循环。

这就是现在教育的现实。
世间生死劫未尽,天下苦乐事不停。(Copy right reserved.)

发表于 2015-2-27 13:36 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 livialau 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 livialau 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
還是那句,有條件就自己帶,沒條件就送CC,生活仲要犧牲某樣東西去換取另外一樣東西。這些學術性的文章,參考一下就好,不必捧為天書。

发表于 2015-2-27 13:42 来自手机 |显示全部楼层
此文章由 hairbei 原创或转贴,不代表本站立场和观点,版权归 oursteps.com.au 和作者 hairbei 所有!转贴必须注明作者、出处和本声明,并保持内容完整
温室花朵 优胜劣汰 送个。CC就能心理受创的话 就跟国内高考中考跳楼的差不多吧 毕竟少数。专家想太对了闲的

发表回复

您需要登录后才可以回帖 登录 | 注册

本版积分规则

Advertisement
Advertisement
返回顶部