Retry from Post 1

I realized that my first post in the comments section for Blog #1 was not complete.  Here's the right one:

In ski instructor training we have the developmental stages drilled into us.  We have to pass written tests proving that we know how those stages relate to our sport.  It’s interesting to see how those cognitive, physical, affective, and social realms that I worked with every day on the ski slope can translate into a classroom environment. 
 

For example, as a sports instructor, the importance of nutrition, hydration, and care for a student’s physical self is as important as whatever skill I’m trying to teach.  It’s great to see an authority about child development tell me that these factors are as important for “classroom” learning as they are on the hill. 

 

Another example would be the tendency of six year olds, as described by Mr. Wood, to engage in more dramatic and cooperative play than five year olds.  I often taught the more skilled five and six year old skiers and it was easy to tell the student’s ages by their participation and enjoyment in many of the games.  One game, a variation of Red Light Green Light that involved performing a variety of different actions while skiing (hopping, dancing, touching the ground, etc) while not running into each other was usually a hit with six year olds. They got to play at being ski coach and they had to work together as best they could to stay in a group and not fall down.  Five year olds, on the other hand, tended to be less aware of their own space and were less interested in the pretend aspect of the game.

 

Questions

How much harm can be done to a child or classroom by well-intentioned educators and parents trying to improperly apply these practical theories of development?  Where do the kids who have undiagnosed disabilities fit in?  I’m thinking specifically of students with autistic disorders, but it seems like there are so many kids in the classrooms I’ve been in that are major outliers to these milestones.  How can we as educators make sure that we don’t use this material as doctrine, but rather as a guideline.  I appreciate Leah’s reticence to buy in too much without direct experience.  It seems like the annals of educational theory are full of ideas that seemed really sound at the time, but were later shown to be everything from useless to tragic.  (Nope, no concrete examples beyond the common schools movement, but I’m sure they are out there.)