Re: [ox-en] Self-unfolding education
- From: "B. Fallenstein" <b.fallenstein gmx.de>
- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:55:08 +0100
Timm Murray wrote:
The first thing you have to teach is reading. It is all but impossible to
learn things without being able to read. Thus, I think the first 2-4 years
of schooling are for bootstrapping the process, and should resemble the
school rooms we have now in America, but the focus would be almost entirely
on learning to read.
Ouch. I disagree most heatedly.
Firstly, it is *not* impossible to learn things without being able to
read. For example, you can watch people, you can talk to people, you can
ask people questions, you can play. If you walk through the world with
your eyes open (as the German idiom goes), you are almost constantly learning.
Secondly, it is *not* the best way to learn reading to have it being
forced down your throat. The best way to learn reading is *wanting* to
learn to read. If you want to learn, instead of resisting it, your time
is almost always spend *much* more effectively, you are at ease with
yourself, and you are more likely to stay interested in learning. 2-4
years for learning to read (and maybe use the library and the
internet)?!? Only if you are working *against* the interests of the
students, instead of with them.
Thirdly, it is *not* self-unfolding to sit in the classroom and do the
things a teacher tells you to do. Granted, if you allow students to
follow their self-unfolding, some students may learn reading at a later
time, and a very, very small number may actually not learn to read at
all. So what? It is students' self-unfolding that is good for them *and*
for society at large, and alienation can only work against that. If a
student takes longer to desire reading, who would gain anything if they
were forced to learn it earlier? If a student does not learn to read at
all, and their talents are in other fields (woodwork, say), what would
be lost if they explored these instead?
I have read a lot throughout school. Seven years I've been in a class
together with a boy who could hardly read at all, even at 18. I don't
know what would have happened if it had been his free choice to learn to
read or not. I doubt he would have, but I sure could imagine it. Anyway,
he had very good mechanical skills, and he was good at sports. If he had
spend most of his time on these interests, I think he would have learned
more and had a better time. (Of course, he would have had even greater
problems in our capitalist society, but that's not my concern here.)
Personally, I think the way schools should work is the priciple of the
Sudbury Schools: teaching happens _only when students ask for it_. And
yes, almost all of their students do learn to read.
- From there, the "classroom" basically turns into a library. "Teachers"
become more like "advisors", finding out what the student is intrested in and
then pointing the student in the right direction.
This is more subtle, but I still think the way of the Sudbury Schools is
better. Students *will* find what they're interested in. Children start
out with a great interest in learning until school teaches them that
learning is boring. When children are allowed to self-unfold, they will
find what they're interested in with greater precision than any advisor
ever could.
(Speaking of myself, I started reading about electronics and digital
computers without _anybody_ in my surroundings having pointed me to it.
In 2nd grade, I explained binary addition and substraction to my mother
(who also was my teacher at the time) who had no clue of it. And around
7th grade, I did not stop reading about literature even though my
teachers would not have had the idea to 'advise' me to do so-- I know my
class teacher at the time thought I'd be mainly interested in the
sciences and was very surprised when I showed interest in writing poems.
I am sure students *will* find the right things for their self-unfolding
better than any advisor could.)
I would think "teachers" would become "knowledgable people you can learn
from if you ask for it."
In addition to the
library, labs are available for students to work on specific projects.
Students who like computers could go down to a lab containing mountains of
old parts (I really think the best way to learn about computers is to get
older parts to be peiced together). More mechanical-oreianted students could
find labs with a car shop, or would working materials, or metal shop, etc.
In any case, the labs are available for the students to actually *do* the
projects they read about in the library section. Students are also
encouraged to help each other out in their projects, perhaps taking on a
collaberative project (such as making a whole network of computers for a
distributed.net-style computing system (or just playing Doom :) ).
Agreement here.
(Personally, I also think it would be good if school wasn't totally
separated from the rest of society. In other words, I'd like to see
children walk around in "real" settings like bakeries and galleries and
physics labs, and ask the people there questions-- at least those people
who like kids and enjoy explaining what they're doing to them.)
I have heard some people argue that computers have no place in the school
room. They argue that the computer is mainly a research tool, and thus
should be limited to the library and not seen inside classroom. What these
people miss is that the library represents the ultimate in self-unfolding
education, so the classroom should look more like a library anyway.
IMHO that's too passive. The library is certainly an important part of
self-unfolding education, but I do think an equally important part is
"trying it out"-- writing computer programs, publishing a magazine,
making a clock, creating a web site, conducting interviews, designing a
poll etc. pp.
Well, I think we're in agreement here, just that I would emphasize it
more when summarizing the process.
- Benja
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/