Saturday, September 17, 2011

At age 9, you might be left behind

My kids are now 9 years old. Some of their peers are becoming talented, skilled musicians, athletes, artists. It's amazing. Four years ago, aside from prodigies, there was mostly a level playing field. All kids played whatever sport in whatever way; all kids banged on kid-friendly percussion instruments; all kids drew pictures with a flat, simple perspective. The shift has been happening under my nose with hints here and there. The 6-year-old girl who makes all the goals. The 8-year-old girl with an art portfolio with real art. The 8-year-old boy who is a black belt. These were seemingly the exception. Most of the kids were in a middling muddle, none too noteworthy.

The paradigm shift (Ialways wanted to used that pretentious, preposterous phrase) was evident to me when I took my son to his recent soccer workshop. All the kids who were good in soccer, who wanted to be good in soccer or whose parents wanted them to be good in soccer were on the traveling teams that have practice three days a week and that have games one or two days a week. They eat and breathe soccer. My son was the only 9 year old at the workshop. There were a few 10 year olds who clearly did no know how to play well. Everyone else was 8 and under. My son is now one of the big kids who play in the recreation league. There wasn't too many public school kids in the recreation league and not as many from the
private schools as had been in past years.

It is expected that at age 9, if you want to play a sport, you will do almost nothing else. This sad. 9 is too young to be committed to a particular sport or activity. At 9, a kid should still be exploring what interests him; he should not have to be good at anything. Sport should be fun. Winning should be part of the thing but 9 is too young to be too competitive. Why must they compete so fiercely, so seriously? Teens and adults do that. Must 9 year olds start to be like adults with defined skills? Clear preferences? Delineated roles?

I am notready for my kids to be so molded. I want them to still have lots of choices and for lots of things to be open to them a without too much a hierarchy of talent. I have no choice. In not pressing my kids to chose a sport, I made a choice to not become specialized, consigning them to not be star athletes; at least, of the available team sports such as soccer, baseball or basketball. I hope that there are more opportunities for them. For now, they're locked out of being good at these sports.

Similarly, in school, they had to choose an instrument to study/play. My son chose base and my daughter chose
the flute. Now, they are committed until who knows when - high school graduation? And if they are not good, can they continue? It's a lot of commitment for 9 year olds. I could go on about this and why it is we, as a culture, expect and want (while proclaiming we don't want) our kids to grow up too soon; but this is how it is. The rec league and choosing an instrument are part of it. This is my kids succumbing. It is coming. Their days as little kids are numbered. It makes me sad.

2 comments:

StephLove said...

I have a ten year old. He doesn't play a sport but a lot of his friends are on those teams with intense practice schedules. While I'd like him to be more active, I'm kind of glad we're not living and breathing one sport.

He does play an instrument. It's his second year playing percussion in his school band. He likes it and the daily practice is short enough not to be onerous.

Meanwhile his 5 year old sister does soccer and ballet, both once a week, which is manageable, but if she continues with soccer next year it will be twice a week. I wonder about that, if it's too much commitment for a 6 year old. Could she do that and have another activity, too, or would she be overloaded. She's the one who would sign up for everything if I let her. Gymnastics is high on her list now.

suburban dyke said...

Thank you for your comment.