|
Editor of Editor of Author of
|
Welcome to these regular musings, meanderings, wonderings and wanderings by Wendy Priesnitz. Blog Archives
Highlights - Close
the Schools, Not the Libraries – September 11, 2009 The Lies We Believe – September 10, 2009 Learning What We’re Bad At – August 5, 2009 Traumatized Children, Traumatized World – July 26, 2009 In his article, David is not thinking about trauma in far off places, although that is certainly of concern to him (and healing it is part of how he lives his life). He writes, instead, about the wounds experienced by children in our own society through adult pressure, especially as a result of their forced attendance at schools that all too often rob them of their dignity, respect and human rights. Some readers will think he overstates the case when he likens the effects of the repetitive and ongoing stress felt by children to the experiences of soldiers returning from Afghanistan or Iraq. But he makes a compelling case by comparing the hyper-arousal, defiance and dissociation that are hallmarks of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder to the behavior of some children and young people as they try to deal with the pain of humiliation, disrespect, injustice and constant assessment of school and their other day-to-day environments. And, he notes, these are also the “symptoms” of so-called disorders such as ADHD and ODD. As David Albert’s writing partner Joyce Reed says,
“Repetitive stress makes children stiff with resistance. They lose their
flexibility, resiliency, their open minds and comprehensive vision.” And that,
writes David, is ominous, for the sake of both our children and our world: “Our
society’s inability to deal creatively with major social issues – from war to
poverty to ecological devastation – stems from our collective incapacity to
think straight because of the impacts of past injuries and insults to our
psyches.” We know what we have to do.
Respecting Children – July 15, 2009 Appearing to Do Nothing is Dangerous – July 6, 2009 Learning to Write Without Being Taught – July 1, 2009 The
Importance of Questions – May 13, 2009 When children are born, they want to learn about their
world by exploring their surroundings in ever widening circles. Learning is not
something that we do to them, or that we can produce in them. An education is
not something they “get”…it is something they create for themselves, on a
life-long basis. The best learning – perhaps the only real learning – is
that which results from our children’s personal interests and investigations,
from following their own passions and asking their own questions. Our role as
parents is to help them to pursue their own answers, not necessarily to provide
the “correct” answers. Why Kids Don’t Like School – April 27, 2009 I am always amazed at why people don’t get that forcing people to do things “for their own good” is counterproductive. But today, a news release came across my desk from the University of Virginia that gives me a tiny bit of hope that things could change. “If you ask high school students if they like to learn new things, almost all of them will tell you they like to learn,” says Daniel Willingham, a cognitive psychologist. “But if you ask those same students if they like school, many of them will tell you they don’t.” He addresses these issues in a new book Why Don’t Students like School?, in which he explains how the mind works – and what it means for the classroom and, reportedly, for homeschooling parents. The mind is actually designed to avoid thinking, he says, and forcing students to think makes them turn off. “Thinking is a slow process; it’s effortful and even uncertain. People naturally want to avoid that process, and instead rely on memory, the things we already know how to do and are successful at.” However, he continues, people also are curious and, paradoxically, we enjoy thinking. He says that to teach somebody effectively – to “create learning experiences that last” – one needs to find that “sweet spot, a level where learning is neither too simplistic to be interesting, nor too difficult to be enjoyable.” I do not believe we can create learning experiences that last for other people. We can, however, create circumstances that allow for real learning to happen. We can, in effect, trust people to find that “sweet spot” for themselves. That is what happens naturally when kids are engaged in a topic that interests them: Their learning is in context, builds upon previous learning and is at exactly the right level to satisfy their urge to explain the world without turning them off because the experience is too difficult or too boring. The best learning experiences – those that create real learning – are those instigated by learners, based on curiosity and interest…and on the trust that they won’t have to regurgitate what they have learned in some meaningless way like writing a letter to someone to explain something they already know. Posted: 2009/04/27 12:52 PM No Use For Marks – April 15, 2009 Marks are, after all, sacred in schools because they serve as the
currency that makes the educational economy work. They are, as a consequence –
and just like praise and other rewards offered by schools and many parents –
used
as bribes to get young people to behave in way that society wants. They also
encourage competition, as the second article illustrates. But they have nothing
to do with learning. As Alfie Kohn writes
in his 1999 book Punished By Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive
Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes, the use of marks and grades in education
is based on Pavlovian and Skinnerian behavioral theories, which are supported by
experiments with laboratory animals. Unlike rats, people are motivated by
autonomy and choice, as well as curiosity and relevance to their lives. And that
is one of unfortunate problems with the use of marks in schools: Self-direction,
independent thinking and collaboration are traits highly in demand these days
but our educational systems are too fearful of the consequences of those traits
to nurture them. So they plod along defending meaningless and debilitatingly
old-fashioned practices. We Don’t Need No Education – April 7, 2009 Why Trusting Kids is So Hard – March 29, 2009 I think it’s because we don’t trust ourselves and, therefore, can’t trust our children.. And that’s because our parents and our teachers didn’t trust us. After all, society says children aren’t trustworthy, and that they are loud, inconsiderate and uninterested in learning about the world around them unless forced. Growing up, most of us weren’t allowed to make our own decisions – what to wear, what and when to eat, whether or not we were cold, what friends to have, what to learn, to participate in family decision making. We were managed, not trusted. We were dictated to, not allowed to think. Then, as we became young adults, our parents and teachers worried about us – not realizing that their lack of trust and the resulting control had ill-prepared us to make our own decisions. In the end, their lack of trust became a self-fulfilling prophecy. Most of us broke out of that, learned from the mistakes we made. But many of us have spent a lot of time and money on therapy, retreats, workshops and self-help books in order to learn to trust ourselves. And, when we find it hard to trust our children, we are passing along the legacy of our upbringing and schooling. Those of us who have decided there is another way need to be
sure the pattern doesn’t get repeated. We need to give our children the
message that they know what is best for them, and that we are available to help
and guide them if they are confused...and ask for our help. By choosing life
learning, we have chosen to protect and encourage their ability to live their
lives with joy and the knowledge of who they are. We can listen to and treat
them with respect. We can model self-respect, mindfulness and care for others.
But we also need to be kind to ourselves as we walk the alternative parenting
path, remembering that trusting kids is not something that we’re programmed
for. What is an Amateur Anyway? – February 11, 2009 There is, undeniably, a lot of dumb, incorrect, narcissistic and dangerous stuff on the web. There are lots of folks who don’t respect intellectual property rights (the definition of which is changing as a result). There are too many unjustifiably anonymous posters. Conventional media companies (like mine) are rewriting their business models in order to survive. And, yes, sometimes the professional journalist in me bristles. When I bought the book, I really wanted to agree with Keen. But I started to feel queasy when he talked about monkeys versus experts. He is spittingly dismissive of “amateurs,” whom he defines as uneducated, untrained and uncredentialed – definitely not experts, to his way of thinking. (Full disclosure: I am a proudly self-trained, uncredentialed but very professional journalist, writer and editor.) Worse, Keen confuses talent with training: “Talent always has been, and will always be, scarce. So just as I want my doctor to have gone to a credible medical school and my lawyer to have passed the bar exam, so I want to be informed and entertained by trained, talented professionals.” I agree that I’d like my brain surgeon to be highly trained (as well as competent, passionate and awake), but I don’t think that entertainers need credentials to be effective – they just need to be talented enough to entertain me. In fact, raw talent is often more entertaining because it retains its passion, awareness and innocence. Some people know more about some things than others do. And if you want to call those people experts, I won’t stop you. But they don’t have to have credentials, or training to know that stuff (unless they are doing brain surgery). And for me to be entertained or informed, they don’t need to be making money at it. They don’t need to be “professionals.” In a couple of my books and in many articles, I’ve written about the dangers of the expert mentality. Experts are gatekeepers. Keen thinks that’s a good thing because they’re where the money lies. Making money from one’s talent, training and passion is undoubtedly a good thing. But it doesn’t mean one is better at something or more qualified to engage in that activity. In fact, there is as much bias, sloppy journalism, bad writing and incompetence on the part of the so-called “professional” and employed media as there is among the volunteers who rule Wikipedia. Keen also confuses expertism with seriousness. He writes: “The simple ownership of a computer and an Internet connection doesn’t transform one into a serious journalist any more than having access to a kitchen makes one into a serious cook.” “Serious” is the wrong word. If he means skilled, then having a computer and Internet connection, or a kitchen, will go a long way toward developing that skill…if one has the interest. Training or not. The solution, if there needs to be one from the consumer
perspective, is that each of us
has to learn to discern what is information and what is entertainment…or just
democracy in action. We need to be (and to help our children become) media
literate in order to trust the information we confront, no matter what tools are
used to deliver it. The solution is not to limit the technology to
“professionals” but for each of us to learn how to sort through the
muck…to be able to think creatively, to know how to use the technology
(reading the revision history and using reload buttons in the case of Wikipedia,
for instance). And those tools are no different, really, than the ones required
to filter Natural Life magazine from the supermarket tabloids, Fox Television
from public radio, or PR content from news. We also need to find ways to
demonstrate our knowledge without formal credentials, to abolish the structures
of authority that too often surround information, news and “knowledge,” to
live and learn actively rather than passively. How Do They Know That? – August 2, 2008 But why does it matter how children learn? Or adults, for that matter? So much of educational research is aimed at finding better ways to teach things (and, of course, better ways to artificially motivate children to be receptive to that teaching)…things that would be learned anyway without the teaching and better, in some cases, without what amounts to interference masquerading as helping. I think that mostly comes from academic elitism, an adult arrogance that says we can help them do it faster or more efficiently than if they left to their own devices. We also need to understand (and control) the process of learning because we think it is difficult, a belief seemingly reinforced by most school experiences. However, children who have the opportunity to learn informally instead of attending school demonstrate that much learning happens effortlessly without adult interference when the time is right – meaning the motivation is present – and usually without the learner being aware it is happening. And when the motivation is present, even inherently difficult information can be mastered with joy in the absence of planned pedagogy or professional organization. Or maybe we misunderstand what learning really is. Much of what is supposedly learned in school is mostly material that has been memorized, whether history dates, mathematical formulae or the difference between a verb and a noun. Absent any interest in learning the material and any context for it, as well as sufficient time to experiment with, adapt and apply the information, this process cannot be called learning. Rather, it is memorizing, regurgitating and forgetting. (Why else would teachers and some parents bemoan the “ground lost” during summer vacation?!) When supporters of informal and home-based education try to understand how learning happens, their motivation is somewhat different. For instance, British academics Alan Thomas and Harriet Pattison researched and wrote How Children Learn at Home (Continuum, 2008) in order to challenge many of the assumptions underpinning educational theory and to demonstrate the efficacy of parent-modeled life learning. And their book does that well, largely by quoting parents who admit often to not having a clue how their children learned something! And I think that’s just fine, especially if it helps us learn to trust the children and the process. Thomas and Pattison write: “If we begin with a child’s
eye view of the learning situation, asking what attracts children’s attention,
why, and how they then go about exploring these things, we begin to be able to
see learning as a form of growth in which children add, flexibly and
organically, to their understanding of the world around them. Such a view
further enables us to see how learning is structured by the child’s day-to-day
environment and is accomplished as an ongoing facet of the things that children
do.” Just like adults learn. Expectations of Childhood – June 23, 2008 Ah, now it makes sense! He is pointing out – albeit a bit clumsily, I think – the folly of hurrying children. I have always admired Mendelsohn’s work. I like his anti-corporal punishment stance and commonsense approach to health. And I remember when How to Raise a Healthy Child came out wishing it had been published 15 years earlier when I could have used it to weather some of the common scrapes and ailments experienced by our young daughters. However, browsing through it today, I am feeling uncomfortable about a lot of the language he uses. For instance, the word “expectation” appears far too often for my comfort. In fact, the excerpt that was presented to me is entitled “What You Should Expect of Your Child.” I hope that is tongue-in-cheek because it’s our expectations that get us into trouble as parents (as well as in many other areas of life). If we must have an expectation of our children, it should be that they will develop in their own way, at their own speed, according to their own agenda – which is something Mendelsohn seems to believe, at least with reservations. However, expecting that children will be “normal” (Mendelsohn’s word), let alone better-than-normal so as to help them reach their potential, negates their unique individuality. It also assumes that the Western sort of childhood is the norm, whereas it’s actually an anomaly in much of the world and a relatively recent phenomenon that has always been subject to differences of ethnicity, class, region religion, gender and politics. Because the time of innocence is so short, I don’t approve of hurrying children to act beyond their years; but neither do I think prolonging childhood and keeping children sequestered away from the day-to-day life of their communities (presumably for their own protection and for adults’ convenience) is the best way to help them learn to function in those communities. Mendelsohn sums up, in this same excerpt, by stating that “Children aren’t adults, so don’t expect them to behave as though they
were.” Perhaps what is lacking here – aside from a smaller dose of
expectations and a new perspective on childhood – is a definition of “adult
behavior.” I have known lots of children who behave in a much more responsible
manner than many adults! What children need instead of expectations is respect. Threadbare Words – April 20, 2008 That’s why I’m puzzled that so many homeschoolers – especially in the U.S. – persist in wearing that threadbare terminology when it has long ceased to fit. The result is a seemingly never-ending argument about what should or shouldn’t be defined as homeschooling. I understand the concern about loss of freedom that results from including charter schoolers, correspondence schoolers and those enrolled in public systems for other reasons under the homeschooler umbrella. One of the concerns is that the powers-that-be will force “homeschools” to be more like regular schools. But I think that will be a problem until secular homeschoolers, unschoolers, radical unschoolers, life learners, home-based educators and all the rest stop lumping themselves in with the school-at-homers. And that includes allowing patriarchal right wing organizations like HSLDA to speak for them. The current situation in California, about which I wrote last month, is a good example. Homeschooling there is legal but unregulated, as it is in many places, give or take a regulation or two. But homeschooling in many places is much more regulated than it used to be before the fear-mongering, create-a-problem-so-you-can-solve-it-and-sell-memberships HSLDA came along. What does “homeschooling” mean anyway? Maybe it simply means what it says: schooling at home. If that’s the case, how our family learned decades ago wasn’t homeschooling and, further, must have been illegal. After all, the law here says families must provide “satisfactory instruction at home or elsewhere.” Aside from the fact that there is no definition provided of “satisfactory” (and I’m confident there won’t be because if they defined it for homeschooling, I’m pretty sure unhappy schoolschooling parents would be calling their lawyers to apply it to their situations), we didn’t instruct our kids about much, if anything. That lack of instruction is why I have a hard time identifying with the term “homeschooler.” (And why I have decided to decline most media requests for interviews unless I can be sure we’re speaking the same language.) So maybe the term isn’t being misused after all. Maybe it’s just evolved…or been co-opted. I believe that it’s usually a good thing – a sign of progress – when a formerly uncommon term becomes common. In the same way, although I abhor the meaningless misuse of words “natural” and “green” and “eco-friendly” in this age of environmental greenwashing, I am glad people care enough about the environment for marketers to use the terms. Unfortunately, words that we use to label things are
shorthand, conjuring up a whole set of attitudes and practices, which people use
to slot and pass quick judgment. So if, in its popularity, a term has become
misconstrued or otherwise problematic, why not find another? I’ve always felt
that it’s a bad idea to define something by saying what it’s not. The type
of education – the philosophy of life – that I call “life learning”
involves no school. And who cares that it’s sometimes home-centered? That’s
not very descriptive of the values involved. In my opinion, we’re long passed
the time when we should find better terminology that doesn’t signal a view of
education and of children that maintains the same oppression and powerlessness
found in schools. Surprise, Surprise: Feminists Can Homeschool – February 20,
2008 However, I’m glad to see this aspect of the
homeschooling community gaining some credibility (if an article in a
magazine called “Bitch” can do that!). And the article does poke at
the questions with which many of us have struggled over the years, which
occasionally spill over into Life Learning’s pages…and which are the
foundation for many of the essays in that book I hope to finish this
Spring (you’ll be the first to know when it’s published!). One of
the questions that writer Maya Schenwar poses in this article is: “Can
women trade their careers for their families without sacrificing a few
of their feminist values – the very values that inspired many of them
to homeschool in the first place?” That apparent conundrum supposedly
eats away at radical unschooling feminist moms. There are many
reasons why many people believe that feminism and bringing up your own
kids – let alone unschooling them even when the free child care of
public schools is available! – are not compatible. That includes our
habits of defining our identities by our careers and success as the
ability to make lots of money...not to mention the lack of value we
place on children and childcare. But I’m bothered by the presumptions
this supposedly feminist writer, writing in a self-described feminist
magazine, seems to make about fathers’ place (or, rather, absence) in
the scheme of things and about mothers’ individuality getting lost
because they like to hang out with their kids. This sort of thinking-inside-the-box is why so many women (myself
included) are uncomfortable with the feminist label, even though we
identify with the movement’s principles. Fortunately, if my two
30-something daughters are any indication, feminist homeschooling or
radical unschooling (or whatever other label one wants to give it –
I’m weary of fighting labels) could help create a new generation of
truly egalitarian (oh dear, that word is probably loaded too!) young
people. Finding Our
Tribe – January 16, 2008 Since we need descriptive words in order to converse among ourselves and to communicate about our lives with others, I’ve at least tried to find terminology that is, indeed, descriptive (such as “life learning”) and positive while not limiting what is, after all, a very fluid approach to living, learning and parenting. Still, discussions about the definitions of the myriad categories – and how one fits into them or not – always leave me feeling a bit uncomfortable. There will be one in the March/April issue of Life Learning magazine, which I’m just finalizing: In her “Talking About Life Learning” conversation with Sandra Rakovac, New Zealand mother Lishelle de Young talks about the difference between “radical unschooling” and “unschooling.” When I took this topic of language to our Reader Advisory, someone pointed out that such terms are used more or less in various countries, and perhaps even have slightly different meanings in different places. Aarrgghh. But as I’ve thought more about this, I’ve realized that describing ourselves and our families’ lives through the use of such words is not about labeling, one-up-manship or peer group pressure. It’s about finding our tribe. It’s about identifying with like-minded people in a world of other-minded ones. In addition to our strong need to establish a unique persona, we human beings also have an equally strong desire to be accepted, to be among people who understand our choices, who accept us as we are, without reservation, and who support us on our journey. The need to identify and to be identified by a supportive community is especially intense when our journey follows a lightly trodden path, when we are taking risks. The need for nourishment from such a group of like-minded people is probably also stronger when we’re living in nuclear families, isolated at home with very young children or feeling the lack of the status that society unfortunately gives to those who go to jobs. The Internet has helped many
people find their tribes. And I’m pleased to know (because so many of
you take the time to tell me) that Life Learning magazine has, over the
last five years, become such a community. It no longer matters to me how
you label it. When the “Cure” is the Problem – December 9, 2007 But now, the psychiatric watchdog group Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) says that report is misleading because the use of those drugs wasn’t taken into account by the researchers. CCHR says the researchers underplayed the fact that 66 percent of the ADHD subjects studied had been on stimulants, which the FDA has warned cause suppression of growth – which could logically include brain development. “With stimulant ‘treatment’ the only physical variable, and ADHD never validated as a real disease, it is likely that the stimulant drugs, not ADHD, are to blame for the slow brain maturation reported by the study authors,” says the release. Earlier researchers have also ignored the probable connection between the drugs and problems with brain size and growth. At a 1998 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus Conference on ADHD, 14 MRI studies of people treated for ADHD were reviewed. The presenters reported on-average 10 percent brain shrinkage in ADHD subjects and pediatric neurologist Dr. Fred Baughman pointed out that the vast majority of the ADHD subjects had been treated long-term with stimulants – again, the only physical difference from the control group – suggesting that it was the drugs, not the so-called “disorder,” that was causing the brain atrophy. Does this mean that the “treatment” for the “problem” is actually creating the problem when none existed before??? Bottom line is that the diagnosis of ADHD is
entirely subjective, based on a checklist of “symptoms” that sound a
lot like normal childhood behavior: “Fidgets with hands or feet or
squirms in chair” and “difficulty engaging in activities quietly.”
And for that we medicate children with drugs that can cause psychosis,
aggression, heart attack, stroke and sudden death, not to mention brain
atrophy! Many families have
found that the best “treatment” is to liberate their children from
the need to sit in chair for long periods of time and from engaging in
activities quietly. In order to accomplish that, they remove their
children from school, upon which the “symptoms” often subside or
disappear altogether. Now
there’s a research angle that probably won’t be funded by
governments or the pharmaceutical companies anytime soon. Exciting New ADHD Research –
November 26, 2007
So I was pleased to see, during my regular perusal of the abstracts of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) for article ideas, a research report that found children who have been “diagnosed” as ADHD just have normal brains that develop later than those of other children. The researchers found that the average age for the maturation of the cerebral cortex was 10.5 years old in ADHD kids, as opposed to 7.5 years old in non-labeled kids. I think this is a huge finding, so I went searching for commentary on it. There wasn’t much – doctors, educators, many parents (alas) and pharmaceutical companies might not like the ramifications. But Thomas Armstrong, the author of Awakening Your Child’s Natural Genius, The Myth of the A.D.D. Child and many other books, didn’t disappoint me. In his blog about his latest book, Armstrong notes that in working with children who have been subjected to the ADHD label, he has noticed that they act younger and more what is often referred to as “immature” than their peers. In a characteristically gracefully and positively worded posting, he suggests that the word “neoteny” could be used, rather than “immaturity” to capture the vitality of these kids. Neoteny is a Latin word meaning “holding youth” and refers to the retaining of childlike characteristics into adulthood – such as was true for brilliant people like Einstein and Picasso. So, like me, Armstrong is happy to see the PNAS
research report. And he suggests that the kids who are labeled with
these so-called disabilities are actually to be admired for being the
vanguard in the evolution of our species. Although I’m not sure of the
need for any labels, he suggests “evolutionarily gifted.” Now we
just have to find a way to convince Neanderthal education systems to
evolve away from desks, tests, workbooks, bells, lineups, rules and
other old-fashioned creativity-killing bad habits. PNAS is an important
journal; here’s hoping some of the professionals who work with kids
will read this report and wake up to the damage they’ve been doing and
the wonderful possibilities involved with allowing children to be their
curious, active, imaginative, playful selves. Demolishing the Elitist Label – October 11, 2007
According to Claudia Hepburn, co-author of Home Schooling: From the Extreme to the Mainstream, 2nd edition and Director of Education Policy with The Fraser Institute, homeschooling appears to improve the academic performance of children from families with low levels of education. “The evidence is particularly interesting for students who traditionally fall through the cracks in the public system,” Hepburn said in a statement. “Poorly educated parents who choose to teach their children at home produce better academic results for their children than public schools do. One study we reviewed found that students taught at home by mothers who never finished high school scored a full 55 percentage points higher than public school students from families with comparable education levels.” It also appears from this research that some of the
factors that are commonly thought to negatively affect a child’s
school success may be based on biases inherent in school systems. “The
research shows that the level of education of a child’s parents,
gender of the child and income of family has less to do with a [homeschooled]
child’s academic achievement than it does in public schools,” says
Hepburn. Whose
Learning Agenda Is It? – August 1, 2007
A Bad Idea From the Start – July 24, 2007
His time would be better spent questioning why students feel the need to taunt their teachers and others using any means, technological or not. Maybe he’s already decided that this is expected behavior from students. After all, they are people who have few rights, and who are at the bottom of a hierarchy of power where teachers and other adults have the right to compel, arbitrarily punish and confiscate. One of my major frustrations is that most people
– and virtually all so-called educators – fail to challenge any of
the assumptions that our society makes about education. If they did,
they’d quickly see that schooling is the problem with education. As
Winston Churchill once said, “Schools have not necessarily much to do
with education…they are mainly institutions of control where certain
basic habits must be instilled in the young. Education is different and
has little place in school.” In an earlier age – before cell phones,
Facebook and YouTube – schools might have had a fighting chance at
control. But not now, when rigid, inflexible systems and rules just get
in the way of young people’s ability to set their own goals, to
structure their own lives and to learn from the vast array of societal
resources. Sorry, Mr. Teacher’s Organization Official, this is
an academic problem. And it won’t be solved by compulsion, coercion
and confiscation. It will be solved, for starters, by modeling respect,
which our school systems, by their very natures, are ill-equipped to do.
As John Holt once told a reporter, “It's not that I feel that school
is a good idea gone wrong, but a wrong idea from the word go. It’s a
nutty notion that we can have a place where nothing but learning
happens, cut off from the rest of life.”
Innate Math Ability – June 11, 2007
The researchers suggest that children’s
difficulty with learning “school arithmetic” may stem from the need
to produce an exact number when solving problems before they’ve had
enough experience just playing around with and thinking about numbers.
Gee, they could have just asked some kids who haven’t been exposed to
“school arithmetic”! A Brilliant Idea – June 4, 2007
Not a Movement – May 26, 2007
And today, I read an article that brought my discomfort into focus. It was written by Paul Hawken, a writer and green entrepreneur whose work I’ve admired for many years. (Back in 1995, we published an interview with him in Natural Life magazine.) Writing about what he estimates are hundreds of thousands of groups and individuals around the world fighting climate change, war, poverty and other social problems, Paul describes a phenomenon that is “dispersed, inchoate and fiercely independent.” And, he says, there is no authority to check with (she notes, gleefully.) The organic and collective desire among disparate people to provide a better educational experience for their children fits Hawken’s model. And that model feels good to me because it allows homeschooling (or unschooling, or radical unschooling, or home-based learning, or life learning, or whatever label we give it to facilitate conversation) to fit into what is a massive convergence of citizens who are putting aside constrictive ideologies in the name of creating a better world. And what’s more, says Hawken, “This is the first time in history that a large social movement is not bound together by an ‘ism’.” Yes! I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve rejected being labeled with an “ist” or an “ism”…and Natalie and I have had many a conversation about that as she has tried to understand where I am coming from and where I am going. I prefer to discuss – and identify with other people on the basis of – ideas, processes and goals rather than ideologies. Maybe that sets me apart from some in the homeschooling “movement.” So be it. Hawken ends his article (which, by the way, is an
excerpt from a newly published book called
Blessed Unrest) by noting that change is rooted in our willingness
to re-imagine and reconsider. That’s what life learners are doing in
terms of education. And
I’m proud to be part of that, however we label it...or not. It’s OK to be an Introvert (except in school) –
April 1, 2007
Our society favors extroverts – and they apparently outnumber introverts by about three to one. They dominate public and social life, doing well as politicians. Being outgoing is considered normal and therefore desirable, and is seen as a mark of confidence and leadership. Introvert-type behavior, on the other hand, is considered abnormal. An introvert is considered to have a problem – to be antisocial and shy, to have an illness which needs to be overcome. However, research has shown there is a biological basis to it, relating to different types of brain activity. The introvert/extrovert concept goes back to the 1920s and the psychologist Carl Jung, on whose work the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is based. Jung was, in fact, an introvert, as were Katherine Hepburn, Hans Christian Andersen and Albert Einstein. Stock market guru Warren Buffet and philanthropist billionaire investor George Soros are others. Of course, like anything else, most of us are a combination of both types. School can be a terrible place for an introverted child who dreads its demands to “perform.” I shudder even now when I remember my fear when called upon to read aloud in front of the class, to write a rhyming couplet on demand, to stand in the aisle beside my desk and sing the scale or answer a math question. Group activities are prevalent at school, and that inhibits the development of ideas in introverts. Also, we need time to think about the answer we will give to a question, but teachers tend to move on to the next person if a student doesn’t respond quickly. Fortunately, introverts tend to be artistic and smart – more than 75 percent of people with an IQ above 160 are introverted – so I did well in school. Another feature of introverts is that, unlike their opposites, they don’t need a lot of encouragement or positive reinforcement to work hard or succeed; nor do they care much what others think of them. Nevertheless, school was not a pleasant experience for me. Hmmm, come to think of it, it might not be a great place for extroverts, either, because their short attention spans, impatience with frustration and love of action could get them labeled! Anyway, not understanding that introversion is normal and doesn’t need to be cured, my more extroverted mother pushed me to be more social and less “shy,” in the same way she tried to push my father into social situations where he wasn’t comfortable. Thinking about how frustrating it must have been for her to live with my father and me, I realized that this is probably the source of much conflict and concern among home educating families. How much simpler life would be if parents understood and appreciated these sorts of personality differences, gave their introverted children a place to be themselves and trusted them to be extroverted when appropriate. Here’s a good website for parents of introverts.
Treating the
Symptoms and Not the Problems – March 26, 2007
Two things trouble me about this report. First of all, the underlying assumption is that school is the best and perhaps only method of education and that anyone who cannot learn in that environment has a problem. I can’t describe how angry I am at the idea of mandatory screening of children to find “symptoms” of a “disorder” that doesn’t need to exist! Who is spending $300,000 worth of taxpayers’ money to figure out how to dismantle our archaic school system and replace it with a community-based, learner-directed one where children are free to learn naturally…and that doesn’t victimize, medicalize and stigmatize its unsuccessful clients? Unfortunately, we are apparently going in the opposite direction. An article in today’s Toronto Star about the report quotes its co-author Alexander Wilson of Mount Allison University as saying, “We have to get away from thinking of this as an education problem. We need to make a systemic change and look at this across a person’s lifespan and involve more agencies in their care and support.” And that leads to my second concern. The study found that about 40 per cent of children who were identified with learning disabilities at age seven were prone to ear infections and allergies at age three. Since, according to the study, up to 85 percent of those labeled as having a learning disability also have a reading disability (not sure how they differ), there is a need for early learning disability screening, presumably so that children can learn to read better. Here, once again is a confusion between symptom and problem. Of course, someone who doesn’t feel well will have trouble functioning, especially in a structured, noisy environment like school. But ear infections and allergies aren’t normal. In fact, like many so-called learning and behavioral “problems” experienced by children in school, they often are associated with diets full of chemicals and processed foods, and with nutritional deficiencies or weakened immune systems. Conventional
medicine treats ear infections with antibiotics rather than addressing
the underlying causes of the problem; this report wants to “treat”
children who don’t learn well in school in the same manner, rather
than questioning our assumptions about education and health. The way to
really help stem the mushrooming “problem” of people with
“learning disabilities” is to admit that our factory model of
education doesn’t work anymore and needs a major demolition and
reconstruction. Maybe we need to get rid of junk food first, so that we
all think straighter! Liberating Education – March 18, 2007
Who
Creates the Structure? – February 11, 2007
The term “unstructured” is probably misleading.
“Self-directed” might be a better choice because, of course,
everything – play, learning, life – has some sort of structure
(thanks for the reminder, Sandra!). The issue for me is not whether something
has structure, but who is in control of creating the structure. Play is,
I think, a state of freedom…of movement, action, exploration,
enjoyment. As such, it is inherently both unstructured and
self-directed. Anything else probably isn’t play. Too Busy Playing
– February
8, 2007
Person’s son eventually gravitated away from the TV and toward other play activities, as Mendizza suggests children will. And that’s because they are hard-wired to play. Unlike adults, for whom play is something to be done when more important jobs are finished, children live to play. And it’s crucial to their development. Unfortunately, unstructured play makes many parents fearful that their children are wasting precious time. And so they try to control that play and create or buy products that make the “work” of learning seem like “fun.” I’m working on some articles about the value of
unstructured play for a future issue of Life Learning and welcome input
or contributions. Too Busy Learning From the Real World – February
7, 2007
He wrote: “Baby Einstein, however, is one of my Orwellian ‘double speak’ pet peeves, for there exists compelling evidence that the more time a young child spends watching Baby Einstein the less like Einstein that child will become.” He goes on to note that Einstein’s imagination was fueled by reading descriptive language, not by watching pictures flash by on a screen, which is a sensory experience (like skipping rope) rather than an imaginative one. In fact, he claims, “Babies would never buy Baby Einstein videos. They are too busy playing and learning from the real world.” Mendizza has posted an article on the subject,
entitled Just
Say No to Baby Einstein on his
Touch the Future website. Neat-freak Education – January 18, 2007
In the upcoming March/April issue of Life Learning, which I’m just finishing up, Karen Whitescarver explores the meaning of chaos, which she concludes is essential for growth and change. Rote memorization of facts and the orderly regurgitation of them tend to be neat – not to mention easily assessed – processes, but they’re not learning. When my office gets particularly messy, I just quote the cliché that a messy desk is the sign of a creative mind. Fortunately for me, there is increasing evidence that disorder is, indeed, “the detritus of a creative mind”, as Penelope Green wrote in the New York Times late last year. In their recently released and highly publicized book A Perfect Mess: The Hidden Benefits of Disorder, business school professor Eric Abrahamson and journalist David Freedman show that moderately disorganized people and institutions are frequently “more efficient, more resilient, more creative and in general more effective than highly organized ones.” And probably more successful too. They cite a survey done by a professional staffing company, which found that the higher the salary, the messier the person: “Sixty-six percent of Americans making $35,000 or less are self-described ‘neat freaks,’ whereas only 11 percent of those earning above $75,000 claim the same.” Abrahamson and Freedman are at the forefront of what one might call the “anti anti-clutter movement.” They are encouraging people to invite confusion into their lives in order to be more creative and productive both personally and at work. In an article in Inc. magazine, they advise us to “be inconsistent, pile up, blur categories, make noise, bounce around, get distracted.” Sound like any kid you know? In fact, unschooled kids are a good example of how making a mess gets things done. And usually, the more they’re learning, the bigger the mess they create. Places that stress neatness, order and quiet might make good retreat spas, but they don’t function well as learning environments. The art of learning to read can be one of the messier processes, and it’s also one of the processes that academics attempt most often to standardize. As professor Alan Thomas writes in the same issue of Life Learning, the fact that children can learn to read on their own is shocking to professional educators who, in spite of (or perhaps because of) being highly educated, stick to the “simple ideology” they were taught was true and refuse to allow for other possibilities. Thomas quotes one school authority who dismissed the idea that people can read without being taught as “plain crackers.” Unlike that dinosaur, unschoolers are at the
leading edge of the chaos theory of learning. But we’re still learning
how to implement it and recovering from our own experience of the neat-freak theory of education.
Just ask reader Junyee Wang, whose personal confessional tale about
overcoming the programming she received in school, which taught her she
isn’t a writer, rounds out the next issue of Life Learning.
Better Than Homework – January 7, 2007 When Kids Reject What They’re Offered –
December 15, 2006 That made me think about the law that was passed this week here in Ontario changing the legal school leaving age from 16 to 18 and allowing the courts to prohibit a teen from getting a driver’s license as a punishment against truancy. Fortunately, the originally proposed legislation was watered down quite a lot thanks to lobbying by the homeschooling community and others. But it should never have been conceived in the first place. Refusal to attend school is a result of dissatisfaction with school, not of criminal intent. But for almost as long as schools have existed, those who reject their services have been blamed. The word “truant” has early English origins meaning “vagrant,” “beggar” and “wretched.” Christopher Shute, author of the book Compulsory Schooling Disease, writes in the new issue of the British journal Personalised Education Now: “Our criminalisation of our children solves a lot of problems for us, and absolves us from thinking about the environment we create in our schools for those who reject the schooling process. Yet…their behavior is no more unreasonable or immoral than that of an adult who walks out of a bad play or refuses to pay for an ill-cooked meal in a restaurant.” It’s high time our society started to respect
young people’s ability to make decisions for themselves, and to
facilitate their access to what they need to grow and develop. If
something is not working, providing more of it won’t help. Nor will
punishing the victim. But I dare say most if not all of the folks who
are making these decisions went to school, so perhaps they can be
forgiven for their lack of commonsense and vision. Here’s hoping they continue to listen to those of us with more of both. What’s Happening at
Summerhill? – November 13,
2006 I have yet to read the book, and only this morning was able to track it down – it doesn’t seem to be available here in North America yet. That is why I’ve been reluctant to comment on this article, which may be taking a small part of it out of context. (I was also trying to find a more succinct way to write this post!) Anyway, the British media picked up on Zoe’s description in the book of how the democratically-run free school has changed over the years. According to the article, the book “reveals” that Summerhill is having to adopt a more disciplinarian tone towards its current pupils, who have been so pampered by their parents, Zoe is quoted as saying, “that they no longer know the boundaries of acceptable behavior.” In fact, a book review in the Times Educational Supplement in early June quotes the head of the school, which has become famous for non-coercion, as writing, “We see the result of parental interference and over-indulgence all the time. In the 1940s and 1950s, Summerhill was the place where children learned that adults would not brutalize or frighten them. Now the Summerhill community finds itself in the role of disciplinarian, teaching kids that they can’t do what they like and that they have to have regard for other people’s rights and feelings.” If it’s the whole community – children and adults alike – that is doing the teaching here, this is nothing new, because that’s how Summerhill and, indeed, all democratic schools work. But more than that seems to be involved. And I find that troubling and puzzling. The Times review quotes Zoe as writing that even “quite traditional” parents do not give enough thought to the boundaries for children, resulting in the “proverbial ‘spoilt brat’ kind of situation…Even though the ‘old days’ were authoritarian and repressive there was at least some security in knowing where everybody stood in the hierarchy of life.” In Life Learning, our writers and columnists regularly demonstrate that when children are respected and trusted, they do not need to be coerced to behave appropriately…unless, of course, what we want them to do is not in their best interests. Or if they’ve been not respected, distrusted and subjected to “hierarchy” for so long they have trouble with “the boundaries of acceptable behavior.” That is as true today as it was when A.S. Neill founded his school. As Neill wrote in the introduction to his 1960 book Summerhill – A Radical Approach to Child Rearing, “The difficult child is the child who is unhappy. He is at war with himself; and in consequence, he is at war with the world.” The only curing to be done by teachers or psychologists, he wrote, is the curing of unhappiness. Has the school lost that focus? Maybe not. As I browsed through Summerhill this afternoon for the first time in decades, I realized that Neill felt that parents are part of the problem and that he knew better than many of them what is best for children. (Perhaps that’s why one begins a school!) His daughter’s phrase “parental interference” reminded me of a discussion I had a few years ago with Sudbury Valley School co-founder Mimsy Sadofsky, in which she spoke about the need for and difficulty of children separating from their parents, as well as the need for compulsory attendance at her school. Additionally, she said, “not being accountable to your parents during the day can be empowering.” (See page 12 of Life Learning’s July/August 2004 issue.) I guess I see the role of parents in kids’ lives
as quite different, although I realize not all parents are capable of
what’s required. Instead of blaming kids and parents for their poor
fit with a school and coercing them towards a better one, maybe the
money and hard work that keeps such schools alive should be put into
supporting parents so they can raise happy, respected, trusted children. Fear of Everything – November 8, 2006 Alienation Leads to Fear – November 1, 2006 So this report has got it right, yes? No. Its
bizarre recommendation is
that every secondary school pupil (from 11 to 16 years old) should
participate in at least two hours a week of structured and purposeful
extracurricular activities – like martial arts, drama clubs, sports,
Scouts, and so on. This would take place through extended school hours
of between 8am and 6pm and would involve a legal extension of the school
day. Parents who did not ensure their child attended two hours a week of
activities could be fined, in the same way as parents are punished for
their child’s persistent truancy. Now there’s a solution that
doesn’t have anything to do with the problem if I’ve ever seen one!
All it does is formalize the very alienation that caused the fear factor
in the first place. What are these people thinking? Stick these
supposedly troublesome kids away from the community in age-segrated
groups for even longer, rather than integrating them into the lives of
their communities. When will we understand that our mindless dependency
on institutionalization is most often the problem, not the solution? The Fragility of our Ability to Learn – October
22, 2006 A press release about women’s ability to do math, which came across my desk a few days ago, underlines how easy it is to get in the way of learning by convincing someone that a certain subject is hard, or that they aren’t cut out to master a specific skill. Women and math is a controversial topic that led to the resignation last summer of Lawrence Summers, the former president of Harvard. He had speculated in public that one of the potential reasons why women are represented less in math and science professions is that fewer women than men have the intrinsic ability required by such jobs. Some teachers of children seem to agree with Dr. Summers. But a new study underlines how that theory itself is, in fact, detrimental to girls’ and women’s ability to do math. Researchers at the University of British Columbia have found that women perform differently on math tests depending on whether they believe math-related gender differences are determined by genetic or social differences. Women who were told they are naturally as good at math as men did twice as well on math tests as women who were told men have more natural numbers sense. In a paper published in the October 19 edition of the journal Science, UBC investigators Ilan Dar-Nimrod and Steven Heine suggest that women tend to perceive gender differences in math to be innate or genetic, but when they consider such differences to be based on theories of nurture rather than nature, they can improve their performance. “Our study doesn’t explore whether innate sex differences exist,” says Dar-Nimrod, a Psychology doctoral student. “Instead, we investigated how the perceived source of stereotypes can influence women’s math performance.” Associate Professor Heine, who teaches in the Department of Psychology at UBC, adds, “The findings suggest that people tend to accept genetic explanations as if they’re more powerful or irrevocable, which can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. But experiential theories may allow a woman to say this stereotype doesn’t apply to me.” There are a number of messages here for life and
learning, including one that says if you belong to a group for which
there is any kind of negative stereotype, you may end up acting out that
stereotype, whether or not it really
applies to you. AD/HD or Doing What Comes Naturally? – October
19, 2006 The “symptoms” of this “disorder” are defined as frequent fidgeting; inability to get organized, sit still or wait in line; as well as distractibility and procrastination; lateness and relationship problems. I’m guessing that the latter “symptom” is more a result of living with a disorganized, pushy fidgeter, but nobody asked me. According to the news release, “with treatment, a person with AD/HD can sometimes turn negatives into positives.” Uh, or without treatment, maybe people find careers for themselves that fit their personalities! Those supposedly AD/HD-ridden tradespeople (who are often very highly paid, by the way) may simply be cut out for jobs that are free from rigid structure and prolonged desk-sitting. On the other hand, office, bank and retail clerks, with more structure, more public contact and more sitting still (but presumably less pay,) were among the group reporting the fewest symptoms of AD/HD. David Giwerc, a past president of the ADDA who
apparently has AD/HD, is quoted as saying, “Adults with AD/HD have
unique strengths that can also manifest as a result of understanding
their AD/HD. They are often creative, spontaneous, inventive, humorous,
risk-taking problem-solvers.” So where’s the disability from this
disorder? Those qualities sound to me like they bode well for success in
life. Unfortunately for some kids (those with parents who don’t
know about, believe in or feel they can take advantage of unschooling), those traits pose problems in
typical school situations. And perhaps that’s the disability for which they “need” to be treated with drugs. Early Learning, Not Necessarily Early School – October 14, 2006 Nice try, I said, but my body’s forced slow-down had given me the leisure time to read the papers too. And I countered that the survey had found that Canadians feel that fostering positive attitudes toward life and learning in early childhood is more important than school readiness and personal development. It also found that we believe that parents should have the primary responsibility for providing early childhood learning opportunities, which should comprise play rather than academic pursuits. That does not mean that we all think babies should be sent to schools of one sort or another; it does illustrate an impressive awareness of the need to protect and nurture children’s inherent enthusiasm for exploring the world. However, since they frequently reference the need for access to quality child care, I suspect that the researchers/report authors haven’t made the distinction between teaching and learning. That’s not surprising, since most people fail to admit that one doesn’t necessarily lead to the other, and forget that young children are always, energetically learning. There were some interesting (although perhaps not surprising to many unschooling mothers) differences between mothers’ attitudes and those of fathers. For instance, more mothers than fathers said that informal activities are more important than organized classes for young children, while a majority of fathers felt that organized classes were at least as important as reading and playing, and that the instruction should involve communication and problem-solving skills. These are important topics for public discussion. I hope that this survey, which claims to be the first edition of “a yearly barometer of opinions, perceptions and beliefs about lifelong learning in Canada,” will explore attitudes about informal learning and help to place non-institutionalized education on the menu of choices for people of all ages. Oh yeah, and I’m learning how to say no more often so
that I don’t get so stressed, but that’s another blog entry for another
time. Sit Still or Be Drugged – September 10, 2006 I continue to receive both support and censure for that stand. So it’s good to see others coming to the same conclusion. Jane Fendelman, an Arizona-based child and family counselor, says that psychiatrists who participate in this diagnosis and treatment are on the wrong track. The author of the book Raising Human Beings calls ADD and ADHD “an adaptive response to a society that’s stuck in the hamster wheel…We want them to go fast when we say so and slow down and stop when we say so.” Plus, she notes, “they may be bored with a below-par curriculum.” Fendelman was recently interviewed on a radio show produced by the Citizen’s Commission on Human Rights, a three-decade old organization fighting psychiatric abuse. She points out that not only are the pharmaceutical companies making billions of dollars selling Ritalin and other addictive (and sometimes fatal) drugs, schools also have a vested interest in students being diagnosed with ADD or ADHD because they then receive money for servicing these “special needs” children. The interview discusses how the psychiatric drugs
children are given do not address the basic problems they may be faced
with, and often lead to many other problems, such as serious physical
and psychiatric side effects, drug addiction and even death. She reasons
that difficulties can well be expected later in life when one has gotten
through school using amphetamines as a crutch, because the students have
not learned new skills or how to deal with their problems. However, the
situation is not hopeless; as the show’s guest explains, knowledge
equals power. The interview can be downloaded
here (patience is required.) Sitting Still – September 7, 2006 These three apparently very important skills are self-care (putting your own coat and shoes on), sharing…and sitting still. The author writes: “One of the primary components of preschool is circle time, when children sit and listen to a story or sing songs or even do some simple academics as a group.” So parents are told to have their pre-pre-schoolers practice sitting still by having a circle time at home. Having a set time at home for snacks is important too, apparently, so that your preschooler will learn how to sit and eat at specifically scheduled times. Of course, this could be important advice for
people who send their ever younger offspring to school and don’t want
them diagnosed with ADHD, which, by the way, I heard mentioned yesterday
in a radio ad as one of the “mental illnesses and addictions” for
which the local association for mental health could provide help. What
is an illness is the idea that such classroom passivity should be
inflicted on active, joyful three- and four-year-olds. The Power of Images – September 5, 2006 If I’d taken the call, I would have pointed out that the very essence of life learning is that people learn best through experimentation – yes, even if that means being hit on the nose by a softball from the height of a few feet. Perhaps this particular little girl had a knowledgeable person (of any age) nearby with whom she could have discussed the problem post-nose bonking. Or perhaps she would have tried a different hand angle all on her own. As for “girls’ softball”, maybe this little
girl was just having fun tossing a ball around. Maybe she didn’t have
aspirations to play a competitive sport. Or maybe she was on track to developing a high level of competency, based on an acquired passion for throwing and catching balls. Let Me Know When They Get the Facts Right –
August 25, 2006 Poor old Pluto. Does that change things for
astrologers as well as school teachers and students? Pluto has been
relegated to a new category of “dwarf planets” and could, according
to scientists, be joined by many others over the next few years. Now
there’s a challenge for those who believe that education is the
accumulation of facts! Are “Facts” Worth Memorizing? – August 17,
2006 But now, the International Astronomical Union (IAU) is holding a meeting at which the issue will be debated. A proposal is being presented that will define the term and set the current number of known planets at 12. The scientists say that their “refinement of the body of knowledge” is as a result of the advent of powerful new telescopes on the ground and in space, which have caused planetary astronomy to evolve over the past decade. The chair of the IAU’s Planet Definition Committee admits that the discussion of both the scientific and the cultural/historical issues surrounding this issue had its members losing sleep last month. But they have ended up in agreement and, with all probability, there will soon be Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Ceres, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, Charon and 2003 UB313. I wonder how long the old text books will hang around in classrooms. If nothing
else, this is an affirmation of John Holt’s statement that: “Since
we can’t know what knowledge will be most needed in the future, it is
senseless to try to teach it in advance. Instead, we should try to turn
out people who love learning so much and learn so well that they will be
able to learn whatever needs to be learned.” Or to know how to
research current facts when they need them, rather than memorizing
information when they’re young that will turn out to be wrong later in
life! September University – July 24, 2006 Is it the Bullying or the Drugs? – July 23, 2006 Maybe it was supposed to be irony. Or maybe the guy is an articulate (albeit macho) ostrich. I can’t imagine he’s a caring parent…or else why would he want to expose his children to the bullying, violence, competition, drug dealing and otherwise general mean-spirited and negative “socialization” that occurs on playgrounds, let alone what goes on in many classrooms? His reasoning appears to be that “These children will then lack social interactions once they leave the home, furthering their educations in university and/or college.” Aha! Life is violent, competitive, mean-spirited and boring, so we need to expose our children to those things from an early age in order to prepare them. Nonsense. Even if one agrees that life is that awful, the best preparation for a bad adult experience is a good childhood one. One like that experienced by most life learners – rich in contacts with people of all ages, full of meaningful interactions in their communities and grounded in trust and respect for their humanity. And gosh, what about trying to change that awful life?? Is that not one of the purposes of good socialization? There may be valid reasons for parents to send
their kids to school, but socialization isn’t one of them. That
homeschooled children are poorly socialized is a dead argument,
slaughtered a long time ago by generations of superbly well-socialized
adults who learned without attending school and buried by the ongoing
socialization problems in public schools. Freedom and Self-Knowledge – July
19, 2006 As my children were growing up, I saw the benefit of being able to figure out who they were first, on their own and within their supportive family environment, before moving away from the family setting and on to collaborative learning in larger groups. There are varying opinions on the appropriate age for this to happen, but I trusted that they would find their own speed and path. And they did. (Their choices eventually involved regular school, choices I respected but did not agree with.) And that leads to the choice part. I’ve always felt that the biggest problem with the concept of school is compulsory attendance. While there may be some schools for children that are voluntary, they are rare. Even the much-lauded Sudbury Valley model forces students to make an attendance commitment. And maybe the infrastructure involved – building, staff, materials, meetings – needs the stability of a somewhat dependable group of regular participants. But is a school truly democratic if attendance is compulsory…even if it’s run democratically on every other level? Or, to put it another way, does it rank the freedom of children lower than its own health or survival? In response to my July 6 post on this subject, Jessica Kiley wrote: “I think it was John Holt who shared this perspective on schools –the ingredient that is missing from every school, even the ‘free schools’ that were experimented with years back, is that attendance is required, not a choice. Even if a child has complete freedom to choose the lessons, or to choose an activity other than participating in the lessons, the choice is generally not included to leave the school altogether or to attend by personal motivation alone.” In fact, as Life Learning columnist Sandy Lubert
shared in the May/June issue, in Instead of Education, Holt “used
spelling creatively in order to distinguish between S-chools, where
educators ‘get and hold their students by the threat of jail or
uselessness or poverty’ and s-schools, ‘which help people explore
the world as they choose.” An interesting concept, but I think we’d
be better off designing some new language to describe learning that is
truly non-coercive, rather than using creative spelling or appending
prefixes like “home”, “un” or “de” to the “s” word. A
democratic school is better than an undemocratic one, but
it’s still a school. I
don’t mind leaving schools of all stripes to those who want them, but
my work involves changing the whole paradigm to reflect the fact that
people do not have to be forced to learn. Nor do they have to attend special places to do it. 30 Years of History – July 16, 2006 For Natural Life magazine’s birthday, I have been
putting together a retrospective of the last 30 years. In doing so, I
recently came across an editorial that I wrote in 1979 sharing a bad
experience we’d had with a truant officer
– he’d entered our
home by means of a lie, then threatened us with the removal of our 5-1/2-
and 7-year-old daughters if we didn't enroll them in a public school
within two hours. That, of course, was not the correct procedure (to put it mildly!) and he
found out that we knew more about our rights than he did
(again, to put it mildly.)
As a result
of that experience, I decided there was a need to organize homeschooling
families. So my editorial also announced that I was
founding a pioneering homeschool support and advocacy organization. Our
daughters have grown up, the movement has grown up and our business has
matured with the addition of Life Learning magazine almost five years
ago. It’s been an exciting journey, and we look forward to more
adventures and more progress towards a better society. Ranking Educational Alternatives – July 6, 2006 I wrote five fast pages in my journal this morning
about these questions and their answers. I feel another
book…or at least an article…coming on. Feedback, as always, is
welcome. Kids Can Claim Age
Discrimination – July 1, 2006 The tribunal’s decision
is not law unless/until it is adopted or cited by the courts, but it is good news
for the families in the autism case who are now free to proceed in court
with their argument that the government is discriminating against them
on the basis of age, as well as disability. But it could also be very
good news for all children, who may now be able to complain that they
are being discriminated against in other aspects of life. Hmmmm. Wonder
that could mean for compulsory education laws? Hooray for Fooling Around – June 28, 2006 This morning, I heard one “expert” cautioning
that children need free time over the summer, except that it should be
the “fooling around with a purpose” kind of free time. Aside from
the hidden message that learning and fun are incompatible, this person,
being an educator apparently knowledgeable about play, should know
better. Fooling around is how kids learn. Fooling around always has a purpose for
kids. This educator meant the kind of purpose that an adult imposes…that is,
a curriculum-related purpose. If, on the off-chance, a child has really
learned something in school, she won’t forget it over the summer. In
fact, she might use what she learned while fooling around this summer!
However, most of what these well-meaning adults are concerned about
children forgetting hasn’t really been learned; it’s been memorized
with indifference. And it may well be long forgotten by September as the
emancipated children steer clear of anything that looks or smells like
school. And
in place of that memorized stuff that seemed so irrelevant to their
lives is bound to be some real learning that resulted from a
summer of freedom to think, experiment, make mistakes, correct them,
read, day dream and fool around. Definitely Not Deprivation –
June 14, 2006 Five Reasons To Skip
College – May 4, 2006 Go Look It Up – May 2, 2006 Not
Meddling – February 20, 2006 The
people who contact me for direction are often articulate and highly
motivated parents. So it’s no wonder they are surprised when I tell
them to back off and practice keeping out of the way of their
children’s learning. They agree with me when I point out that most
people learn best when they have time to muddle...opportunities to
explore, to investigate their questions and ideas, to create theories
and test them, to make mistakes and try again, to take risks without
somebody monitoring what or if they are learning. But they sometimes get
a bit hostile when I tell them that in order to encourage muddling, they
will need to learn how to stop meddling. And that is harder than it
sounds, especially for highly
motivated and formally educated people who, by nature, are organizers
and achievers. In spite of the best efforts of the education industry,
learning is a process that defies organization and sequencing. And
observing that somewhat messy process can be frustrating and even scary
for some people.
So,
I tell these folks, relax, practice being flexible and let the learning
lifestyle happen. Please don’t try to slyly introduce “topics”,
engineer elaborate “field trips”, choose specific library books, or
plan other well-intentioned activities on your kids’ behalf, I urge.
To support their need to feel like they’re “doing something”, I
tell them that non-meddling parents give control of the learning process
to the learners. They respect their kids’ ability and motivation to
learn what they need to learn. They talk with them; provide
opportunities for interaction with people and things; share and model
learning; support the risk- and mistake-making processes; enrich the
environment with books, pens, paper and other creative materials;
celebrate good ideas and satisfying accomplishments; and commiserate
about experiments that don’t turn out the way they were expected to.
We’re
not programmed to trust in human nature, in people’s love of life and
of learning. School-type education is based on extrinsic motivation, on
learning what someone else has decided is good for you, in the manner
someone else has decided is the best way to learn, and for the reward of
someone else’s praise. It can be hard work to overturn all that
meddling. Mindfulness – February 8, 2006 When you think about it, mindlessness, on the other
hand, is the rigid reliance on old categories, on pre-formulated
distinctions. This is the state that most schooling creates by requiring
the acquisition of facts as unconditional truths, without questioning,
and by testing for the “right” answer. And, notes Langer,
mindlessness is definitely not a condition in which real learning can
happen. The Legacy of Caring Assessment – October 18,
2005 Things are different now in public school classrooms (and in many private and home schools, too). Courses like drama, art, music, physical education – and even recess in some areas – have taken a back seat to preparation for standardized tests. There is an increasing body of research that shows these tests fail to improve students’ performance on tests like the SAT or their success rates in college/university. There is also a great deal of research that documents the damage this fanatical focus on testing does to kids, schools, teachers, the arts and learning. Being in David’s drama classes in the early 1960s helped me become the writer, public speaker and advocate that I am today – my success has nothing to do with teacher evaluation and marks or lack thereof. Still, policy makers seem fixated on “improving” education with more tests and punitive measures for those students and teachers who perform poorly on the tests. As David Booth understood so early in his teaching career, there are other, more creative, ways of ensuring children are having a good educational experience. He knew that there are far more important measures than success on a test…things like the patience and passion to sustain interest in a topic, the ability to plan and organize, to design and carry out research, to work independently, to ask questions (as well as to answer them), to formulate alternative solutions or answers and to communicate clearly and persuasively. These were all goals that Rolf and I had for our daughters’ childhood learning experiences. And I think most of them were achieved. But even then, 25 years or so ago, we had to fight with the educational “authorities” for them not to be tested. If public education is ever to provide all learners
with that kind of learning experience, policy makers will have to stop
taking the regurgitate road. In spite of increasing government pressure
(such as the detestable and grossly mis-named No Child Left Behind act in the U.S.), there are
still some brave educators dedicated to nurturing active learning as opposed to
passive receptivity. David Booth is one.
Alfie Kohn is another who is speaking out against testing. The New York
Performance Standards Consortium, a network of small schools in
New York, is another and they’ve documented their approach on a very useful
website. Learning Doesn’t Have to be Hard – September
26, 2005 It reminded me of what my mother told me over and over when I was a kid: “It’s not worthwhile unless you work for it!” This is the 21st century, and while there is satisfaction in some kinds of hard work, that old cliché is no longer true (if it ever was!). But it is perpetuated in our view of education, which says that learning is hard, challenging, unpleasant work. But watch a young child grow and develop and you will realize that when the time for it is right, learning comes effortlessly. On the other hand, when we’re not interested or engaged in – or ready for – a specific piece of information or skill, when we are presented with a bunch of out-of-context facts to memorize, then even paying attention (let alone learning!) becomes unpleasant and difficult. As I pointed out in my book Challenging Assumptions in Education, hand-in-hand with the notion that learning is hard, goes the idea that it must be measured…or that, in fact, it can be measured. In fact, not only do high test results not measure the amount of learning that has taken place, they can often signal a lack of real learning. What they likely mean is that a great deal of time has been spent force-feeding facts into brains so they can easily be regurgitated and perfecting the skills associated with successful test taking. Unfortunately, governments and taxpayers alike value quantifiable achievement. Apparently, so do success-driven, achievement-oriented fathers. And the easiest way to quantify the achievement of schools, teachers and students is by measuring the retention of a narrow, but organizable, range of information. But this definition of academic success is a very sad boondoggle, in place to protect and perpetuate the industry of schooling, rather than to help children learn. And teachers are as much victims as children. As
Alfie Kohn says in his book What Does it Mean to be Well Educated?
(Beacon Press, 2004), “If kids are going to be forced to learn facts
without context, and skills without meaning, it’s certainly handy to
have a ideology that values difficulty for its own sake.” And if our
economy depends on the production and consumption of ever more cars,
televisions and logo-plastered t-shirts, it’s handy to encourage the
unquestioning mantra of hard work. After all, those well-meaning dads in the café
just want their kids to come out the other end of the schooling sausage maker with jobs that will allow them to buy cars, televisions, leather
briefcases and stylish business attire. Repopulating Communities With
Kids – August 28, 2005 Ideology As a Barrier to Change –
August 14, 2005 The first person – a woman – carefully explained to me that her feminist beliefs do not allow her to support home-based learning because it keeps women at home. Nonsense, I snorted, explaining that fathers could – and sometimes do – stay at home instead, or, as in our family, both parents could find a way to balance their careers and facilitate the education of their children. Indeed, an increasing number of families are involved with community-based learning arrangements that have the same effect. I also told her that my and my husband’s feminist beliefs were one of the reasons our daughters didn’t go to school! We wanted them to avoid the negative influence of sexism as it existed at that time in the public school system, and in addition, we felt that self-education was a good way to help change such stereotypes. The second conversation, which included similar irony, was with a man who was concerned about the privatization of education. I share his concern, except that he and I don’t share a definition of privatization. He uses the word to describe anything that is done outside the public school system, including alternatives like democratic schools and homeschooling. When I, on the other hand, use the word “privatization”, I am referring to for-profit education, which includes for-profit schools (including many charter schools), testing companies, textbook publishers, corporate sponsors and the like. Back in the 1980s, I was on the board of directors of an organization that was fighting to have its members brought into the public finance tent. They were all not-for-profit – either informally like homeschoolers or formally like Montessori schools, remedial learning centers and religious schools – but all helping kids learn in ways that differed from the one-size-fits-all publicly funded system. That organization’s executive director was fond of saying that the government department in charge of education acted like a “Ministry of Public Schools” rather than a “Ministry of Education”. I believed then – and I still do – that a public education system can and must accommodate these alternatives. And it is my hope that it will, eventually, incorporate the best of all the alternatives into its practices, and come to agree that what we now recognize as conventional schooling is not the best way for most people to learn. I ended my recent conversation with this public school supporter by pointing out that, ironically, 20 years later, the public school system is much more dependent upon the for-profit mentality than most of the alternatives he believes will erode the integrity of that system. It seems to me that these supposedly
progressive people are spouting out-of-date, simplistic arguments in
favor of maintaining the status quo. People will always come up with
reasons – many well-founded – why change can’t or won’t happen.
Often, those reasons are some of the biggest barriers to change. No Einsteins Here – July 2, 2005 A bit of Google research uncovered many more such stories. A 2003 CNN piece described a court case in New Jersey where an 18-year-old (who happened to be the daughter of a state judge) asked a federal judge to intervene, saying that being forced to share the speech with students with lesser grades would detract from what she had accomplished. She filed notice to sue the school district claiming the dispute humiliated her. Interestingly enough for those who favor home-based learning, the school refused to make her sole valedictorian, in spite of her top marks, because she “had to” spend part of her day studying at home due to health issues. Similarly, a MSNBC piece from last month describes the plight of a Texas student who was refused the valedictorian honor in spite of having the best marks because she missed some school early in the term due to undergoing hospital treatment for anorexia. Huh? If we’re talking marks here, didn’t she earn the valedictory honor even more by being handicapped by an illness and lost school time? Talbot’s story in
The New Yorker cites some 1981 research by professors Terry Denny and
Karen Arnold, which studied the lives of 81 high school valedictorians
and led to Arnold’s 1995 book Lives of Promise: What Becomes of High School
Valedictorians. The students continued to distinguish themselves
academically in the post-secondary environment. The group included lots
of lawyers, accountants, doctors and engineers, with many Ph.D.s and
master’s degrees. And they tended to stay married, exhibited few
addictions and were active in their communities. They were,
Arnold points out, skilled at conforming to the expectations of school and
chose careers that were likely to be socially and financially secure.
None of the serious athletes ever pursued sports occupations; most of
the high school musicians hung up their instruments after graduating.
None of them exhibited that “powerful early interest” that evolves
into “lifelong, intensive, even obsessive involvement” in an area of
special talent or passion. In short, there were no Einsteins in the
group. And that is not surprising. As Arnold notes, “Exceptional adult achievers often recall formal schooling as a
disliked distraction.” Learned Incompetency – June 16, 2005 I became famous for not being good at math and
within my family it became legend-like, this belief that Wendy just
wasn’t good at math. And so I started to believe it too. I was left
with a lifetime of catching up to do in those areas in which school
taught me I was incompetent. Now, I refer to this school outcome as “learned incompetency” and believe it’s one of the worst things
you can do to someone, especially in the name of education. Ranking Kids and Comparing
Schools – June 11, 2005 Such assessments – of children and of school systems – measure whether or not individual kids learn all on the same timetable. That says little about kids but a lot about the stupidity of a system which would dare to expect that everyone learns in the same way, that there is such a creature as “an average kid” who can provide a benchmark for competition to the front of the pack. Kids are positioned by these assessments as ignorant, empty vessels and schools as the filler-uppers, with the most efficient winning the race. They turn well-meaning teachers into drillers of facts that can be regurgitated on a test so that their schools can, in turn, perform well. What these poor kids are really learning is to be apathetic, bored and competitive. Peter Cowley, director of school performance studies at the Fraser Institute and co-author of the Report Card, waxes enthusiastic about the rankings. “Comparisons are the key to improvement,” he says. “There is great benefit in identifying schools that are particularly effective. By studying the techniques used in schools where students are successful, less effective schools may find ways to improve.” If school systems and conservative think tanks were
really interested in finding ways to help kids learn better, they’d
study the “techniques” of those who learn outside of schools. They’d
ask their students what they want to know and try to figure out ways to let kids
control their own learning processes. That, of course, would require the abolition of
pre-packaged curriculum and other so-called “techniques”. Oh yes,
and they’d get rid of testing. But I guess it’s too much to ask an
institution to dismantle itself! The Problem With Worry – May 23, 2005 Here’s the long answer. First of all, I learned years ago that worry is a bad habit. It comes from negative assumptions about all the bad things that might happen – and from the magical thinking that worrying will actually prevent the bad things from happening. Worriers often believe that their worry proves their love for the object of their worry. Just ask my mother! But I believe that the opposite is true; worry results from a lack of trust (in ourselves, others and the universe). In fact, you can demonstrate love and respect for a person by not worrying about them. In this case, since I trusted the decisions my husband and I had made about how we would parent and educate our daughters, and since I trusted their ability to learn without attending school, I didn’t worry. While worry is a waste of time, and harmful to both the worrier and the person who’s being smothered by the worrying, concern for our children is an appropriate parental attitude. Our concern for our children motivated us to create an environment conducive to learning. And it reminded us to listen to their needs and wants. So instead of wasting time and effort worrying, we acted in ways that optimized our daughters’ chances of success in life and that decreased their chances of experiencing failure or harm. Worry can actually be paralyzing. I hear from many parents who say they are worried about the quality of the education their children are receiving in schools these days, or about the bullying or other issues. Unfortunately, worry is often accepted as a substitute for taking action and the majority of parents don’t act on their fear that public school is not a good place for their children. Why? Perhaps because as human beings we seldom challenge the
conventional ways of doing things. To learn something, we take a course;
to get an education, we go to school. And since public education has the
weight of government and educational “experts” behind it, it must be
the right way to go. Or so the conventional thinking goes. I believe that
when a critical mass of people move
beyond their programming and make more conscious decisions about
children’s place in society, schools will join workhouses as a faintly
remembered relic of a less-enlightened past. And every one of us who is
unworryingly able to offer our children the freedom to learn from life
is helping move society a bit closer to that ideal. Testing & Cynicism – April 24, 2005 Cheating in school is nothing new. But I clearly recall from my own high school experience 40 years ago that it was caused by pressure – from parents, teachers and “the system” – to perform well. That meant, of course, getting the correct answer on a test, a feat that would lead to both short-term (a bike if I passed grade 8) and longer-term (advancement to the next grade along with my friends and eventually a supposedly well-paying job) rewards. In the minds of us students, it had little or nothing to do with learning anything. In this era of high-stakes testing, I am not surprised that there is even more pressure on students to produce the right answers on tests. As I’ve written in this column before, many parents are pushing their kids ever harder to perform well so they can get a head start in the rat race by getting ahead in the job market. At the same time, teachers and schools whose students perform well can receive financial incentives, while those performing below standard on tests are threatened with reprimands and/or budget cuts. This sort of pressure has negative consequences on students’ learning and on their psychological well-being. Stressed-out teachers who teach-to-the-test are hardly able to do more than force their students to memorize facts that will soon be forgotten. There is a growing body of research showing that students subjected to such a narrowly focused view of the world lose any motivation, commitment to learning and love of knowledge they once had. (For instance, see Edward Deci and Richard Ryan’s work on Self-Determination Theory at the University of Rochester.) In the workplace, it is well understood that assessment which provides specific, one-on-one feedback in an atmosphere without pressure or control will result in employees with increased self-motivation who become more effective in meeting challenges. Why don’t we extend that experience to kids? So
it is not surprising that young people are becoming increasingly
disengaged and cynical about tests, resulting in
increased levels of cheating. In order to change that, we must allow
them to feel like competent and autonomous members of a learning
society, rather than like parrots programmed to regurgitate other
people’s words under pressure. Learn the Craft, Then Set it Aside – May 17, 2005 Why Can’t People Read? – May 13, 2005 Call me radical (see May 2,
below), but why aren’t we looking at the
way we help little kids learn to read? Why aren’t we looking at why
all the sophisticated reading research and increasingly earlier
institutional interventions only work for 60 percent of the population?
Seems to me that everyone – teachers, school administrators, parents,
politicians, so-called literacy experts – should take a deep breath,
take two steps back and look at the root of the problem in a new way.
The “old” way – no matter how new – obviously isn’t working. On Being Radical – May 2, 2005 I thanked her for using the word “radical”, and pointed out that it has a few meanings. My dictionary tells me that it originates with the Latin words radix meaning roots and radicalis, which means having roots. And thus comes the botanical term “radical leaves”, which refers to leaves that arise from the root or crown of the plant. So, for me, a person who is radical is one who examines the roots of issues. And a radical solution to a problem is one that arises from that examination, addressing what we sometimes call the root cause, rather than the more superficial symptoms. I suppose that focus on fundamental change is why radical views, opinions, practices or proposed changes sometimes seem extreme. It is also why I prefer to examine how people learn by living, rather than to isolate self-directed learning as just another homeschooling method or style. When I started thinking about these things 35 or so
years ago, I began with the presumption that what was wrong with our
education system wouldn’t be fixed by tinkering – by adding more
subjects, more equipment, more teachers or more funding, or, in fact, by
changing the location of where the teaching took place or the content of
the curriculum that was used. I realized then, and believe it ever more
passionately now, that what’s needed is an examination of how people
learn and whether or not schools provide the best opportunity for that
learning to unfold. (They don’t.) That sort of radical examination of
the problem – and the radical solutions that life learning families
are living every day – is what Life
Learning magazine is about. In that sense, we “don’t keep to the homeschooling topic all the time”. We’re All Gifted – April 10, 2005 A decade ago, the principal of our local public elementary school invited me to help a multi-grade group of “gifted” students learn about journalism and newspaper publishing. I agreed, preparing a couple of sessions to demonstrate reporting, interviewing and news writing, to which the young people responded well. Of course, not all of them were interested in the topic, but most of them seemed to enjoy the experience anyway. Then they became reporters. They each covered an event at their school and wrote about it, using the techniques they had supposedly learned. The next time I met with them, I provided editorial feedback, in the same way I would to adult journalists, true to the principal’s instructions. Although most of them were indignant that I would ask for a re-write, the pieces eventually were published in a special section of the weekly community newspaper I was publishing at the time. In an attempt to provide these students with an ongoing, real-world learning experience, I agreed to make the column a monthly feature. Unfortunately, neither the teacher nor the students were willing or able to meet my deadlines. And the quality of work was dreadful and spiraling downward, with none of the writers adhering in any way to the most basic principles we had discussed – and that they had used when writing their initial articles. In a few cases, when students had apparently tried to write in a journalistic style, their articles had been badly re-written or incorrectly edited by a teacher not involved with the program. I eventually called the whole thing to a halt, and branded it as a lose-lose situation. I should have known better. I should have remembered that creativity and initiative do not flourish in an atmosphere of coercion. While specific talents and interests deserve special training, the best way to help children develop their creative abilities is to surround them with creativity and allow them to pursue their own ideas and projects in the real world. If adults model creative thinking, children will follow their lead. If adults try to look at the world in new ways and to find new ways to do conventional things, children will do the same thing. Aside from being a non-stimulating environment for
all but a few students who have been ranked as part of an elite group,
much of the school mentality actually undermines innovation. There is
little room for true individuality in a school setting. Nor, for that
matter, is there room for any part of the creative process, which is
uneven, bumpy and non-standardized. Pressure to produce – as well as
evaluation, judgment, criticism and comparison – kills any original
thinking and creativity that manage to survive. The Learning Journey – March
17, 2005 In the same way, an education is not a destination,
but a journey. We commonly speak of the importance of “getting an
education”, of “finishing school”, of a person being educated or
not. But I do not believe that we become educated any more than we grow
up! There is always something
to learn…and, in fact, many important lessons are not learned until
mid-life or older. An education is not a destination, but a journey –
one that begins at birth and continues until we die (or even after,
depending upon your spiritual beliefs!). Slow Learning – March 6, 2005 That’s why I prefer a definition of intelligence that involves the ability to explore the world and to understand one’s experiences in it. You could call it “slow learning” because it’s not oriented towards quick results or competition with others. Rather, it involves knowing how to create hypotheses and to test them. It also understands that answers are only “right” in certain contexts and favors the personal process over the more public – and testable – product. As Harvard professor Ellen J. Langer writes in her book The Power of Mindful Learning (Perseus Books, 1998), “If we can shed [the] outcome orientation, we may discover that the freedom to define the process is more significant than achieving an outcome that has no inherent meaning or value outside that particular setting.” When education becomes a journey rather than a
destination, learning can be seen as a process of active
self-determination. And that is a life’s work. Nurturing Instead of Labeling – February 18, 2005 As Jan Fortune-Wood writes in her column in the March/April issue of Life Learning magazine, ODD is the latest in a long list of non-existent “disorders” that adults use to label kids who don’t do what they want. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry says that although all children are “oppositional” to “authority figures” from time to time, it becomes a serious concern “when it affects the child’s social, family and academic life.” According to W. Douglas Tynan, PhD, Director, Disruptive Behavior Clinic, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Behavioral Health (yes, there is such a thing!), AI DuPont Children’s Hospital, “The primary behavioral difficulty is the consistent pattern of refusing to follow commands…” Psychiatric associations claim that between five and 15 percent of all school-age children have ODD! So instead of stopping with the commands and treating children like human beings, parents, doctors and schools decide they are sick and want to medicate them. Instead of taking their cue from life learners and providing children with the trusting learning environment they need, our society continues to warehouse them all day, require them to follow commands and otherwise not respect their needs…and when the kids don’t function well, we blame them. Aside from the fact that school is the only method of education most people have known, most adults believe they know what is best for children – theirs’ and other people’s. Plus, many adults “need” the structure of school in their lives so they can have jobs. And certainly, the education industry “needs” to maintain these non-nurturing environments so that teachers and administrators can have their jobs, text book publishers can make money, and so on. Or do they?? If our society really liked children, wouldn’t we look at other ways for families to live and learn instead of requiring children to serve our needs and call them ill if they don’t? This particular newspaper reporter seems to suggest
that more money is the answer, quoting a report
by the Human Rights Commissioner, which said
the school system “isn’t well-equipped to deal with
students whose disabilities cause disruptive behavior.” But what about
the rights of children to live in environments that don’t provoke an
oppositional or defiant reaction? The little boy’s mother is quoted in
the article as saying this five-year-old is “a wonderful little kid”
until he is faced with rules or is under stress. My heart goes out to
her and I hope she will realize that most of us have problems dealing
with rules and stress, and aren’t labeled with a disability because of
it. I also hope that she will find a different way of helping her
child to learn than in this obviously dysfunctional system. Children Aren’t Like Horses – February 12, 2005 Canada’s national broadcaster CBC has introduced a new column on its website. It’s about education – er, schooling. In the first installment, Mary Ellen Lang – who describes herself as a mom, grandma, writer, teacher, gardener, and equestrian – says that “Teaching kids is like training horses”. Well, maybe. But does that mean that kids learn in the same way as horses do? I know nothing about horses, although I’ve spent 30 years thinking about kids. But Lang must know something I don’t because that sentiment nailed her first job teaching teens in British Columbia two decades ago. And apparently, she still believes that what works for horses works as well for kids. First of all, she says, like horses, a kid has to trust you or “they can’t or won’t learn what you want them to”. Both also have to understand what you want so you have to “communicate clearly”. Perhaps Lang has been successful imparting her agenda to both horses and kids so that they will perform well in the riding ring or on an exam. But the truth is that no matter how well you communicate it, no kid will learn what “you” want them to unless “they” want to learn it, no matter how much they trust you or how well you communicate your desire for them to learn…unless, of course, you brainwash them. She goes on to say that if horses and kids are frightened, angry, confused, humiliated or bored, “they won't invest themselves honestly in what you're trying to teach them”. Probably true. But a kid who is allowed to pursue their own interests, needs and wants will learn without being frightened, angry, confused, humiliated or bored. Trust and self-discipline are crucial, says Lang, so that horses can stand still while their keepers tie them up as a prelude to new shoes and baths. And kids? Well, they need to be able “to tolerate periodic stretches of quiet stillness” in order to reap the rewards of naps, cookies and the development of listening skills. How many kids do you know who consider naps a reward? Cookies, maybe. But the development of listening skills is definitely an adult need, not a kid one. I don’t know how many horses care about getting new shoes. And if those bribes aren’t enough, a dose of reality will get their attention and help them learn to do what they’re told. In the case of a “rebellious” horse, that means helping them understand that they must be "schooled in enclosures” so they won’t hurt themselves. Requiring a horse or a kid to do as they are told is “not some horrible assault on their self-esteem or self-determination” but a necessary component of learning. This, my dear Ms. Lang, isn’t education; it is classroom management. I don’t want to be too hard on this obviously well-intentioned writer, because her views are typical of the child education industry. It’s just that her attitude is one of a benevolent dictator rather than the partnership she describes having with her horse. And this attitude fails to reach its intended goal, which in Lang’s words is to “foster independent and competent thinking.” In the same way that one doesn’t learn how to live democratically unless one lives in a democracy (and most schools aren’t democracies), doing what one is told and trusting that someone else knows what is best for you doesn’t foster independent thinking. Sorry, Mary Ellen. Horses may be lovely animals...and highly trainable, given the right treatment. But they are not children. Posted: 2005/02/13 10:53 AM Teaching Kids to Talk, Walk and Other Adult
Silliness – February 6, 2005 Fortunately, not all hype is as dangerous or as stupid as is this sort of hype. Kids learn to talk by interacting with people in their lives who talk, and who are sensitive and responsive to their desire to communicate...not by listening to recordings of strangers talk! That observation of and encouragement by loving role models is, by the way, also how they learn how to walk. In my presentations about deschooling over the past 25 years, I have often pointed out how absurd it would be for parents to formally instruct their children in the fine art of, say, walking...by means of chalkboard diagrams describing which brain waves command which muscles to move which bones...and then to test their knowledge. Will I soon need to revise my presentation because it no longer seems so absurd?! In this context, a reader has just reminded me about an essay written in 1967 by Jerry Farber entitled “The Student as Nigger”. It was probably the first thing I ever read that questioned the status quo of public education. Farber, who is a civil rights activist, education critic and professor of English at San Diego State University, has said of his essay, “The article was an outgrowth of my attempts to be a good teacher. After several years in the English department at L.A. State College, I had decided that there were limits to how well you could teach in an authoritarian and dehumanized school system. So I thought I would do my bit to help change the system.” The highly controversial essay was first published in the Los Angeles Free Press and then in book form (1970, Pocket Books) and became an underground classic that was reprinted and passed along on campuses across North America. It included the tongue-in-cheek “Teaching Johnny To Walk – an ambulation-instruction program for the normal preschool child”. I guess we haven’t come all that far since the mid 60s
when Farber wrote his essay and since I began pointing out in the mid
70s that
kids will learn if they are given the time and space and encouragement. How silly and how counterproductive to think
that books and recordings – no matter how technologically
sophisticated – can help kids learn to accomplish things they’ve
been learning on their own, with the help of loving families, since
humans began to walk upright and develop language. But that’s
business. The False Premise of Schooling – February 1, 2005 I’ve been corresponding with a journalist who plans an article on home-based learning. But she is having a hard time understanding how people can learn outside of schools. She believes, apparently based on her own school experience, that a person won’t learn unless inspired by a teacher and that children need some kind of mythical social stimulation that she thinks happens in schools. I’ve been telling her that school is based on a false premise: that children do not want to learn and will not learn if left to their own devices. So we force children to gather together in one place for long hours with others of the same age, so that we can teach them. We assume that children must be manipulated to learn by enthusiastic adults, judged and processed in a variety of ways, and diagnosed as having a problem if they don’t learn what the adults want them to. The comparison I used is one that I wrote about in my book Challenging Assumptions in Education: the assumption that says wellness results from treatment by a hospital. One may get well in a hospital and there are some situations where a hospital stay may be the only way to get well. But there are also many examples where a hospital has hindered the healing process or where relatively well people have become ill in hospitals, either through mistreatment or by catching other people’s diseases. Most people would be healthier if they took responsibility for their own well-being, rather than rushing off to be treated by an institution every time they have a health problem. Similarly, I told her, schools are not the only – or for many people, the best – environment for learning. And that is because they focus on teaching rather than on learning. Human beings do not need to be taught in order to learn. We are born interacting with and exploring our surroundings. Babies are active learners, their burning curiosity motivating them to learn how the world works. And if they are given a safe, supportive environment, they will continue to learn hungrily and naturally – in the manner and at the speed that suits them best. In fact, you cannot stop young children learning from everything they experience. They are always experimenting with cause and effect. And they are always soaking up information from their environment. Speak a language in their presence, and they will learn it. Perform a task near them, and they will imitate you. I told this journalist that I hope she loses her assumptions before writing her article. But, like in most of us, they are pretty deeply entrenched. Posted: 2005/02/01 11:09 AM Reaching Our Potential – January 9, 2005 I had a conversation today with someone who was questioning my posts about parents putting too much pressure on their kids to perform well academically and to be prepared for “success” in the adult world. What, he asked, is wrong with helping our children to achieve their potential? Plenty, I responded, if our attitude is one of fear that they won’t rather than trust that they will. And besides, all this emphasis on performance seems to be sidelining goals relating to family, love, community, having children, being happy. Instead, it’s fostering anxiety and self-absorption. And are these parents really motivating their children or setting them up for failure? If success is defined by the parent and not the child, are the goals even relevant? Will these kids ever be able to meet the standards set by their parents? And if not, won’t they feel that they’ve failed? And if they do meet the goals, will they feel they’ve done their best? I worry a lot about people who feel they are accepted only for what they have achieved, rather than for who they are. Sure, our children need to achieve their potential. We all do. And they will,
if they are given the support, respect and trust that they deserve. If
we keep out of their way and let their own innate motivation guide them
to heights we can’t even imagine. Disrupting the Flow – January
3, 2005 Aside from the practice of focusing so maniacally on test scores as a predictor of anything meaningful, test preparation is not real learning; it is, rather, practice for regurgitation. In addition, it is cruel and destructive to limit children’s absorption with their play in such a way and for such a reason. As psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi has described so eloquently with his “flow” theory, people enter a flow state when they are fully absorbed in an activity where they lose their sense of time and have feelings of great satisfaction. Children’s capacity for concentration is huge and that is precisely how they learn. Fortunately,
many private schools and, dare I say, most families whose kids learn without
school avoid subjecting children to testing. Unfortunately, the rest of society
is a very large market for the Time Tracker. Valuing
Young People – December 1, 2004 The students secretly recorded the vocals with the help of their music teacher Alun Renshaw. He took them to a nearby recording studio without the permission of the British school’s headmistress, after being approached by the band’s management. On hearing the song, the headmistress banned the pupils from appearing on television or video in connection with the song. And the local school authority described the lyrics as “scandalous”. The school was paid 1,000 pounds and later given a platinum record of the song but the individuals involved were never paid. Now that, I think, is the scandalous part! It shows just how undervalued young people were, and continued to be. But now, one of those former students has engaged a royalties expert to claim unpaid royalties on behalf of the whole group. They are not suing the band; instead, they are taking advantage of a royalty fund established under British copyright law. Music teacher Renshaw told a British newspaper that he accepted the band’s offer because he viewed it as “an interesting sociological thing and also a wonderful opportunity for the kids to work in a live recording studio. I sort of mentioned it to the headteacher, but didn’t give her a piece of paper with the lyrics on it.” Good for him for understanding that learning happens from real life! The album sold over 12 million copies
and the single became No. 1 in Britain and the U.S. And I imagine the
lyrics are still scandalizing many people, aside from the appalling
grammar.
Learning to Use Power for Change – November 18,
2004 But I shouldn’t be surprised. In the same way that children in school are ruled and regulated by a group of friendly “experts”, we are governed by a professional class of politicians. Instead of self-government, we have a representative democracy in which the elite have centralized power, just as power is centralized in school. And that is the way those in charge like it. It is simply easier to tell us what is good for us and perhaps sell us something than to have us meddling in education, politics or economics. In this kind of democracy, a citizen’s role is not to author public policy, but merely to influence or comment on it. The object of political debate in a schooled society is not to discuss but to persuade, in the same way that a child wheedles and pouts and throws a tantrum in order to get her way. Because we have never learned to take the initiative to make change, we resort to criticizing and complaining...or to misbehaving when the teacher is looking the other way. Physical domination because of size, age, gender or some other supposed right has taught us that power flows from the top down. Big kids bully little kids, teachers and principals have power over their students, strong men abuse physically weaker women and children, big countries invade smaller ones and everyone trashes the environment. Most of us accept this distribution of power, as well as its often brutal consequences. Those who do protest are made to feel like rebels and outsiders. Sometimes the protesters are successful. We change a program here, save a building from demolition there, secure some extra funding for our favorite issue, protect a park from a road that is being widened, persuade politicians to amend a few pieces of legislation. But even when these activities accomplish what they were designed to do, they are just fighting symptoms and effects, rather than the root cause, which is misuse of power. We can look at power negatively, or as the ability
to control what happens to us...or at least to work for alternatives.
Unfortunately, many of us have never even experienced the kind of
collective power that can be used to build alternative solutions. Our
schooling has led us to misunderstand the difference between the power
to do something and the force that makes us do something. We were told
one too many times to sit in our seats and listen, to put up our hands
when we had to go to the bathroom, to buy what we were offered and that
children should be seen and not heard. Legislating Learning – November 15,
2004 What on earth makes this seemingly intelligent (and
certainly well schooled) man think that kids who want to drop out are learning in the first
place? What makes him think that a law ever made anybody learn? Was this
just a slip of the tongue, or does a head of government really believe
what he said? To his government’s credit, they are apparently considering
the creation of alternative
learning situations for young people (read: a slight spin on school), as
well as co-op programs, and have
already begun promoting apprenticeship programs. But, as Toronto Star
columnist Slinger wrote on Saturday in a very funny column, why stop people from learning at age 18? If learning is going to
be compulsory, why discriminate based on age? The Trouble With Perfection – November 8, 2004 Spontaneity also dies when we develop the compulsion to do things perfectly (which is a slippery definition at the best of times anyway). Take drawing, singing or playing the piano, for instance. Yes, some people are fabulously talented professional artists and musicians; but we can all draw and make music as a way of expressing ourselves, communicating and just generally enjoying and enhancing our lives. That is, if we don’t become too inhibited to do so because somebody – art critic, teacher, parent, our own low self-esteem inner critic – defines what is good art and tells us we belong in the audience. The road to perfection is littered with landmines
waiting to kill the joy of creativity and spontaneity. Take the kid who
is having fun noodling around on the piano. Somebody thinks that kid
might “make something” of their apparent talent if they are
“serious enough” about doing so. That’s when the budding artist
has to stop playing, get a teacher and start practicing. A rigorous
schedule is followed, there are competitions to take part it, always on
the road to the holy grail of perfection. Yes, there are those talented
exceptions who are eager to hone their special skills, but for the rest
of us, the joy and spontaneity of play can easily flee as a task becomes
goal-oriented. And how sad to be taught that learning is work, that
trial and error is inefficient, that there is something wrong with the
joy of discovery and creation, that the only valid pursuits in life are
those done for reward or for other people’s reactions. Breaking Free of Schools – November 3, 2004 In Charge of Ourselves – October
12, 2004 Our mission has always been to provide readers with information that will encourage them to question the status quo and hence make their own authentic choices about the food they eat, the things they buy, the amount of natural resources they consume, the way they educate themselves and their children, and so on. Or, in a word, to be self-reliant. Our meaning is in tune (aside from the 1840s gender bias) with that of Ralph Waldo Emerson in his essay entitled “Self-Reliance”, where he wrote, in part, “There is a time in every man’s education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion....” That sense of the importance of each of us crafting our own authentic view of the world still underlies what we are about almost 30 years after we published that first issue of Natural Life magazine. If you are self-reliant, you realize the dangers inherent in educating children in schools...and aren’t afraid to try the non-institutionalized path. If you are self-reliant, you refuse to believe at face value the spin that politicians put on health care, or protecting our food supply and our energy resources...and you do your own research and work together with your neighbors to build positive community alternatives. If you are self-reliant, you take ownership of your own feelings and emotions...and replace blaming others for your anger with a decision not to be angry. Yes, it takes time and effort to question conventional
assumptions. (And beware: questioning one assumption leads to another,
and so on....) But my own journey toward self-reliance has shown me that
doing so can make life far simpler, much less destructive and very much
happier. Not Yet a Learning Society – October 10, 2004 The contrast between that and the way we treat younger learners is striking...and a bit puzzling. A good example of what I’m talking about is the recent study authored by academics at two Toronto post-secondary institutions that called for less learning autonomy and more “program experience” for young children (see September 2, 2004 blog archive). This is the very sort of academic who, years later, has to put more programs in place to help all those teenagers with “program experience” recover from it and learn once again how to be autonomous learners in order to thrive at the post-secondary level! How much sense does that make? People are hard-wired to be autonomous learners from birth. Developmental psychologist Robert White says we are born with an “urge toward competence” – the need to have an impact on our surroundings, to control the world in which we live. We do not just sit and wait for the world to come to us. We try actively to interpret it, to make sense of it. Of course, this drive to discover means we are constantly learning...and experiencing the pride that comes with having gained that mastery. So then why is so hard for people – academics,
non-academics and even many home-educating parents – to trust children
to learn without interference? It has, I think, to do with what the
British writer Roland Meighan in his article in the upcoming issue of Life
Learning calls
“adult chauvinism”. The way our society looks at education involves
power, control and the arrogance that makes us think we always know what
is best for those younger than ourselves. Until we societally adopt the
principle that childhood is not a rehearsal for personhood and lose our
coercive attitude toward children – especially but not solely in terms
of how they learn – we will not be able to call ourselves a learning
society. Solving
Educator-Defined Problems – September 2, 2004
I can hardly write for sputtering with flabbergasted frustration! Those so-called behaviour and learning “problems” result from kids not wanting to be in school, not being interested in what they’re being taught, and/or not having their personal learning styles addressed (as the study’s authors, to be fair, recognize). Six-year-olds need less “program experience”, not more! Behaviour and learning problems don’t exist when kids are engaged with life and learning, when they are not forced into situations that don’t nurture their minds, bodies or souls. If your intent is to create obedient automatons who are socialized into
performing well on an outmoded, mechanized educational assembly line, or
even kids who make an easy transition to grade school by not disrupting
their classes, then put babies into programs at an ever earlier age. If
your intent is to help children develop into autonomous, creatively
thinking, actively learning adults, then keep them out of school as long
as possible...or, better still, abolish school as we know it and spend
the resulting billions of dollars on developing a learning society that
works for all ages. If we are talking about the very real need for
universal access to high quality daycare for those who want or need it,
then let’s say that, rather than
suggesting that such institutionalization is good for kids and will
solve their later schooling problems. Until educators and legislators
start thinking outside the system box and realize that education and
schooling are not the same thing, our kids will continue to have
educator-defined behaviour and learning problems. Symptoms
or Normal Reaction? – September 1, 2004 Now, there are two issues here. First of all,
while I don’t carry the unfortunate ADHD label, I find that stepping
outside or walking/running in a park helps calm me down and relieve stress.
Secondly, I wonder if it ever occurred to these or other researchers
that perhaps many of these kids don’t actually have a disorder at all.
What if their “symptoms” are actually a normal reaction to
being in concrete and steel settings all day, to the fatigue that comes
from focusing their attention on a boring task while trying to block out
the distractions of a school classroom? What if they merely function
better when they are allowed to run and play in the park, as children are designed to do? What if the label is blaming the victim? As writer Jan Hunt has pointed out in an article in Life Learning, we
don’t blame flowers that fail to bloom...we adjust their growing conditions! Who
Are We Testing & Why? – September 20, 2004 I have many objections to testing. For one thing, it presumes to judge the growth of knowledge by measuring performance on one test in one moment of time, rather than as a process of growth that occurs over time. The current broadly-based emphasis on standardized testing means that teachers are increasingly “teaching to the test”. They spend much of their time stuffing kids with a curriculum menu of disconnected bits of information so they can be dutifully spit out again in a way that will make teachers and school systems look good in the eyes of the accountability-demanding, tax-paying public. But memorizing facts in order to be able to regurgitate them isn’t learning; true learning is interest-driven, highly individualized and difficult to measure. Tests – especially standardized ones – test test-taking ability. In addition, they can be poorly written, as well as culturally and educationally biased, and are usually used to label and slot children, rather than teachers or educational systems. In a 1986 Canadian Education Association report entitled
Evaluation for Excellence in Education, the author put it
succinctly: “The modern educational evaluator must recognize that
educational endeavors will be supported by the public only to the extent
that they understand the objectives being pursued and see that the
objectives are actually being attained.” Fair enough. That may be the
political reality for educational administrators. But it has nothing to
do with learning. When will we stop harming our kids with such misguided
bureaucratic practices? Marching
to the Beat of the Institution – August 27, 2004 On a much more positive note, here is a reminder about Self-University
Week, which is September 1 to 7. Sponsored by Charles Hayes’
Alaska-based Autodidactic Press since 1989, the first seven days of
September are a time to remind ourselves that school is not the only
place to learn and that each of us has a responsibility to help shape
the future by pursuing lifelong, self-directed education.
On his website, Hayes
lists 52 ways to celebrate. Learning in the Moment – July
18, 2004 Education
Can´t be Done to People – July 15, 2004 Unfortunately
for children, this assumption is no more valid than the one that says
wellness results from treatment by a hospital. One may get well in a
hospital and there are some situations where a hospital stay may be the
only way to get well. But there are also many examples where a hospital
has hindered the healing process or where relatively well people have
become ill in hospitals, either through mistreatment or by catching
other people’s diseases. Most people would be healthier if they took
responsibility for their own well-being, rather than rushing off to be
treated by an institution every time they have a health problem. Similarly,
people do learn in schools. However, schools are not the only – or for
many people, the best – environment for learning. And that is because
they focus on teaching rather than on learning. What
We Learn in School – July 6, 2004 Fairytales
– June 16, 2004 Why?
Educators (and many parents) tell me it is utopian and impractical, not
to mention practically impossible for many families. Nonsense! If we
really wanted to make life learning available to all, we could and
would. Even though most adults would have to admit to the poverty and
dullness of their own school experiences, and even though the
experiences of many thousands of unschoolers prove there is a better
way, few people are willing to admit the Emperor Has No Clothes.
Even the majority of homeschoolers believe that children must be made to
learn – at least “the basics” – using workbooks, curriculum
programs and other specially tailored products. Part of the problem is
that those products are part of a huge school industry, which has a
vested interest in perpetuating the myth that tests, texts and teachers
are essential to educational success. But aside from that powerful
influence, I often wonder why it is so difficult for families to take
that leap of faith away from their own familiar experiences toward
something so much better, even when they admit that their own
experiences were not all that positive. Interfering
With Learning – May 5, 2004 Adult
control of the learning process can also inhibit kids’ fearless
approach to problem-solving. We have all seen that sort of interference
in action. I still remember vividly an incident that took place over 30
years ago when my two-year-old daughter was trying to put her shoes on.
She proudly put the left shoe on the right foot, then determinedly spent
ten minutes creating a massive knot in the laces. Her grandmother, no
longer being able to watch in silence, said in her peremptory way,
“You’re doing it all wrong. Here, Grandma will do it for you!” My
daughter burst into tears. Fortunately, I had the courage to intervene
because the legacy of that type of “help” left me with a lifelong
resistance to trying something new for fear of not being able to do it
perfectly well the first time. When people are fearful, confused
or bored, or have been convinced that something is too difficult or
messy, or that they are too dumb, they shut down. The surest way to make
someone fearful of risk taking is to demonstrate their chance of
failing. It is no wonder our schools are full of bored, frustrated,
angry, passive children who have lost their ability to question,
experience and learn. Instinct to
Learn – April 29, 2004 Unlike people who
have been told to sit down, line up, be quiet and wait, life learners
don’t just sit and wait for the world to come to them. They actively
try to interpret the world, to make sense of it. They are constantly
learning...and also experiencing the pride that comes with having
understood new things and having mastered new skills. As the adults
living with these constantly learning young people, we are most helpful
when we can honor their right to set their own learning agenda, trust
them to learn what they need to know, help them develop in their own
ways, and provide opportunities that will help them to understand the
world and their culture, as well as to interact with it. Laziness –
April 20, 2004 The Puritan Work Ethic is especially damaging in terms of education, where work for its own sake just doesn’t make sense. Students are often asked to put in long hours in the classroom and doing homework, experiences that seldom produce much real learning. What we call “play”, on the other hand, often results in a great deal of learning. The problem for many adults is their lack of trust in children’s innate ability – yes, their drive – to learn. As a result, they mistrust what seems like inactivity, forgetting that our brains can be very active while our bodies are at rest. Oh, and that fear of growing up lazy? Kids who are able
to pursue the results of their own interests and passions work harder
than those who are made to do meaningless work. That just makes people
aimless and unproductive. Learning and
Forgetting – April 19, 2004 In this book, which is one of many he has written, Smith
writes at length about short- and long-term memory. He explains that the
effort to memorize interferes with memorization because it destroys
understanding. Rote memorization, he says, puts things in the wrong
place (i.e. in short-term memory, where you can only hold onto something
for as long as you rehearse it). When something goes into long-term
memory, on the other hand, information is organized and retrieved on the
basis of the sense they make to us. The way to hold something in
long-term memory is – as anyone knows who has tried to remember a new
acquaintance’s name at a cocktail party – to relate it to something
you already know. But, writes Smith, when you are trying to learn
something there is no need to worry about finding something you can
relate the new knowledge to, “because that will take place
automatically if you understand what you are doing.” So, he
recommends, don’t even think about it. “Get on with enjoying what
you are reading – or look around for something else that is [more]
interesting and does makes sense to you.” In short, the more absorbed
we are in an activity, the more we learn about it.
Radical Holt Book Back in Print
– April 4, 2004
Education as a Meandering Brook – April 2, 2004
Return
to current weblog copyright © Wendy Priesnitz 2004-2009 |
Topics & Passions: natural learning
|
