Is there any evidence that forcing children to take part in activities is beneficial for their development?

Unschooling relies on the premise that children learn best when they lead the way. Many unschooling mothers will offer gobs of anecdotal evidence that children will learn everything they need to know to get into a good college when unschooled--and be better off for it.   Some cite the fact that kids learn to walk and talk without us trying to teach them. And they do. My son is four and he is constantly asking questions. We deliberately try not to push academic learning (most learning, really), and he has been writing letter like shapes for months. He asks us what letters words start with, what rhymes with a word, how many fingers he is holding up, etc. Of course we read books to him and model reading and talk about reading and point to words while we're reading (sometimes) but it's clear there is an innate drive to learn.

As soon as Piaget proved that there are critical periods in learning, the debate should have been over on the necessity of children learning certain things during the open window. Learning a foreign language Learning to read and write Learning to draw 3-D objects Learning to play well with other children Then there are basic skills that should be learned as soon as possible, even if it were possible to learn them later: Swimming and saving other children from drowning Defending yourself How to treat animals Growing a garden Learning a musical instrument "Forcing" is a fake issue. Neither private nor public schools can force anybody to do anything in the US currently.

Is there evidence? Undoubtedly. Is it accurate? Maybe not. <filtered commentary alert> I suggest force is bad,  at least where optional activities are concerned. <filtered commentary alert> Fostering activities that suit a child's interests and abilities should be the norm. Unfortunately, that requires more attention than many, if not most, children appear to get.

let me tell you a story.. when my child was 3, i - in all of my wisdom of "knowing what's best for the child" - had signed her up for the music lessons.. proven benefits in areas like development, hand-eye coordination, math abilities what can go wrong? what went wrong is that it cost me $200 to learn that what i like and what the child will go with are two different things.. long story short - in a month (4 lessons), the child quit due to - what i call an "artistic disagreement".. how did it happen? oh simply, really.. the child went ahead with my plan for one reason only: to learn how to play "old mcdonald (had a farm)".. the teacher said that it will take 10 lessons to get there, the child countered with 2 lessons - TOPS.. when teacher insisted on following the lesson plan, this little sparky just refused to play.. so, mom, money well spent :) spend more time with the child to discover their true likes and dislikes before venturing out to any new sign-up sheets.. but go ahead and recommend some lessons on a trial basis, and do not force the outcome..

I suspect that kids at the top end of the range of intelligence, or those who fall into the category of gifted (overlapping concepts) are more likely to self-direct and self-teach, or be an autodidact. This could be a circular argument, because I suspect that a high level of motivation might be behind giftedness, and it seems a reasonable assumption that the more self-motivated kids are more likely to learn things on their own. I would conclude that less brilliant or motivated kids probably do need to be forced to learn, and doing things in a class or group will probably make them more willing to try.