Freeing Education

The “Free School” raised several questions for me, mostly pertaining to what Fromm means when he says, “The parents were determined to establish the school upon a viable and nonromantic basis” (2).  What is romantic about the system of education that is currently in place? The fact that the adults who started the school were also parents also generated questions pertaining to what makes a teacher and what the role of a teacher actually is.

Neill states at one point that he has been an educator in the system for many years and that is how he knew it was not working.  His principles, specifically #2 which refers to the aim of education as to “work joyfully and find happiness” seems to be the overly idealistic “romantic” basis that Kozol wants to throw out (xii).  Neill’s brief explanation of the necessity to be happy on pg. 355 was rather unsatisfying and feels almost like a cop-out.  Why does he truly believe that the aim of education is to find happiness? Why can’t the sheer excitement a child gets from learning something new every day be the aim of education? Happiness is such a relative concept that it seems to lose its meaning in this context.  Although one of their principles states that they don’t offer religious education, this concept of the constant desire to attain happiness can be traced back to religion and religious thought (xiv); namely, that humans must find happiness to find meaning in life.  We must feel satisfaction about our lives to appreciate them, which I find to be a highly overrated idea.

Another concept Neill raises that I found very interesting was when he states, “…there are no problem children…only ‘problem parents’ and a ‘problem humanity’(xvi)”.  This goes along with the concept that children are inherently good, insinuating that they are ultimately pure until adults “ruin them.”  So how does this cycle perpetuate itself?

Neill’s reading brought up many questions that I found unanswered, and thus spawned more and more questions and thoughts.

-Why doesn’t the Summerhill school accept “mentally defective” children, as the Albany Free School does (350)?

-How heavy of a role does the concept of personal property and belonging (as with the potato plant story) play in teaching about respect at Summerhill (350)? This concept, too, can be challenged for its view as anti-progressive.

-I was immediately appalled at what I found to be a more than slightly sexist comment that Neill makes when discussing how girls are more bored than boys because they lack interest in the shop, metal and electricity (15).  Why don’t they attempt to find a creative way to reach the girls with these areas of interest? Sometimes it takes looking at an area in a different light to spark interest in it.  There are more than a few classes at Soka that I had found myself bored in, until the teacher found a way to tie what I was actually interested in into the central points of the class.  It made my learning experience more varied and created interest where there was none otherwise.

-The story about Neill attempting to explain why he did not make his own bed reminded me of Carl Rogers’ writing and the need to be honest of one’s emotions and thoughts and not hide them away from students (Rogers 308).  Neill exemplifies this by saying, “We are humans like everyone else, and our human frailties often come into conflict with our theories” (18).  I was shocked that he acknowledges that there are inconsistencies and this is the reason that students and teachers (or children and adults) are inherently on the same level.