Cappy

Maria Montessori presents her concept of the absorbent mind - in her book of the same name - as a type of mentality that is particular to children in which they do not attempt to learn, but rather do so with almost no volition, as an act of their nature. This period in a child’s development, while not lasting a predefined amount of time, usually takes place from birth to 6 years old. And it is further evidence to support the argument that children do not need to be taught so much as they need freedom to learn, freedom to do what comes naturally to them. Montessori writes:

Our mind, as it is, would not be able to do what the child’s mind does. To develop a language from nothing needs a different type of mentality. This the child has. His intelligence is not the same kind as ours.

It may be said that we acquire knowledge by using our minds; but the child absorbs knowledge directly into his psychic life. Simply by continuing to live, the child learns to speak his native tongue. A kind of mental chemistry goes on within him. We, by contrast, are recipients. Impressions pour into us and we store them in our minds; but we ourselves remain apart from them, just as a vase keeps separate from the water it contains. Instead, the child undergoes a transformation. Impressions do not merely enter his mind; they form it. They incarnate themselves in him. The child creates his own “mental muscles,” using for this what he finds in the world around him.

This, to me, has two very immediate and very important implications. The first is that currently both parenting and education methods do a great deal to stunt and mar this process. The second is that children who are brought up with this principle in mind will prove that extremely bright, curious, precocious children are not an aberration, but rather the natural, normal state that the child is compelled towards.

Until a handful a decades ago, the most important portion of a student’s development was considered to be university. There he received “higher learning,” there he was prepared for the world. Younger children were all but entirely ignored as curious, learning beings. But now we know better, and vague stabs at applying this knowledge in shown in the form of preschool classes. This, however, is not good enough. A different kind of mind needs a different kind of education. And to Montessori, and myself, this implies a complete abandonment of the educational principles currently supported. Montessori writes of the role of parents and teachers:

The discovery that the child has a mind able to absorb on its own account produces a revolution in education. We can now understand easily why the first period in human development, in which character is formed, is the most important. At no other age has the child greater need of an intelligent help, and any obstacle that impedes his creative work will lessen the chance he has of achieving perfection. We should help the child, therefore, no longer because we think of him as a creature, puny and weak, but because he is endowed with great creative energies, which are of their nature so fragile as to need a loving and intelligent defense. To these energies we want to bring help; not to the child, or to his weakness. When we understand that the energies belong to his unconscious mind, which has to become conscious through work and through an experience of life gained in the world, we realize that the mind of the child in infancy is different from ours, that we cannot reach it by verbal instruction, nor intervene directly in the process of its passion from the unconscious to the conscious - the process of making human faculty - then the whole concept of education changes. It becomes a matter of giving help to the child’s life, to the psychological development of man. No longer is it just as enforced task of retaining our words and ideas.

If that notion doesn’t excite and anger you, then I can only think to blame the French to English translation, because it seems so clear to me that we are missing out on incredible opportunities in the minds of the young, that they are literally being beaten into bored stupidity when they could be raised to such heights of intelligence and freedom that those of us who experienced compulsory school can only imagine.

Uncategorized

Went ahead and updated the blog theme… The other was nice and simple, but really impractical when it came to browsing multiple posts and viewing archives. Hopefully this one will serve better.

Uncategorized

Some of these I’ve read, a couple I am in the process of reading. But I believe there is great insight in all of them, even if sometimes you have to wade through a little nonsense.

The Absorbent Mind by Maria Montessori: Maria Montessori, the creator of the Montessori Method, made incredible and long-lasting contributions to the principles of educating children. She promoted the concept of the “Normalized” child, meaning that independence and a love of learning of normal qualities which all children possess. The Absorbent Mind is considered her cornerstone work.

The Teenage Liberation Handbook by Grace Llewellyn: This book, written for and to teenagers, presents the argument for quitting school to pursue your own education. Definitely controversial, but very thought-provoking. She makes her points on the negative - but intentional - practices of compulsory education, while providing heaps of information and anecdotes about quitting school and those who have done so successfully.

How Children Fail and How Children Learn by John Holt: Two excellent books by the pioneer of the unschooling method.

Weapons of Mass Instruction by John Taylor Gatto: Coming out very soon, this new book by Gatto exposes the true nature of compulsory education. His book is “a demonstration that the harm school inflicts is quite rational and deliberate, following high-level political theories constructed by Plato, Calvin, Spinoza, Fichte, Darwin, Wundt, and others, which contend the term “education” is meaningless because humanity is strictly limited by necessities of biology, psychology, and theology. The real function of pedagogy is to render the common population manageable.”

Education

Reading over the last couple articles I’ve written on education, I feel it important to reiterate that these are little more than my thoughts on the subject based on the little research I’ve done and my own school experience. I wouldn’t go taking your local principle to task just yet… Not that any of you are so easily swayed. I also realized that targeting public schools is unfair… All compulsory schooling faces the same problems. Thus the change in title.

Think back to the friends you made in grade school. Think about the things you had in common, the things you were pressured to do. Think about, really, all the kids you knew back then. They came from different backgrounds, sure. And some were differently skilled than others. Some grew or read a little faster. Some had a bit more money, or a bit more melanin in their skin. But you also shared so much. At the same stages of development, the same number of years of experience, the same awe of the upper-classmen and the same distaste for the lower-classmen. But most of all, you had all the same classes, learned the same things at the same time, and moved at the same pace.

Again we look back at a situation that seemed perfectly natural. You had all your classes with kids the same age, and you did all the same stuff. Makes sense from a purely organizational standpoint. But the truth is that children are once again robbed of a rich learning experience in the name of easy management.

Age

There is of course nothing wrong with learning alongside students your age. The problem is that students are not given a choice, and cannot learn with older and younger students around even if they wanted to. And their learning potential greatly suffers because of it.

• Age grouping enforces superficial differences: Children that are completely removed from the wide array of development and experience levels around them begin to see all children of other ages as inherently different. Older students become romanticized, and are seen as better simply because they are older. Younger students become demonized, and are seen as inferior simply because they are younger. And truly, it is a completely logical conclusion for children to come to given the circumstances. Why else would they be separated by age?
• Age grouping enforces superficial likenesses: The flip side of this coin is that children are greatly limited in their scope of social relationships, and it becomes very difficult for many to find others who share their real interests. And I don’t just mean their interest in purple or monkey bars. We have to stop pretending that children are these two dimensional cartoon characters that only talk about bubblegum and their wonderful daddies. They have personalities with depth and complexity, they are drawn to virtue and ability, and they long to learn about people like them. But when they are left with no choice about whom they can meet and spend time with, they will try to be social in any way possible since they are unable to foster friendships based on mutual interests.
• Increases power of peer pressure: I am not completely sure about this one yet, so I won’t go into too much detail, but I believe that by cordoning off students from children of other ages you are creating a very narrow set of perspectives, making peer pressure a far more powerful force.
• Causes stagnation in group efforts: Again this is another side-effect of the extremely limited experience levels that children are presented with. They are left with only their direct peers to learn from and brainstorm with, greatly reducing their exposure to new ideas. This also has the smaller disadvantage of leaving older students with no experience in relating their knowledge to others besides their direct peers and the requirements of a specific teacher.

Pace

In a setting where students must, by compulsion, learn all things together over the same amount of time, we are once again making the mistake of assuming that kids are all the same. But there are many levels of aptitude and interest, not only in learning in general, but within any particular subject. Even the average student suffers greatly. In some subjects he does very well, and becomes bored and stagnant. In other subjects he might not do so well, and feels rushed and frustrated.

• No Child Left Behind mentality: Again we focus on the myth that all children, once their primary education has completed, should know all the same information about all the same subjects. A utilitarian mindset leads us to believe that in order for children to be treated equally, they must all learn the same things, with none moving ahead or falling behind the others in anything. But even at the very best application, this method can only engender a level of education that is less than mediocre.
• “Gifted” programs are no solution: All gifted programs accomplish is declaring that instead of their being one type of student: the average student, there are two: average students and really smart kids. This is of course false. Every single child is extremely different, they excel and struggle at different things at different times. They are more varied than pasta sauce at the grocery store! Any educational methodology must provide for children of all types.

What It Could be Like

With a mixture of ages and paces, students can interact freely with one another as - and if - they desire. They will be able to form more solid bonds based on common interests rather than just a common age or seating assignment, and younger students can pursue mutually beneficial and respectful relationships with older students.

Students who are able to move more quickly can do so without hindrance, while students who have trouble with a particular subject - or with learning in general - can focus more on problem areas, spend more one-on-one time with teachers and seek guidance from more advanced students (on a mutually voluntary basis).

I also believe that this would have the happy side effect of a more healthy competition among students that would be based more on actual progress - I wish I knew how to build rockets too - rather than superficial standards - I wish I got all A’s.

Education

Continuing my series on public schools, I want to talk about the practice of using grades and report cards, not to mention standard testing methods, and how it effects the growing minds and personalities of children. This time let’s jump straight to the argument from effect, since the argument from intimidation, coming up right after, might be a little harder to swallow right off the bat.

What They Don’t Accomplish

Grades and report cards are a near-universally accepted method in public schools (and most private schools) of gaging a student’s progress in a particular subject, and are a means of highlighting their strengths and pointing out the areas where more focus is needed. Children are often scored on things like class participation and homework, but the majority of their grades comes from tests following each section of a subject (say, after each chapter of a history book), with a much larger test ending the semester and counting for a significant portion of their grade.

Do they succeed? Not at all:

• Grades emphasize arbitrary goals over the learning experience: The point becomes the A, or the Check+, or the high SAT score, rather than the subject matter itself. Learning is no longer about the joy of exploration and discovery, but is just the means to an end.
• Tests emphasize data memorization over subject immersion: The fact that “cramming” is such a well-known term in our public school should be enough to send a shudder down any parent’s back. If a child is given a four-page multiple choice test on Civil War dates, he will do his grudging best to accomplish just that, do well on the test of Friday, forget everything by 3 o’clock that afternoon, and have nothing to show for it afterwards except a distaste for history. Students are force-fed minutia without context or relevance, rather than experiencing and implementing the subject they are studying.
• It is more profitable for schools to post good test scores than it is to engender intelligence and creativity: When a school’s test scores go up, their funding increases. And the opposite is also true. When a school’s funding goes up, it must take on more students and generalize the testing process even more. When a school’s funding goes down, it must lower the intellectual rigor and challenge of its classes.

What Do They Accomplish?

I believe that people may be dishonest in their words, but will show their honesty in their actions. So if a person claims that his goal is one thing, but all of his efforts consistently produce a different, even opposite, result, then it seems logical that either he is not in touch with reality, or that his goal is in fact the thing which he accomplishes.

Schools claim that their purpose is to teach children, to prepare them for life, to interest them in a wide-variety of subjects and academic endeavors. But they do not accomplish this, despite decades of trying, mounds of research and tons of taxpayer dollars. Are schools out of touch with reality? Most definitely! But the fact remains that they are accomplishing their goals, unstated though they may be.

• Bad grades promote a sense of failure: If a student does badly in a class, for whatever reason (he doesn’t enjoy it, the teacher is horrible, the view through the window is distracting, etc), he is punished with a bad grade. Their is no curiosity in his predicament, no interest in why, only the punishment for his “failure” to test well.
• Good grades create dependence: Most children who make good grades cannot conceive of doing badly. Their grades become their standard of value - to their teachers and parents, as well as themselves - rather than the knowledge and experience they might have gained. It becomes then more important to do well than it is to pursue your own interests or enjoy the learning process.
• Grades create unhealthy competition: Generally I am all for competition as the best means of producing the best result. But two girls fighting over one guy isn’t healthy competition, and neither are grades. Students often become obsessed with one-upmanship, again focusing on their grades rather than content. Or the opposite occurs, and grades become an unchosen authority that they fully reject, along with any activity that smacks of learning.

Teachers alone cannot control students. They cannot stand in front of them each day spewing the same boring, disconnected diatribe and expect to keep a calm house. It becomes imperative then, in order to manage kids (this is, after all, the school’s highest goal), to create an environment where students will manage each other. Fear drives some do to better on the next test, while jealousy drive others to do as well as their neighbor.

Kept in herds with children your same age, all of whom move at the same pace, you are left with very, very little choice in what you can look for in a friend. Grades become a means of categorizing ourselves, and finding others like us. And then those grades become a point of pride, a source of personal value. More than anything, they a means of keeping you calm and quiet, sitting at your desk and doing your work.

Education