Hi
Paul,
I
read your book over the winter holiday and really enjoyed it. It was incredibly
refreshing to read a literature review that didn't focus primarily on
Gates-funded proposals.
As the owner / operator of a free school, I'm going to ask the obvious question -- why no mention of self-directed learning in your literature review? A lot of the research you point to about stress in early learning made me think about how students (and, hell, teachers and parents) experience stress every day in schools. I work in a small alternative school, and one thing parents say over and over again is, "I just want my kid in a place where he/she can experience success."
By and large, these are pretty well off kids, white children, or children of professional immigrants who aren't lacking for educational resources or support --- they are kids who should be doing well in school, but instead, they're basket cases. They're stressed out, they can't sit still, they freak out if you suggest that they sit down and work on math together. Pitching it to kids and families, we deliberately introduce "school" as a community that is highly interested in learning, but where grownups don't give a shit about how they do by standard academic metrics ---where they place, at what level they read, how they score on X, Y, or Z test. The goal is to reduce stress, rather than maximize outcomes --- kids come to us because school is making them crazy. We spend a lot of time talking to kids, having conversations, playing video games together, trying to work out what they're stressed out about, and create friendly alternatives to help them deal with it.
The ideas is, if we can reduce the level of stress --- by making "school" a safe and friendly space -- then they can have space to be curious and interested in things again, and they can do it in their own time. Free schooling has its problems -- it certainly results in a class / race stratification, serving overwhelming white and upper-middle-class (exceptions abound, of course, but that's my own experience). That said, I wonder if, embedded, in old-school free schooling doctrine (John Holt et al), whether there are some insights here about how school itself -- and certainly, the policy context around high-stakes, well-funded reform initiatives -- itself creates the kind of stresses that make it impossible to succeed.
If licking, comforting, hugging, is the strongest marker of success for infants, why wouldn't we also assume that stress -- maintaining school as a low-stress, friendly, safe learning environment -- is just as important for 16-year-olds? If teachers are terrified of being fired, or are so tied by curriculum and higher administration that they cannot be themselves in the classroom, it's hard to imagine how you're going to have a learning space that feels safe enough for kids, in turn, to relax and be themselves. If kids are regularly told that they're stupid, or tracked into classes where their assignments are irrelevant and meaningless -- and then told that they *have to be there* -- that grinding their teeth and working through it is the key to their success -- why not let them hang out and destress for a bit, try to lower the stakes?
Free schooling literature tends to focus on political autonomy, but the more pragmatic aspects -- above all, creating low-stress, friendly, collegial learning environments --- seems just as important here. Linking your first chapter to your last one --- if licking is more important than Baby Einstein videos, why wouldn't we assume that playing video games and being able to curse in the classroom might also be just as instrumental to creating safe, friendly, cheerful environments for teenagers?
That might sound utopian --- but if we're talking about stress as a central inhibitor to successful learning environments, it's worth thinking about creating work environments that grown-ups and kids actually want to be in, and look at how current policy goals are inhibiting those instances.
As the owner / operator of a free school, I'm going to ask the obvious question -- why no mention of self-directed learning in your literature review? A lot of the research you point to about stress in early learning made me think about how students (and, hell, teachers and parents) experience stress every day in schools. I work in a small alternative school, and one thing parents say over and over again is, "I just want my kid in a place where he/she can experience success."
By and large, these are pretty well off kids, white children, or children of professional immigrants who aren't lacking for educational resources or support --- they are kids who should be doing well in school, but instead, they're basket cases. They're stressed out, they can't sit still, they freak out if you suggest that they sit down and work on math together. Pitching it to kids and families, we deliberately introduce "school" as a community that is highly interested in learning, but where grownups don't give a shit about how they do by standard academic metrics ---where they place, at what level they read, how they score on X, Y, or Z test. The goal is to reduce stress, rather than maximize outcomes --- kids come to us because school is making them crazy. We spend a lot of time talking to kids, having conversations, playing video games together, trying to work out what they're stressed out about, and create friendly alternatives to help them deal with it.
The ideas is, if we can reduce the level of stress --- by making "school" a safe and friendly space -- then they can have space to be curious and interested in things again, and they can do it in their own time. Free schooling has its problems -- it certainly results in a class / race stratification, serving overwhelming white and upper-middle-class (exceptions abound, of course, but that's my own experience). That said, I wonder if, embedded, in old-school free schooling doctrine (John Holt et al), whether there are some insights here about how school itself -- and certainly, the policy context around high-stakes, well-funded reform initiatives -- itself creates the kind of stresses that make it impossible to succeed.
If licking, comforting, hugging, is the strongest marker of success for infants, why wouldn't we also assume that stress -- maintaining school as a low-stress, friendly, safe learning environment -- is just as important for 16-year-olds? If teachers are terrified of being fired, or are so tied by curriculum and higher administration that they cannot be themselves in the classroom, it's hard to imagine how you're going to have a learning space that feels safe enough for kids, in turn, to relax and be themselves. If kids are regularly told that they're stupid, or tracked into classes where their assignments are irrelevant and meaningless -- and then told that they *have to be there* -- that grinding their teeth and working through it is the key to their success -- why not let them hang out and destress for a bit, try to lower the stakes?
Free schooling literature tends to focus on political autonomy, but the more pragmatic aspects -- above all, creating low-stress, friendly, collegial learning environments --- seems just as important here. Linking your first chapter to your last one --- if licking is more important than Baby Einstein videos, why wouldn't we assume that playing video games and being able to curse in the classroom might also be just as instrumental to creating safe, friendly, cheerful environments for teenagers?
That might sound utopian --- but if we're talking about stress as a central inhibitor to successful learning environments, it's worth thinking about creating work environments that grown-ups and kids actually want to be in, and look at how current policy goals are inhibiting those instances.
Those
are some of the initial thoughts I had, at least. There was a lot of food for thought in your
book, and I'm grateful to have had the chance to read such a comprehensive
review of the literature. Thanks for
writing such an engaging and useful book!
All
best,
Katie
No comments:
Post a Comment