Why I'm an educational freak
I have, for better or worse, thrown myself into an online discussion about education. It's a bit personal this time because the discussion group is for the parents of the program where my older son is involved.
I guess I've been put in a situation a couple times where parents have started complaining about the program and expected me to agree with them. I won't, and it's hard for them to understand why.
One issue they often have is that the kids aren't being "productive" enough.
This one bothers me to no end. The kids in this program are generally in the exceptionally to profoundly gifted range. Since when is having these kids do busy work all day really been of benefit to them? Is it really important to see pieces of paper with grades on them as proof that they are learning? (Do we really want to teach them that learning is about grades????) The point of the program is that they are given the freedom to dig into things that interest them in far more depth than they would ever get in a normal school program. In all honesty, if my kid spent the whole day reading, I think he probably would have accomplished far more than he did at his previous school where he had tons of busy work hoisted on him which did nothing but increase his resistance to any sort of study, even self-study.
Other big issue: the kids need more structure.
I agree that maybe a bit more would help, but the program just expanded to include more kids while their space did not. (The physical expansion will happen next year.) However, what parents seem to overlook, in my opinion, is that most kids come out of school absolutely helpless to do anything without direction from teachers. Working independently is not on their radar. I like the fact that the kids need to learn how to structure their time (with guidance from adults) rather than being in "academic boot camp" (i.e. normal school). Yes, my thoughts on this come directly from John Taylor Gatto.
I also think that the ability to work together and socialize is one that is seriously undervalued in most schools. These kids have that. That's awesome. My son has gotten involved in writing scripts and making small films that involve some of the topics they are covering in his language arts class. He has gone to school on an off-day to work on school-related projects. Does everyone's kid want to go to school when they don't have to??
So I really think that, ultimately, these kids will learn far more on their own than if they were sitting in classroom...and together they do some pretty amazing things.
I realize that my experiences have probably led me down a road far different than some (but not all) of the parents. I think that experiential learning is far more important for younger kids. Being around kids with similar interests is important. They are not adults, and I think that, when they are older, they will be far happier and successful if they are not dependent on a structure or system to tell them how to do everything. They will be far more creative if they haven't been taught that they need to be confined.
I imagine this sounds very contrary to my goal of being a college professor. I think that once kids reach college age, it makes more sense for them to have a more structured education...although I think that it may be too structured as it stands now. (For instance, I'm a firm believer that one learns far more geology in a field than in a classroom.) I'd rather have a student come into a college class with a lot of independent study skills and enthusiasm than one who has earned straight As all through school but can't figure out how to do anything at all without having someone to hold their hand. Schools on all levels strongly emphasize lower level thinking skills until, say, junior or senior year of college, and public schools do a pretty poor job of preparing kids for the independence they will have in college.
I really hope that the other parents' agenda is not to turn my son's program into a "college in high school" because there are enough of those around already. I want my son to be happy, creative, and motivated. (I would also like him to be a physicist, but I'll take what I can get.)
I guess I've been put in a situation a couple times where parents have started complaining about the program and expected me to agree with them. I won't, and it's hard for them to understand why.
One issue they often have is that the kids aren't being "productive" enough.
This one bothers me to no end. The kids in this program are generally in the exceptionally to profoundly gifted range. Since when is having these kids do busy work all day really been of benefit to them? Is it really important to see pieces of paper with grades on them as proof that they are learning? (Do we really want to teach them that learning is about grades????) The point of the program is that they are given the freedom to dig into things that interest them in far more depth than they would ever get in a normal school program. In all honesty, if my kid spent the whole day reading, I think he probably would have accomplished far more than he did at his previous school where he had tons of busy work hoisted on him which did nothing but increase his resistance to any sort of study, even self-study.
Other big issue: the kids need more structure.
I agree that maybe a bit more would help, but the program just expanded to include more kids while their space did not. (The physical expansion will happen next year.) However, what parents seem to overlook, in my opinion, is that most kids come out of school absolutely helpless to do anything without direction from teachers. Working independently is not on their radar. I like the fact that the kids need to learn how to structure their time (with guidance from adults) rather than being in "academic boot camp" (i.e. normal school). Yes, my thoughts on this come directly from John Taylor Gatto.
I also think that the ability to work together and socialize is one that is seriously undervalued in most schools. These kids have that. That's awesome. My son has gotten involved in writing scripts and making small films that involve some of the topics they are covering in his language arts class. He has gone to school on an off-day to work on school-related projects. Does everyone's kid want to go to school when they don't have to??
So I really think that, ultimately, these kids will learn far more on their own than if they were sitting in classroom...and together they do some pretty amazing things.
I realize that my experiences have probably led me down a road far different than some (but not all) of the parents. I think that experiential learning is far more important for younger kids. Being around kids with similar interests is important. They are not adults, and I think that, when they are older, they will be far happier and successful if they are not dependent on a structure or system to tell them how to do everything. They will be far more creative if they haven't been taught that they need to be confined.
I imagine this sounds very contrary to my goal of being a college professor. I think that once kids reach college age, it makes more sense for them to have a more structured education...although I think that it may be too structured as it stands now. (For instance, I'm a firm believer that one learns far more geology in a field than in a classroom.) I'd rather have a student come into a college class with a lot of independent study skills and enthusiasm than one who has earned straight As all through school but can't figure out how to do anything at all without having someone to hold their hand. Schools on all levels strongly emphasize lower level thinking skills until, say, junior or senior year of college, and public schools do a pretty poor job of preparing kids for the independence they will have in college.
I really hope that the other parents' agenda is not to turn my son's program into a "college in high school" because there are enough of those around already. I want my son to be happy, creative, and motivated. (I would also like him to be a physicist, but I'll take what I can get.)