How Many Lessons at Once Is Too Many? — Think in Terms of "the Foundation," Not "the Number"
Why this topic is on parents’ minds
If you are raising a 5-year-old, you may have overheard conversations like these at daycare or kindergarten drop-off and pickup.
- “We do piano on Mondays and Tuesdays, gymnastics on Wednesdays, English on Thursdays, and swimming on Saturdays.”
- “I’m thinking of having my child try a few in the middle year of kindergarten and narrowing them down in the last year.”
- “I heard it’s better to make it a habit before starting elementary school.”
Every time you hear things like that, you may feel uneasy deep inside: “We do only 2—is that too few?” “Should we add one more?”
On the other hand, there are also many moms who say, “We already have our child doing 2 or 3, but they are exhausted every week, and I don’t know if this is OK.”
So in this article, we reframe the question “how many lessons is OK?” from “the number” to “the foundation”, and rethink it from the side of research. We aim to take you to the point where, after reading, you can feel, “It’s fine for our family to use our own yardstick.”
First, let’s check — how many lessons do Japanese children actually do?
The felt sense that “everyone is doing it” can be a little off from the actual distribution.
According to the “Survey on Out-of-School Educational Activities,” which covered parents of children ages 3 to 18 nationwide , the average number of lessons for preschool children is about 1, and most elementary school children fall roughly in the range of 1 to 2. “3 or more at once” is by no means a minority, but it is not the majority either.
In other words, the feeling that “everyone around us is doing 3 to 4” very likely arises because what is posted on social media and said by families keen on lessons tends to stick in memory. “We do 2” is a perfectly ordinary level according to the data.
Viewpoint from research A — extracurricular activities are good for development “to some extent”
Before going into doing several lessons at once, let’s confirm one premise. “Doing lessons and extracurricular activities to some extent in itself” is generally evaluated positively in research.
A longitudinal study (in Developmental Psychology) that followed 392 young people in South Carolina, U.S., from elementary school through high school showed that participation in extracurricular activities, especially among children with academic risks, worked in the direction of lowering the likelihood of dropping out of high school. A sense of belonging to school and positive relationships with adults are thought to be the pathways that ease the risk.
However, many studies of extracurricular activities, including this one, focus on “school-age children” and do not directly study preschool children. Furthermore, later research has pointed out the need to think separately about “participating” and “participating excessively.” “Good to some extent, but with an upper limit” is the current shared understanding in research.
Viewpoint from research B — concerns about overscheduling
What sparked the debate on “how many lessons is OK” was the overscheduled child debate of the 2000s.
The book The Over-Scheduled Child: Avoiding the Hyper-Parenting Trap took issue with a situation, mainly among upper-middle-class families in the United States, in which children’s after-school time and weekends were completely filled with lessons and driving, so that there was not even time for the family to eat dinner together. From clinical experience, the authors reported many stress signs and weakening family relationships.
This book itself is not empirical research, and later follow-up studies have not necessarily confirmed a simple causal link that “overscheduling directly harms children’s mental health.” Even so, the concern about cutting too much of “time with parents,” “free play time,” and “time to just space out” was later taken up by the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) and others.
“The Importance of Play in Promoting Healthy Child Development and Maintaining Strong Parent-Child Bonds” (in Pediatrics) laid out the fact that children’s free play time has clearly decreased over the past several decades, and cautioned that “increasing structured activities does not necessarily lead to developmental benefits.” The later “The Power of Play” statement also reaffirmed the same position.
“Signs” that tend to appear on the child’s side
In judging “Is my child’s amount of lessons right?”, how the child is doing is a more reliable indicator than any number. The following signs are repeatedly listed in the AAP’s various statements and in clinical findings related to overscheduling.
- Having more trouble than usual getting up in the morning, being reluctant to go to daycare, kindergarten, or school
- Having trouble falling asleep at night, more night terrors or nightmares
- Starting to say “I don’t want to go” to activities they used to love
- Crying or getting angry more often over small things
- Getting sick more easily (colds, stomachaches, headaches, etc.)
- Saying “I’m not interested in anything” or “I don’t want to do anything”
- Spacing out at home or pretend play decreasing drastically
These are not necessarily caused “only” by lessons. There are various factors, such as events at daycare, kindergarten, or school, family relationships, the season, and developmental stage. Even so, these are things researchers and clinicians commonly list as “signs that it’s time to review the schedule if several appear at the same time.”
Whether to trust “the child’s strength” and have them continue, or to stop for a moment—no line can be drawn with numbers, but it helps to remember that the child’s body and mind tell you the earliest and most honestly.
“Signs” that tend to appear on the parents’ side
Something surprisingly easy to overlook is the parents’ capacity. The discussion of doing several lessons at once does not stand on the child alone. Driving, monthly fees, meal planning, laundry, weekend plans—all of them consume the family’s resources.
- Weekday evenings are completely filled with driving and getting ready for the next lesson
- Monthly fees, materials, and travel costs for competitions are clearly a heavy burden on the household budget
- On one of the weekend days, lesson schedules make it hard to plan family activities
- The younger child has to be brought along every time to the older child’s lessons
- A parent (especially the main driver) is chronically tired or short on sleep
- The parents disagree, one saying “I want to let them quit” and the other “I want them to continue”
These are elements that do not appear directly in research on child development, but through the whole family’s well-being, relationships, and the parents’ own mental health, they eventually affect the child. The AAP’s 2018 “Power of Play” statement also places great weight not only on the child’s own play time but also on calm time that parent and child spend together.
“Doing several lessons at once that can only run if the parents push themselves” is, from the side of research too, a choice that does not last.
Free play is not “doing nothing” — why it should not be cut
“Free play,” which has come up several times, tends to be taken lightly when talked about alongside lessons. “They’re just playing,” “they’re just lazing around at home”—it is not unusual for people to have that impression.
However, AAP statements and recent meta-analyses in developmental psychology conclude that free play (child-led free play) supports:
- Creativity (the experience of making your own rules and stories)
- Self-regulation and executive function (deciding turns, holding back impulses, planning)
- Social skills (negotiating, giving way, inviting, refusing)
- Coping with stress (the experience of switching gears when things don’t go well)
- Flexible use of language (imagining and talking in pretend play)
These are skills that are hard to replace with lessons, and they rarely arise within structured activities.
In other words, the choice to “cut free play to add more lessons” is not an equal trade according to research. When you exchange one thing for another, you need to also look at what you lose.
Family time and sleep — another foundation
Alongside free play, the “foundations” with high priority in research are time spent as a family and sleep.
Family dinners, picture books before bed, weekend walks—multiple longitudinal studies have repeatedly shown that times like these are strongly related to children’s emotional stability and self-esteem. That Finland’s core curriculum for early childhood education (National Core Curriculum for ECEC) is built around play, family, and nature, rather than getting ahead in school subjects, also has this accumulation of findings as its background.
As for sleep, the general international guideline is that 10 to 13 hours of sleep is recommended for 5- to 6-year-olds (the U.S. National Sleep Foundation and the American Academy of Pediatrics). If, because of lesson schedules, dinner, bath, and bedtime are pushed back and going to bed after 10:00 p.m. has become the norm, that is a strong reason to review the number of lessons.
A checklist for deciding on multiple lessons — look at “the foundation,” not “the number”
Here we put the research and on-the-ground findings so far into a form that is easy to use at home. We recommend checking not by “up to how many is OK” but by “whether these are being kept.”
A state with few signs that a review is needed
KEEP
The child talks happily about their lessons. There is at least 1 hour of free play time on weekdays. There is at least 1 day a week with no plans at all. Sleep is sufficient for the child's age. The family can eat dinner together on at least half the days of the week. Driving and monthly fees are not an excessive burden on the parents.
A state where signs that a review is needed are increasing
RECONSIDER
The child has started saying 'I don't want to go,' or has become expressionless. Free play on weekdays has almost disappeared. Weekends are filled with plans too. Bedtime has become late, and it is hard to get up in the morning. Time gathered around the family table has decreased. A parent is chronically tired from driving, or the household budget is tight.
The important point of this checklist is that “when more of the items on the right apply, it is a time to ‘review,’ not necessarily to ‘cut back.’” Besides cutting back, there are several options, such as lowering the frequency, changing the time slot, changing how you get there, or lining up schedules among siblings.
The idea of “when starting, think about cutting back at the same time”
Here is one more way of thinking we want to suggest from research and clinical practice.
When starting a new lesson, think at the same time about “what to cut back” and “what to give up.”Time is limited. Subtract daycare or kindergarten, sleep, meals, and bath from the 24 hours of a day, and the time that is free for the child is not as much as you might think. Every time you add one new plan, something else is always pushed out. Whether that is “TV,” “free play,” or “family dinner”—which one to push out is a choice decided by the family’s values.
If what gets pushed out is “time to space out,” “picture book time,” or “time to talk with Mom,” is the new lesson really worth adding?—asking yourself that question again changes what you see.
Positioning “letting them quit” and “giving up” not as bad decisions but as “another decision to protect what you want to protect” is the way of thinking that fits both research findings and the sustainability of the family.
A “realistic guide” by age — only as a reference
We have repeated “the foundation over the number” so far. Even so, in response to those who say “I’d like a concrete guide,” here is one for reference. Please read these as numbers to use as a trigger for review, not as firm rules.
-
Around ages 3 to 5: about 1 to 2
- At this age, play at home, picture books, and parent-child engagement are the greatest enrichment (The pitfalls of early gifted education). 1 to 2 lessons are meaningful enough “if the child enjoys going,” but not squeezing free play and family time takes priority.
-
Lower elementary (around ages 6 to 8): about 2 to 3
- A time when adapting to school life, homework, and time to play with friends after school are newly added. If you can keep 1 weekend day free of plans and leave some room somewhere on weekdays too, the rhythm is less likely to fall apart.
-
Middle to upper elementary: decide together with the child
- The child’s own choices and motivation become central. The parent’s role is to watch over not “the number” but “whether motivation is continuing” and “whether other important things (sleep, studies, friendships) are being kept.”
This is not a standard of “up to ___ is OK.” Even the same 2 lessons can feel completely different in weight, and some families have room to spare even with 3. The consistent position of this article is that we want you to use not “a number” but “the checklist of the foundation.”
Children around us are doing 3 to 4, and we do 2. It’s been bothering me that it might be too few.
I understand. Things you overhear at drop-off and pickup leave a strong impression. But according to Benesse’s survey, the average number of lessons for preschool children is about 1. 2 is actually a bit above average—not at all few.
Oh, really? I keep hearing “we do 4” here and there, so I thought that was normal.
Stories from keen families tend to stick in memory. What matters more than “2 or 3” is how your child is doing and how much room your family has. With the current schedule, does your child seem happy? Is there “time to do nothing” on weekdays? On about how many days a week can your family eat dinner together?
On weekdays she plays fairly freely, and we eat dinner together almost every day. She seems to like both of her current 2 lessons.
In that case, from the side of research, I think there’s almost no “reason you have to add one more.” The free play time and family time you have now are already exactly “the things research has confirmed work.”
Neither “multiple lessons = bad” nor “multiple lessons = good”
What we would like you to take from reading this far is that this is not an article criticizing “families with many lessons.”
Among families sending their children to 3 or 4 lessons, there are many cases where:
- The child truly enjoys all of them
- The child goes with siblings or friends, and it has become a social place to belong
- The parents can manage driving without strain
- Sleep, free play, and family time are secured
For such families, lessons are used as “doors that broaden the child’s world,” in a way that fits well with research findings.
On the other hand, families who “do only 1” do not need to feel down that “we do few.” Precisely because there is only 1, there are advantages: the child can throw themselves into it, parent and child can enjoy the trips there, and the family can spend weekends at a relaxed pace.
Lessons are not something to compete on in “number,” but something to design as part of the family’s life plan, fitted to that family’s circumstances—this is the consistent message of this article.
What we’d like you to remember when you are still unsure
Finally, here are things we hope you will remember when you are unsure whether to start a new lesson, or troubled about whether to cut back on one you are continuing.
- “The number” is only one piece of material for judgment. Even the same number can weigh completely differently in daily life
- Look at the time being cut. Free play, the family table, picture books, time to space out—in research terms, these are not “just time”
- Put the child’s signs first. If “I don’t want to go,” “exhaustion,” “night waking,” and “indifference” increase, stop for a moment
- The parents’ capacity is also material for judgment. Multiple lessons that can only run if the parents push themselves do not last
- When starting, think about cutting back at the same time. Time is limited, and a new plan pushes something out
- “Quitting” is also a fine decision. Continuing is not the only option
From today’s talk, I understood that I should look not at “the number” but at how my child is doing and how much room our family has. Somehow the anxiety I’ve carried for a long time has gotten a little smaller.
That anxiety is proof that you are thinking seriously about your child. So rather than denying it, it’s enough to just change where you point it a little. Not “should we add one more,” but “is my child enjoying the 2 we have now” and “is there still time for the family to relax”—just checking those regularly keeps your family’s yardstick from wavering.
Even if we don’t add any now in the middle year of kindergarten, we can add some later, can’t we?
That’s right. The message “if you don’t add more now, it’ll be too late” is hardly supported by research. You just need to add more if needed, at a timing when your child’s interests and your family’s rhythm are in place. There’s really no need to rush.
In closing
The question “How many lessons at once is the limit?” looks simple, but it is a question that research cannot answer simply. That is because drawing a line by number alone does not fit each family’s reality.
What research has repeatedly shown is that:
- Extracurricular activities can work positively for development if participation is to some extent (Mahoney and Cairns)
- However, overscheduling squeezes free play, family time, and sleep, and the cost is large (Rosenfeld and Wise, the AAP)
- Free play, time with family, and enough sleep are foundations of development that lessons cannot replace (the AAP’s “Power of Play,” Finland’s curriculum)
- The yardstick for judgment is not “the number” but “whether the foundation is being kept” (various clinical findings)
Please take another look at your 5-year-old’s life today. Eating dinner together, reading picture books before bed, running around the park on weekends—those times are nurturing something that lasts much longer than adding one more lesson.
“Our family is OK for now at our own rhythm”—if you can feel that, this article has done its job.
Research details
Primary sourcesStudy design: A longitudinal follow-up study of young people in South Carolina, U.S.
Participants: 392 young people followed from elementary school through high school (analyzing the association between participation in extracurricular activities from 7th to 12th grade and school dropout rates)
Main results: Participation in extracurricular activities, especially among children with academic risks (children who had early difficulties with grades or school adjustment), worked in the direction of significantly lowering the likelihood of dropping out of high school. A sense of belonging to school and positive relationships with teachers and peers are assumed to be the pathways that ease dropout risk.
Limitations: It is an observational study, so causation cannot be established. The influence of selection bias (characteristics of children who tend to take part in extracurricular activities) cannot be completely ruled out. The participants are school age, so it cannot be directly extrapolated to preschool children.
Study design: A clinical report by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) (a statement by a professional society)
Scope: A literature review of recent research on the decrease in children’s play time and its meaning for health and development
Main results: It points out that children’s unstructured free play time has clearly decreased over the past several decades. It cautions that “increasing structured activities does not necessarily lead to developmental benefits,” and lays out the importance of protecting free play, family time, and the parent-child bond. It recommends that pediatricians support securing play time through dialogue with families.
Limitations: Because it is a policy statement, it does not provide new experimental data. Parts of it are set against the social context of the United States.
Study design: A work based on the clinical experience and reporting of a psychiatrist and a journalist (not empirical research)
Scope: Children and parents in upper-middle-class families in the United States (observations in clinical settings)
Main results: It called the situation in which children’s after-school time and weekends are completely filled with lessons and driving, so that there is not even time for the family to eat dinner together, “overscheduling,” and reported many stress signs, weakening family relationships, and parents’ own exhaustion. It is positioned as a book that raised the issue and greatly influenced later research and clinical discussion.
Limitations: It is not systematic empirical research but is based on the authors’ clinical experience and reporting. Later follow-up research has not necessarily confirmed a simple causal relationship between overscheduling and children’s mental health, so it needs to be read with attention to context.
Study design: A clinical report by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) (a statement by a professional society)
Scope: A review of the effects of play integrating recent findings from developmental neuroscience, psychology, and pediatrics
Main results: Developmentally appropriate play (especially play with parents and peers) is an irreplaceable opportunity that supports the development of social-emotional, cognitive, language, and self-regulation skills and the brain’s executive functions. It warns that child-led play time has decreased in recent years because of overscheduling and increased use of digital devices, and proposes “a prescription for play” to pediatricians.
Limitations: Because it is a policy statement, it does not provide new experimental data. Parts of it are set against the social context of the United States.
Study design: The official curriculum for early childhood education (ages 0 to 6) set by the Finnish National Agency for Education
Scope: Early childhood education and care facilities throughout Finland
Main results: It is structured around play, physical activity, the arts, experiences in nature, and engagement with family, rather than getting ahead in school subjects. It positions child-led play as “a central method of learning,” and clearly sets out a policy of keeping structured activities modest and emphasizing free exploration and social interaction. It is often referred to internationally as part of the educational culture behind Finland’s long-standing high results in international assessments such as PISA.
Limitations: It is an official curriculum document, not an empirical study measuring the effects of a particular intervention. Parts of it depend on Finland’s social and cultural context, so care is needed in applying it directly to other countries.
Study design: A nationwide questionnaire survey (cross-sectional study)
Participants: Parents of children ages 3 to 18 nationwide (with enough samples secured for each grade)
Main results: The average number of lessons for preschool children is about 1, and most elementary school children fall roughly in the range of 1 to 2. “3 or more at once” is not a minority, but it is not the majority either. Participation tends to differ among sports, arts, and study-related lessons, and differences by household income and region are also observed.
Limitations: Because it is a questionnaire survey, there is self-report bias in the answers. Because it is a cross-sectional study, a causal relationship between the number of lessons and developmental outcomes cannot be evaluated. It does not fully capture “the quality of lessons” or “how families allocate time.”