|
|
You can understand why I was startled. The next morning I decided to
call my friend the psychoanalyst Dr. Hy Brau, and see if I could get in.
“Hy,” I said,” can you work me in today?”
“For you, my boy, I’d find a spot any day.”
So I went over to Hy’s office and soon I was comfortably lying down on
his patient’s couch.
“So tell me, what’s the problem?” Hy asked.
I went on with the story of my dream.
“Ah, I know exactly what your problem is,” he exclaimed. “You are an
educator. You are concerned about the direction of schooling in this
country. What you had is an example of the ‘substitution complex’. You
substituted that fancy old car for your concerns about education.”
“Hy, for once you’re talking sense, not that psycho gibberish I usually
hear! What can I do about it?”
Hy prescribed a solution. He told me to read a Washington POST article
online May 9 “Educators Blend Divergent Schools of Thought” and then
intensely read Stephanie Pace Marshall’s great new book The Power to
Transform: Leadership That Brings Learning and Schooling to Life.
I rushed back home to my friendly computer, downloaded the POST article
and then ordered Dr. Marshall’s book from Amazon. (See Dr Marshall's web
site link in article 7.)
Here are some things I found: We have a division in education circles
similar to the political divide in Washington. It’s between the
“traditionalists” on the right and the “constructivists” on the left.
Traditionalists are pushing for more details, factual knowledge, harder
content, quantitative assessment. Schools should be tough, so toughen up
those standards.
Constructivists, as evidenced by Alphie Kohn, one of their chief
proponents, place their importance on students constructing their own
base of knowledge and skills through discovery and exploration of their
lives. John Dewey is their disciple.
Here are a couple quotes. Figure out who’s the traditionalist and who’s
the constructivist.
“If we want kids to be deep thinkers, then why blend an educational
model that features deep thinking with one that’s focused on memorizing
a list of facts?’
“… if a new generation of educators figured out that nontraditional
means of teaching can be merged with a solid academic curriculum, it
would be a miracle.”
And the dialogue goes on. But should it? Aren’t there fundamental
questions that both sides are skimming over? What is the role of
learning? What is education all about? Is it linked to vocational goals?
Is it humanistic? Is it for citizenship? What is schooling? Is it just
the place to accumulate lots of mental “stuff”?
How do we learn? Where do we learn? When do we learn? What and where are
the resources to support learning?
If you are interested in seeking answers to those questions and many
more even more fundamental, read Stephanie Pace Marshall's “The Power to
Transform …” mentioned above. I found it one of the most vivid
explanations of what to me is at the root of education. I want to quote
extensively from her work here, and I urge you to read it completely.
“It soon became abundantly clear that life is about learning and that
cognition or knowing is the essential process of life. I was fascinated
by the deep patterns of wholeness, order, interdependence, and
creativity in the natural world. . . .
“Our guiding metaphor of the universe, living systems, and the
mind-brain was that of a deterministic, mechanistic, and predictable
machine. But science has changed its mind about how the world works: the
natural world is now understood as an interdependent, relational, and
living web of connections – inherently whole, abundant, creative and
self-organizing. I believe our children’s learning would thrive if they
could learn as life does, by being immersed in environments that are
natural living habitats –‘learning arboretums,’ as one of my students
called them, for nurturing integral and wise minds.
“This understanding of the dynamic relationships, sustaining
organization, and boundless creativity of the natural world as context
for learning and schooling is fundamental. Because we unconsciously
institutionalize our scientific worldview in our beliefs, assumptions,
thinking, and behavior, we shape the structure and processes of our
institutions, including our schools, according to the science of our
times.
“Yet despite new discoveries, rigid conceptions of the
world-as-a-machine have calcified into unquestioned models of thinking
and design principles that continue to shape our language, stories,
policies, and institutions. This worldview and its illusions of
predictability, precise measurability, and external controllability
continue to influence almost every dimension of our culture. But nowhere
is the imprint more debilitating than in the processes and structures of
schooling, in what and how we ask our children to learn and in how we
were taught to lead them.”
Dr. Marshall writes so clearly and so profoundly that it is possible to
turn to just about any page in her book and find portions worth quoting.
Unfortunately, I don’t want to be accused of copyright violations, so I
have to refrain from the urge to do so. But I can tweak your curiosity
with some additional especially important observations.
Dr. Marshall goes on to write:
“The design of our current story of schooling often feels like a
management contract with our students. We seem to tell our children that
in exchange for following the rules of schooling – coming to class on
time, paying attention, completing assignments, and passing tests – they
will receive a diploma. The design of the new story feels quite
different. It is transformational, not transactional. It is a learning
covenant with our children – a promise as well as an agreement. . . .
“Let’s visit a possible new school: a learning center for primarily ten
to sixteen year olds, the Aspen Grove Center for Inquiry and
Imagination. I say possible because Aspen Grove represents a synthesis
of learning conditions that already exist in some of our nation’s
schools.
“An aspen grove is a powerful symbol for the new learning and schooling
story. Although an aspen grove looks like a forest of individual trees,
it is actually a single organism connected at its roots. Within a grove
of aspens, most, if not all, the trees are related. Like an aspen grove,
the generative new story of learning and schooling supports a wide
variety of unique learning centers, but they remain connected at the
roots, part of an intricate learning network and system.
“Learning experiences are personalized and intergenerational: As we enter the dynamic and technologically rich learning spaces,
engagement, respect, and freedom are palpable. Aspen Grove serves as an
incubator for inquiry and imagination. It feels like an experimental
laboratory, an interactive hands-on museum, an entrepreneurial think
tank, and a reflective retreat center. Aspen Grove invites and exudes
life. Its space is open, colorful, and fluid. There are lots of windows
for natural light and comfortable furniture that beckons conversation
and problem solving. Learning studios and tutorial and production
studios have telephones; copiers, fax machines, wireless tablets,
digital cameras, and other materials to ensure students can access and
create what they need. Plants are everywhere, and students take care of
them. There is even a flourishing vegetable garden that the children
attend, and once a month they prepare a meal for a community group. A
large outdoor labyrinth invites their reflection.
“There are no bells to signal the end or beginning of classes. Learning
experiences, learning time, and even learning locations are driven by
the goals and commitments of the children and the nature and complexity
of their work. Clusters of children of different ages, teachers,
mentors, and community members, as well as national and international
online partners, are working together. Intergenerational learning is
pervasive.
“Learners are not segregated by traditional age cohorts or grades.
Rather, personalized learning plans co-created with the children and
their families drive the design and creation of learning experiences and
multiage learning clusters. Because learning is explicitly linked to the
community’s life, students are engaged in learning year round and not
confined to the traditional school day. Aspen Grove is part of a global
learning network where learning happens any time and anywhere. . . .
“Students are immersed in disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and
transdisciplinary inquiry. They are learning how to learn, engaging in
collaborative problem framing and resolution, and creatively using
knowledge learned in one discipline to inform the questions raised
within others. They are learning about their own abundant and unique
potentials, developing their own internal authority for learning, and
developing a fluid repertoire of learning strategies essential for
deeper and more complex understanding.”
Schools such as what Dr. Marshall so eloquently describes can only come
about with a groundswell of community, state, and national support.
But what about NCLB and state standards and tests? What about more AP
courses? Will these students be ready for the rigors of college? I wish
I could make a bet with each of the doubters. I can attest from my own
experience that students who receive learning opportunities such as
those described here will do as well as or better than they would have
if they had been in traditional classes. And think about what more they
would have gained that can’t be measured on short answer tests!
We don’t need “chug buggy” schools that may do a fine job preparing
students for lives in the 1910’s and 20’s. We need schools to help
students embrace the challenges ahead of them in the 21st century.
|
|
