A problematic assumption of child-directed practices is that a child cannot learn from instruction that is initiated and directed by a teacher. Instead, these practices assume that children's learning needs are best fulfilled by allowing each child to pursue his or her unique interests through play.

What the child wants is what the child needs. The reasoning for this is as follows: Each child's learning needs are unique and these unique learning needs are revealed through the child's interests, whi ch in turn direct each child's selection of play activities. Therefore, no child should be inhibited from pursuing his or her interests, that is, from playing.

"Much of young children's learning takes place when they direct their own play activities....Such learning should not be inhibited by adult-established concepts of completion, achievement, and failure" (p. 3, NAEYC, 1987).

The idea that children often learn from the activities they initiate is perfectly reasonable. The idea that children should also have ample opportunities to take initiative is also acceptable.

However, the idea that a teacher cannot possibly initiate and direct learning effectively requires closer examination. It may be that child-initiated and teacher-initiated learning both have an important place in education. The leaders of the child-directed learning movement usually do not see it this way. They argue against teacher-directed instruction in both the "what" and the "how" of learning.

A challenging and forthright paper. Worth consideration by the serious reader.

. .