Forced to Learn: A discussion about compulsory education in the United States
On Tuesday, January 21st, 2014, a group of future educators, myself included, gathered around a long table in a cramped office to discuss the subject of compulsory education in the United States. The conversation was centered on Peter Gray’s book, Free to Learn, and his theory that children are born with a natural desire and capacity for learning that the current model of education in the U.S. inexplicably works to undermine and extinguish. This contradiction is particularly difficult for future educators to accept. How can we, in all good conscience, work to perpetuate a system that we know is not designed with the student's best interests in mind? How can we change the education system, and bring it into alignment with what we now know about the way that children learn? The goal of the discussion was to address key points from Free to Learn, such as: the importance of free-play for children, pressure from parents and from schools on children to succeed, and the damaging effects of compulsory education. The following are several questions that were posed within the group and the important points that were brought up in response to them.
How do we begin to reinstate free-play into the lives of children?
In Free to Learn, Peter Gray defines free-play as “play in which the players themselves decide what and how to play and are free to modify the goals and rules as they go along (17),” and gives the example that pickup baseball is free-play, whereas a Little League game is not (17). In a more general sense, free-play is that type of playing that children seem to do instinctively which facilitates their learning about their environment, their community, and themselves. No one in the seminar group disagreed with Peter Gray’s claims about the importance of free-play for children. The main concern of the group was trying to figure out how we can create more time and space for this type of learning. One suggestion was to change the age that children started their formal education from 4 and 5 years of age to 8 or 9. Here are some of the pros and cons of this idea.
1. Children will have the opportunity to spend more time at home, thereby increasing the amount of time that they will have to build relationships with and be influenced by their parents and their siblings
1. Childcare issues. Many families in which both parents work and single parent families depend on schools for childcare
2. Schools provide children with opportunities for socialization. This is especially important for children who don’t have siblings, neighbors or relatives living close by
As the group discussed these advantages and disadvantages to children starting their formal education at a later stage in their development, it became clear to us the childcare issue would ultimately be the deciding factor in whether or not the idea would be feasible. One suggestion was the creation of more informal types of childcare facilities that weren’t academically focused. However, this does not solve the bigger issue of the fact that schools are being designed to better serve parents than students.
A study on the fear of crime published in the Canadian Journal of Criminology states that “the fear of crime may itself be seen as a form of psychological distress which lessens the quality of life, restricts access to social or cultural opportunities, and undermines the social integration of local communities (Sacco, 1993, p.2).” A major obstacle to free-play is fear. Many parents, if not most, live in real fear that if they take their eyes off their children, even for a moment, that something terrible will happen to them (the children not the parents). As a result, parents often don't feel comfortable allowing their children to play outside and around their neighborhoods without supervision. For children, constant parental or adult supervision interferes with their ability to fully engage in real free-play, but it hasn't always been this way. Several of us in the group recalled being allowed to roam freely in our neighborhoods until dinner time without any adults being present, so what has caused this change in attitude? Where does this fear come from? Is modern society more dangerous now than it was 50 years ago?
One possible explanation for the source of this fear is the media. The group felt that the constant media coverage of school shootings, child abductions, natural disasters, and murderers are making the world appear to be more dangerous now than in previous years. A quick Wikipedia search of the year 1964 (50 years ago) reveals that in that year a 28 year-old woman was stabbed to death in New York, and even though 38 of her neighbors heard her screaming for help, not one attempted to respond. The second most powerful earthquake ever recorded in the U.S. hit Alaska, killing 125 people, three civil rights workers were murdered by Klansmen in Mississippi, and a 15 year-old boy was killed while riding the Matterhorn Bobsleds at Disneyland, not to mention the often dangerous and always intense civil rights movement and the start of the Vietnam War. These events sound like they could have come right from todays headlines, they don't exactly support the idea that times were safer then. In fact, the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire reports that crimes against children have actually declined in recent years. I don't know if this evidence can provide a definitive yes or no to the question, but I do know that today's media is still saturated with stories like these. If you combine the negative impact of newspapers and television news with the internet and social media, it makes sense that parents would begin to believe that their children are vulnerable to attack whenever they leave the house!
Is being “well-rounded” best for children?
"Well-rounded" is defined as being: (1)educated in many subjects, (2) including many different things, (3) having a lot of variety. The group discussed the common opinion that in order for children to be successful in life, they need to have a “well-rounded” education. This is why so many children, after spending 6 or more hours in school, also find themselves involved in multiple extracurricular activities. The group discussed the pros and cons of being “well-rounded” and came up with the following:
1. Exposure to as many options and opportunities as possible can help children
B. Cons
1. Too much time spent in extracurricular activities takes away from free time and
family time
2. Too many options can make it hard to focus on one interest
The general opinion of the group was that being well-rounded can lead to kids being exposed to a lot but not especially good at anything specific. This led to a discussion about the value of ROP classes and trade schools. When students are encouraged to dedicate their time and energy toward the things that are of interest to them, they not only become better learners, but are better equipped to compete in that specific job market. Unfortunately, there are some negative attitudes toward vocational education and training. The pressure that parents feel to raise children that are well-rounded leads us to our next question.
How does pressure from parents affect students and the school environment?
Most parents want the best for their children. The desire to give children a better future and a better way of life than that of the previous generation is a fundamental part of society in America. It is what this country was founded on. For many parents, the child is a reflection of them, the family, and the family’s values and social position. For this reason, parents often put a lot of pressure on their children to be the best that they can be so that the family is cast in a positive light. Parents may also try and live vicariously through their children, hoping that the child will fulfill their own unrealized dreams.
The pressure to achieve can cause students to become very competitive in school. In a journal article published in Developmental Psychology, a study of 6-7 year old boys revealed that “Boys rated by teachers as highly competitive were found to be less empathic than less competitive boys,” and “Both aggressive and competitive dispositions in 6-7-year-old boys appear to be associated with heightened self-concern, which may serve to make the feelings of other individuals less salient (Barnet et. al. 1979).Competitiveness can undermine the learning process by putting too much emphasis on the end result (grades, etc…) Competitiveness can prevent children from building healthy friendships in which children see themselves as equals. Competitiveness can also lead to bullying when children become focused on who is the best in the class and who is the worst. The pressure that parents put on their children can, in some cases, actually achieve the desired results. I won’t argue that no one has ever benefitted from being pressured to perform at a certain standard, but the negative results can be so devastating as to make children doubt the validity of their own lives.
The current model of public education appears to be unaware of what theories and research have revealed about how children learn. They need time to play and explore freely, without constant direction from adults, instead of long days sitting at a desk, doing what they are told to do. It is the job of future educators and parents to fight for the social and emotional well-being of children instead of perpetuating a broken system that does not meet the needs of children. I personally want to help children love school. Why shouldn't they? The whole country, from politicians, to parents, to students, needs to change its attitude toward education and give it the respect and reverence that it deserves. That is the first step in undoing the damage that has been done by compulsory education.
References
Gray, Peter. Free to Learn: Why Unleashing the Instinct to Play Will Make Our Children Happier, More Self-Reliant, and Better Students For Life. 2013. Basic Books. New York, NY.
Sacco, Vincent F. Social support and the Fear of Crime. Canadian Journal of Criminology.Vol 35 Apr, 1993, Issue 2, p187-196.
Barnett, Mark A. Matthews, Karen A. and Howard, Jeffrey A. Relationship Between Competitiveness and Empathy in 6- and 7-Year-Olds. Developmental Psychology, Vol 15(2), Mar, 1979. pp. 221-222. American Psychological Association.
No comments:
Post a Comment