Re: Why not let kids be kids?

[Peter Campbell <campbellp@mail.montclair.edu>]

On Mar 18, 2008, at 9:36 AM, QCao009@aol.com wrote:

> I am sure the lies will not stop, but as an electorate, will we become
> somewhat more intelligent through the last eight years of stupidity  
> drooling to
> realize we have been had ?  Or are we going to continue to be  
> fearful and
> unimaginative ?  Structured in a different and more meaningful way,  
> can  early
> pre-K be a good thing ?  Just having them there so someone can  
> count  the beans is
> another waste and further deepen the gap within the family system   
> as time as
> a commodity is more and more deprived from their parents.

Quan - very powerful post. Thanks for your provocative questions.

My take: we have to use strategic language to reframe the debate (al  
la Lakoff, et al) and remind people of something they have forgotten.  
In this case, we have to remind people of the value of childhood. We  
have to do this in a way that is not sappy, naive, and romantic. But,  
at the same time, we can't be afraid of being called sappy, naive,  
and romantic as we stand up for the basic rights of children.

I'm tempted to frame this in terms of efficacy, i.e.,  "what is the  
most effective way to . . .?" But immediately there is the issue of  
the purpose of education. The BRT, et al, want to frame this question  
as "What is the most effective way to prepare children for the 21st  
century economy?" I want to frame this as "What is the most effective  
way to raise happy, healthy humans?"

But the problem here is that the frame of "efficiency" gets repeated  
in both questions. We need to think of a different frame, one that  
does not involve efficiency.

What I love about Jerry's anecdote -- kids at Indiana University in  
an informal education setting learning how to cook -- was his point  
that they "had no 'outcome' measure, but we thought the experience  
was decent, maybe even vital."

This example runs directly counter to the values of the  
accountability/outcomes movement. The problem here is that most folks  
in contemporary education -- teachers, parents, and administrators --  
would scoff at this. Why? Because there are no pre-defined measurable  
outcomes, there is no "rigor," there is no tie to state standards,  
and exploring while cooking does not appear as a multiple choice  
question on the state test.

So how do we break the stranglehold of this current frame?

Nel Noddings -- professor of education, emerita, at Stanford and now  
at TC Columbia -- had a great piece in Ed Week that is re-published  
here. Her insights might help.

Here are some relevant excerpts:

"(T)he overuse of specific learning objectives in all subjects works  
against the development of intellectual habits of mind.  
Superficially, it seems fair to tell students exactly what they must  
learn and be able to do as a result of instruction. This is  
instructionally sound when we are teaching a narrowly defined skill,  
but it is a poor way to encourage problem-solving, critical thinking,  
and the habits of mind that support further, deeper learning. Too  
often the result of such instruction is students who can add when  
told to add, or solve quadratic equations when told to solve the  
following quadratic equations, but cannot decide when to use these  
techniques in solving problems. In the interest of intellectual  
habits of mind, students must be asked to identify for themselves the  
important points in every unit of study, construct their own  
summaries, attempt problems that have no obvious solution, engage in  
interpretation, and evaluate conflicting explanations and points of  
view."

"Providing a complete structure of what is to be learned and a  
detailed list of outcomes expected of all students facilitates quick,  
shallow learning and swift forgetting. The little actually remembered  
is very like a collection of meaningless bits for Trivial Pursuit.  
Students come to expect that they should have answers at their  
fingertips instead of developing an attitude of inquiry one of  
willingness to figure things out."

"The insistence on precisely stated learning objectives, moreover,  
also drastically reduces the number of classroom sessions designed to  
expose students to new, interesting ideas that may or may not result  
in specific learning. It is right to pay continuous, careful  
attention to whether students are learning certain specific material.  
But there should also be sessions devoted to intellectual inputs  
topics teachers choose to present or offer leaving open what students  
might do as a result.

"Many intellectually exciting and socially significant lessons  
conducted by creative teachers are designed to induce awareness, not  
specific learning. It is a shame to sacrifice such sessions in our  
zeal to achieve a pre-specified learning objective for every lesson,  
every day. In addition to asking the question, Has Johnny learned X?  
we should also ask, What has Johnny learned? In a class of 25  
students, we might get 25 different answers to this -- some  
disheartening (from which we should learn), and some quite thrilling."

Can we use Noddings' ideas to reframe the debate?

Peter