First of all, the uncomfortable conclusion is that this is completely unnecessary. Even if such a young child attends an early education class, his parents will only become one type, that is, restless type. In any case, parents unconsciously, early education is always better than weak, which is obviously a wrong understanding.

You can't let your child lose at the starting line. I don't know how many parents have been cheated by this sentence. Similarly, there is "no matter how hard you suffer, you can't suffer the child." Speaking of it, these words are probably written by educational institutions for enrollment.

A one-year-old child has been in this world for more than 300 days and is full of curiosity. When he just changed from passive exploration of the world to semi-active exploration of the world, you asked him to go to early education? This is really stupid and cruel. I know many people don't agree with this view, but I think it is in essence. Just a lot of people don't want to admit it.

Such a small child can only eat well, sleep well and play well. I sleep for more than ten hours a day, and I don't have much time to play except for dinner. However, this game time is very important for children. Because this is the beginning of his understanding and exploration of the world, every child has his own rhythm and characteristics. If you throw him into an early education institution, aren't many children doing something mechanically? This is not an adventure. The baby just turned one. Before that, he almost passively relied on his eyes and hearing to perceive the world. Now he is only good at climbing mountains. As long as he can walk, his hands and feet can use the territory that really belongs to him. He was greedy and began to explore. If we interrupt them and repeat the same work as the factory assembly line, wouldn't it be worth the loss?

Why is China's basic education so strong, while higher education, especially education and scientific research above doctoral level, still lags behind foreign countries? This kind of early education is the culprit.

Simply understood, it is easy to go to college, but ordinary people can still do it. It is beyond their ability to engage in truly professional and research-oriented work. This is closely related to the time and depth of active exploration in childhood, that is, it is closely related to the lack of time or depth of active exploration. Simply understood, it is easy to go to college, which is ok for ordinary people, but it is not enough to engage in truly professional and research-oriented work. This is closely related to the time and depth of active exploration in childhood, that is, it is closely related to the lack of time or depth of active exploration.