“I sometimes think that I was born to be in the military because I need to have structure in order to have things grow and fit right. My first goal is creating a positive environment. I’m talking about structure because it sets the tone for learning.” What a loaded statement. Embedded in these words are an entire philosophy and alternate approach – quite opposite to anything we have studied thus far – to education that enforces rather than allows or encourages. We can infer that for the principal, structure has a direct connection to a rigid, militaristic, disciplinary method of teaching or force-feeding: you will eat this because it’s good for you. Watching the entirety of the documentary, I’m not convinced that this structure framed by DI and the principal’s authoritarian control provides a positive environment or tone for learning. The film rarely depicted moments where it appeared that there was a positive environment being created by the school and although the principal may have not been in the military she brought the chain of command approach to the school, seen when she reprimands a teacher like she would a student. Students were constantly being told what to do, they were punished, physically moved, and talked to on a sub-human level.
Taking a step back from the film and recognizing the pressure that the staff of this school is under directs my frustration equally to the public education system. The feeling by the educators that running the school like a prison (it’s clear why schools in impoverished areas are considered pipelines from schools to prisons; the students are treated like prisoners since they are 4 or 5 years old) is also a reflection of the absurdity of standardized tests and the weight they hold on a school’s future. Although I do agree that these children need to learn how to read and write eventually, the DI approach emphasizes speed and the notion that learning is supposed to happen on a designed template and schedule, a notion of urgency forced upon by standardized testing.
Watching this film made me wonder: can any of the different genres of free schools work in such an impoverished area? Yet, this very question holds the assumption made by policy makers and society that these children do not hold the same intellectual and self-motivated capacities as students in higher income areas. In class and in this blog the questions have been raised about what influence and impact do the learners’ parents and home life have on the learner. In observing the children in this film, their actions and behavior are identical to other children I have seen, babysat, or remember from my own childhood. Radical forms of education – opposite to DI – are possible an urgently needed in areas like City Springs. Children in these areas are set up failure when structures of power or the removal of a powerful self in the children are forcefully embedded, causing hate and confusion for authority and the state. This is taught, not inherent and therefore self-dignity, freedom, and the joy of learning can also be taught through an institution that is more or less structure-less.
2 comments:
Good quote from the Principal! Great questions about applicability of Free School model in other areas... in poor neighborhoods. There were many many experiments in the cities in the late 1960s and early 1970. A research project becons you, Martin... a final individual essay? A Capstone? For reasons outlined in the essay on Reggio Emila praxis, few in the USA have ever written on this topic, though there is an American tradition of such schools. It needs attention, badly, in this era of standardization. A humanitistic reform model is not part of the discussion any longer... heck... cognitive psychology in the mainstream is adrift in the resource-starved and standardized schools we have.
So I read the other day that Obama is trying to put more of the power of schools in the hands of the states, reducing the demands felt by "No Child Left Behind". Also, Juliann posted an interesting article about the parent trigger law in California. These show some signs of possible improvement, although I foresee issues that could arise in both. For example, for states to have more control does not mean standardized testing is no longer the means for measurement of a school's achievement. The majority of parents in the parent trigger law might only be signing petitions and are not really being an active contributor to the development of a better education system. Hopefully, these measures result in positive changes in education whereby an emphasis begins to be placed on the empowerment of young people rather than their obedience to excel in a given system.
The experiments you mention in the 60's and 70's were free schools in poor areas of America? It would be cool to investigate if these were successful or not. How can we say that rich children have the capacity to receive an education that teaches democracy, freedom, and self-discovery, while the poor do not? This seems counter-intuitive to the principle of "humanistic education" or "progressive pedagogy".
Post a Comment