With the passing of each page the debate going on in my head heated up. Yes, Peter Gray made a strong case in his book, Free to Learn, as to why we must entrust children to steer up their own learning and development instead of incarcerating them in a “curiosity-killing institution”.
But just when I thought I’d struck my gavel and give the case to Gray, there came the opposition with a counter argument: “Excuse me, but that’s not quite correct. Children need school. Each subject is essential for the complete development of a student’s mind and criteria-- without history one is more prone to repeat mistakes of the past; without math how is one supposed to know how to later on manage his or her personal finances? And without science, how would one explain how the world works? Is one supposed to remain ignorant to this knowledge?” After finishing chapter three, I turned my kindle off for a while to think about this always-present concept of balance. How one must learn to manage his or her time wisely between both social and academic activities; how neither one is more important than the other. These thoughts left me with a feeling of déjà vu. It suddenly hit me: July 2014 at Mancora, Peru. Me laying at the beach while engrossed in a conversation with Pablo, my uncle, a successful business manager, about the myths of success. It was an eye opening ten-minute chat for me. I don't remember exactly how we got to this point in the conversation, but I do recall him saying "Ser inteligente y sacarse buenas notas no es suficiente". He then told me a story about "el mas chancon" of his class in university and how his lack of practice on social interaction and his inability to apply his knowledge in the real world impeded him from being outstanding at his job. Now a day there is less stress on children developing social and motor skills and more on cognitive skills. 21st century learning should involve more critical thinking and application skills. How many times have you heard someone say, “I have to memorize so and so pages for tomorrow’s test”? The majority of school classes involve memorizing the words of Shakespeare so to speak, instead of understanding their concept and complexity. Students are forced to learn numerous things, which most probably won’t be relevant for their future; but since everything in the current system is standardized and intelligence is measured by one specific level, grades, there’s no other choice but to study anyways. According to Gray, lessons, lectures, assignments, tests, grades, segregation by age into classes and any other trapping of the standard system of schooling, are unnecessary. In fact, they’re interfering with children's natural ways of learning. When you think of it this way, it’s true. Only in school will someone be tested on countless completely unrelated topics on the same day. This brings us back to the prepositions statement, anti-play attitude relates to the ever-increasing focus on children’s performance rather than on one’s true learning. Here returns the opposition, “At such young age a child doesn’t yet have the capacity to handle the responsibility of a self directed program. Besides, if this new system my opponent is suggesting, were to be applied, how could one ensure his or her kid would be prepared for college and its expectations?” As I continue reading chapter five, Gray makes a counter case in response to this question: “Three words, one name, Sudbury Valley School. Prove that a school where students are ‘free to learn’ and that puts into practice this new system, works. In fact most students who’ve attended have been successful and claim they’ve never regretted this educational system. The opposition is running out of arguments, while Gray still has five chapters left to cover. After analyzing each side, with still some reluctance, I can agree that by making students attend school as well as other adult directed activities, we are taking their opportunities to practice self-direction and responsibility. I also agree that learning has been turned into work and work can be miserable. By giving students freedom they’d look forward to accomplishing their task and like Richard Bach said, “The more I want to get something done, the less I call it work.” By enforcing play children would develop such desire to get their work done that it’d seem more like a game. Depriving children from free play may not physically kill the body, however it does give a death sentence to spirit and stunts mental growth.
1 Comment
Bon
7/16/2015 01:28:46 am
Onti, this is a great start. Your post is engaging because it has voice. I love how you've used the metaphor of a debate to explain the thoughts and doubts going through your head. You are looking at all the evidence and questioning. You conclusion's genuine. You're still making up your mind. But there again, you hit the nail right on the head. It's all about balance. And this post has a lot of it. Well done.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Daniela Ontaneda16 year old Junior at Colegio Franklin Delano Roosevelt who's taking the IB diploma program. Archives
August 2017
Categories
All
Future Blog Posts:
-Free to Learn by Peter Gray reflection
- If you could change someone's life - If you could change one thing about yourself - Should students be allowed to grade their teacher - What happens after death? - Are precognitions and deja vu different? - Mysteries of the mind - Mentalism - The positive of experiencing pain - What is existentialism -Impact of media on society |