I was just delving into a book and found myself inspired, so I thought: let's blog!
Sorry I have been away for a while; Jered and I have moved to San Francisco and with that and the holidays my mental energy was a bit zapped.
Speaking of mental energy, I was reading a book called Summerhill School: A New View of Childhood, and I came across a quote I would like to share with y'all.
We all have mental energy. All of our mental energy is limited (you can tell this by those moments where you are pulling your hair out 'cause you just can't take anymore in right now!!!). The more mental energy we express for one thing, the less we have for another. The Summerhill School book that I am reading is centered upon a school which considers itself "free", "non-compulsory", or "democratic". These types of schools tend to have an open curriculum and schedule so that children are free to attend classes and study when and what they are naturally inclined to. For example, if a child is not inclined to go to literature class, he/she is allowed and encouraged to partake in activities that are more to his/her liking. This can range from social play outdoors, art, construction, or whatever else they have the resources for.
Now for the quote(s): "Kids between ten and twelve at Summerhill spend very little time in lessons."
They do not say all children. They say kids between 10 and 12. Will this vary? Of course. But the point remains that in the almost 90 years that this school has been in business they see a trend in the way their students behave - a trend to suggest that maybe there is something about the nature of children that necessitates such a break from their typical routines at this specific stage of development. When they looked into the reasons behind the children's behavior, they found that at this age, their pupils were seeking more independent or peer-directed activities, or "get[ting] out from under the weight of adult expectations".
And now the mother of them all: "Understanding why these children make these choices might help educators design schools that would work with a child's nature instead of fighting against it" (I would take out the word might and put most definitely if it were me, but hey, I didn't write it). As this school sees it, if something that is in the child's nature is ignored or denied, conflict will ensue. It is like telling a cat she could not knead... or telling birds they could not fly... Now, we do do these things... We clip the wings of birds, we de-claw cats, and we tell children where to go when to go and what to do with whom... But do we ever deny our own natures? Some of us do - it's called self-deprivation, but it's not necessarily healthy (unless you eat too many cupcakes already) and most of us don't do it, because it makes us miserable creatures who lash out at others... :)
All I am saying is that we do have natures. We have very real natural instincts that we would all like to follow for our own health, well being, and development. Maybe we should attempt to work with them rather than against them, so as to lessen the extent of friction that currently exists in the educational system and it's effects on our children, our families, and our homes.
Lastly, I'd like to say just a bit more on mental energy: If a child is busy using their mental energy to combat their uneasiness in a new situation, fear of peer ridicule, shame of teacher disapproval, etc. or for simply trying to fight the system that is engineered to ignore what they feel are their needs, you will not have quality learning going on. You can fight with your child or student all you want, but for what? Are they actually learning or building a positive self concept or positive concept of what learning is after the fight is over? Or did you just break them into complying?
As a teacher, I strive to coordinate all lessons and activities to match the needs of individual children at that particular moment. Sure it makes lessons and activities harder to set in stone, because above all, being a good teacher necessitates reading the students cues and having the flexibility to respond appropriately to maximize learning (by definition this means in a positive way).
I find that forcing children to focus on activities when they are obviously not ready or disinterested causes power struggles between the child and teacher (or parent) and dangerously sets the student up for failure at the tasks we are asking them to complete. Furthermore, failure tends to lead to decreased self-image and more failure. A professional or college basketball coach whose team had won the championship game that year (I forget exactly who it was and am quite honestly not interested enough to look it up now) said that his strategy for success as a team is to never loose a game twice in a row. At that point morale goes down and failure becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy...
If you want some concrete examples of what (as a teacher and an older sister) I recommend you do not do (as it sets the stage for conflict and therefore not for quality learning) here they are: forcing a child to do homework though they are crying and tired; forcing a child to read this book instead of that book (frankly, I don't even care if they are just looking at pictures - reading will come in it's own time); and forcing children to sit through lessons or activities that they are obviously not engaged in. Most of all, children need to feel capable! The minute they do not feel capable they will withdraw for fear of failure.
To combat the defense brought on by most who support learning in the compulsory manner: Yes, children need to be focused and cultivate their attention spans, but not at the expense of positive learning experiences, which they will eventually get when they are engaged in something of their choosing.
Thanks for your time and please comment! Also, refer friends and e-mail me if you'd like to write a piece for the forum!
Thanks and Happy New Year!
Danielle Cassetta
