Elkind, David. (1984) . All Grown Up & No Place to Go. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Reviewed by: K.N.B. of SJC

Elkind's book discusses many of the issues that face adolescents each day. Even though the book was written in 1984, the topics Elkind discusses are still a concern for many children, parents and teachers. Now, fifteen years later, there are even more things that we all need to worry about. Some of the issues that Elkind covers are: substance abuse, sexual activity, suicide, crime, value systems, puberty, family structure, media, pregnancy, school systems, stress and peer pressure. He gives many examples for each concern. Some are fictional. Others are actual life experiences that have come out during interviews. Elkind writes about both Erik Erikson and Jean Piaget when he discusses what needs to be accomplished mentally in the teenage years. He briefly mentions different phases of life in terms that are easily understood. In fact, the entire book is easy to comprehend. Elkind really keeps the interest of the reader. His use of personal life experiences is truly captivating. Unfortunately, some of the stories are sad to read about. Growing up in the 80's myself, I was never aware of how common some of these issues were. This book makes me realize that the incidences that occur today occurred back then as well.

I was looking for a book to learn how to deal with the teenage crises facing our nation. This book showed a lot of negative views. It was very informative but usually showed only one point of view.

While Dr. David Elkind is a respected name in the Child Psychology arena, I found that anything of value or knowledge that he presented in The Hurried Child is merely common sense. It scares me to think that there are actually people out in this world, reproducing, who need to read this book.
Dr. Elkind expressed some valid points on the general "rush of society" - our tendency to saddle our children with competition in the adult world, but nothing that needed 221 pages of interpretation. Dr. Elkind takes an extremist position on his point of view throughout the book. Despite the books' attempts at valuable lessons, they are dissected into such meaningless pieces that any cohesive lesson is lost. The reality is we are living in a rapidly changing society, and individuals need to do their best to strive at an individual pace to attain what they perceive as success.

In The Hurried Child, Dr. Elkind does a competent job of describing a seriously problematic trend- the increasing inability and even unwillingness to appropriately "cushion" children from the modern world. The message is simple and eloquent: millions of children are simply not experiencing a proper childhood for a multitude of reasons. For some, it may be overcompetitive sports; for others, early sexuality or economic exploitation (children wielding more money and being strongly pursued as a consumer group). But regardless of form, hurrying leaves children trying to deal with adult concerns. While such kids may seem sophisticated, the deeper reality is that they are still children. This false maturation interferes with real maturation, and leads to problems in adolescence and adulthood.

Dr. Elkind gives this book more popular appeal by making his case gently- there are no "Dr. Laura" type challenges here. But if the reader will think through the implications of this book, it is clear that children are being "hurried" because parents aren't making the kinds of choices necessary for a fulfilling and protective family life. Instead, they pursue personal, material and status-oriented goods, very often to the detriment of the family. This is not because they don't care for their kids, but because our culture is so steeped in radical individualism and materialism that the very idea of what a family is supposed to be is lost. It is no surprise that the children suffer as a result, in terms of both emotional and character development.

I would propose a more profound solution than the "moderation" one to be found in this book. The cult of the individual needs to be overthrown. Parents should never make family-altering choices based solely on personal desires; the good of the children and the family unit as a whole should strongly influence what each member does. In addition, the excessive emphasis on "achieving independence" in childhood should be balanced with a recognition that all children need to be nurtured according to their stage of development. Children are not ready to be "individuals" in the adult sense of the term, which is why they are so easily influenced by peers, advertisers and celebrities. A strong, loving and non-hurrying family is a far more healthy source of influence than such factors. The more parents recognize and act upon these realities, the less kids will be "hurried", and the more they will be "trained up in the way they should go."

Dr Elkind has done significant research in the field of child psychology. While some of his research has been the subject of criticism, "The Hurried Child" makes some vary valid points. With his insite, it is difficult to pin-point when childhood is carefree.

In a society the is influenced by the whims of the business world, the working class is easily influenced. Business wants better works that produce at a higher, more profitable rate. Their solution is to put pressure of the educational system. This brings issues of accountability into school. Rather than teacher kids how to think, schools have to focus their curriculum around pass a standardized test to continue to receive funding. In some cases, the standardized tests start before first grade. This is just a sample of te pressure children have to perform. It is no wonder so many kids are seeing terapists who perscribe medicine to keep them from going crazy.

Elkind presents various other forms of stressors on children and discusses why the stress is unnecessary. If something is not done to reverse the trend toward increased stress in our children, it will only get worse. One must realize that generations have turned out ok before the trends toward accountability. Without this movement, we are likely to continue to be ok.

I have read this and similar books, such as "potty training for Yale", and their entire premise is ridiculous. Tiny children love to learn--anything they can, as much as they can, and as soon as possible. We are doing children a disservice by not meeting this sublimely human need. By the time children start formal education, it is actually much more difficult (and less fun!) for them to learn then it was when they were babies! For an inspiring and *scientifically sound* approach to the topic of early education, I IMPLORE you to first check out Glenn Doman's book, "How to Multiply Your Baby's Intelligence"--it will change you and your child's life immensely. Leave this stinted view of children's capabilities behind, and TEACH THEM--they are so hungry for learning!

If you work with preschoolers, you probably have been presured to do activities and/or lessons that are not age appropriate. This book will help you explain what your are doing and why. It also will help you revise your program elimnating some activities and goals and replacing them with better activities and goals.

Dr. Elkind is not suggesting that young children should not be taught. Instead he is educating the public on the *appropriate* way to teach these very special members of our population. He offers nine pages of notes/bibliography to support his sound child development theories. At the time of publication he had logged in about 25 years in the early childhood field, which I think makes him an "expert". I have a degree in e.c.e. & taught pre-k for over a decade. Trust me, this book is right on target. I highly recommend it, especially for parents who are feeling pressured to have "superkids".

The trouble with Elkind's work - all of it - is that he assumes it's natural for a child to have a free period of childhood, unconstrained by the needt o earn or the needs of the family as a whole. Even in recent years this has only ever been available in fairly affluent societies, and before the beginning of the nineteenth century it was available to very few, and not seen as desirable by many either. Most children in traditional rural families worked, though not unbearably hard unless in a mining area or so poor that they were apprenticed to chimneysweeps. Most of them had to take responsibility for younger siblings and for animals too. Many had paid jobs as casual labourers or apprentices from an early age. And their mothers worked too - in mills after industrialisation, on farms or as servants before it. The family and lifestyle Elkind takes to be central to 'normal' childhood is as recent as railroads, and most of the world's population would still regard the whole setup as a luxury.

Does he believe that all children from before 1800 were pathological spcimens?

Although I have not read this book, I feel compelled to provide a "rebuttal" to Scott's views. He wrote that all parents have to work, which indicates to me that he is buying into the great cultural lie that exists today. It is indicative of the parent-centered world that modern America has created. My partner works outside the home, I am a full-time mother. Contrary to what you may be thinking when I make that statement, we are by no means even "middle-middle" class. In fact, we survive on VERY little money at the moment. We simply have undemanding lifestyles! We don't have brand-new cars, we have a very modest home that meets our needs but is not large or extravagant, I don't get my nails done, we don't eat out often, etc. As parents, you must ask yourself honestly which is more important: do you want to live like most Americans (or Brits, or Canadians, or other industrialized countries' citizens), who are in debt up to their eyeballs and push their kids off on strangers to rear them just so you can drive a cool car or have a home that is too large for your needs; or do you want to live modestly, at least until your child is old enough and responsible enough to care for himself, so that your child turns out well-adjusted and secure? Be honest with yourself. Make your own choice. I won't down you for it, but my choice is to live a calm, uncluttered life that will benefit my son.

I grew up in the 50s but raised my children in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. My feeling is that Elkind has analyzed the changes in American families very accurately. He has NOT said that everything was wonderful before nor that everything is dreadful now. But I do believe he is correct when he says that the imbalance in the 50s was in favor of the child and the imbalance now is in favor of the parents.

I don't consider myself any sort of fanatic, but I was a stay at home mom myself and our children seem to have turned out very well. I agree with the reviewer who said that it is not always necessary to have two incomes to support a family. It IS however necessary to make intelligent choices about what a family wants and needs. There is a lot that makes life worth living that doesn't have to be paid for with money. Maybe having a mother at home is the greatest luxury a family can choose as far as impact on life style and living. Kids don't need multiple after school classes and sports events to be well developed or happy. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have any. But people can choose and plan and have a wonderful life without two incomes.

This book will give you many different ways of thinking about what a family is, what a family can be, what individual development can mean. If you are serious about making the best choices for your family, Elkind's books deserve special attention.