I’ve also wondered about whether kids miss out when things aren’t required of them. When I started piano at 11 and Spanish at 13, I wished that I’d learned at age 4 like some kids and soaked those skills up like a sponge. After some thought, I realized that if they’d been imposed on me, I might have dropped them as soon as they weren’t required anymore. I think the risk that kids will avoid a subject for the rest of their lives is greater than the risk that they won’t ever take to it. Perhaps they’ll come to it later in life — taking up skateboarding at 30, or watercolors at 50 — or maybe it just won’t ever be their thing.

I think that exposure — introducing kids to things, or merely having them in their environment — is the best bet. The trick is not having an investment in their reaction. If I want my kid to love Roald Dahl books as much as I do, and he senses that, he might either say he loves them to please me, or decide he hates them to rebel. My mom did offer me piano lessons at 5, and she respected my decision to decline. At 11, I asked for them.

In regards to school curriculum, who decides what skills kids really need? How many adults can tell you what countries border Afghanistan, and during what years the Korean War took place? Most of us grown-ups couldn’t pass the standard high school exit exams.

From what I’m told by folks who work in democratic schools, kids will empower themselves with skills like reading and math if they see how they’re useful, and are in a stimulating environment that helps them learn. Kids want to be able to read a joke book or save up for a Playstation, and from all reports they’ll pick up these skills as naturally as they learned to talk — if there’s nothing to rebel against. They’ll do this at their own pace (e.g. some kids talk at age 1, others at 3), so parents have to trust the process and not interfere. I’ve heard that the main reasons that kids don’t learn the “basics” they need to thrive are major learning differences like dyslexia, the lack of an engaging environment, or because someone tried to make them learn before they were ready.

If I had done this when I was a kid, maybe it wouldn’t have taken so long for me to come out of my shell. I probably would’ve spent a lot of time reading, writing and studying languages and geography. I might’ve spent less time worrying about making mistakes. And I would’ve been spared the experience of sobbing in the corner during gym class because I was the only kid who couldn’t do a somersault.

But I also would’ve skipped the books that turned out to be some of my favorites, even though I never would’ve scooped them up in the Bookmobile. I probably wouldn’t have done nearly enough math or science, which is a shame because those subjects eventually became more rewarding for me than the ones that came so naturally.

I know the idea is that if you foster a child’s natural urge to learn, he or she won’t associate negative things with a particular subject or activity. Confidence and independent thought are invaluable qualities. But how do the schools make sure kids learn the skills they really do need? Is there a general curriculum plan for students that covers the basics in math, science, geography and English?

I would’ve read more books about resourceful men making hard decisions in post-apocolyptic futures, and less books about dreary British nannies.

I would have avoided geometry and chemistry and wouldn’t have done any homework — especially the chapter review questions where I paraphrased the textbook. And I definitely wouldn’t run the mile in P.E.