Month: September 2006

It’s Banned Books Week in the US, an event sponsored by the American Library Association;

BBW celebrates the freedom to choose or the freedom to express one’s opinion even if that opinion might be considered unorthodox or unpopular and stresses the importance of ensuring the availability of those unorthodox or unpopular viewpoints to all who wish to read them. After all, intellectual freedom can exist only where these two essential conditions are met.

The next Freedom to Read Week in Canada will be from 25 February to 3 March 2007. Here are some books from the Canadian list of challenged books (PDF):

• Margaret Atwood – The Handmaid’s Tale
• Lynn Reid Banks – The Indian in the Cupboard
• Margaret Laurence – The Diviners
• Harper Lee – To Kill a Mockingbird
• Alice Munro – Lives of Girls and Women
• J.D. Salinger – Catcher in the Rye
• John Steinbeck – Of Mice and Men

I am sure that all of the individuals, politicians and members of school boards strongly believe that they know what is best for our children and that banning books would be good for our society. I think that they are wrong.

Complaining about any existing system is usually futile and always frustrating. I try to focus my energies on developing alternatives and trying these out. It’s what we’re doing with our Commons initiative and what we should be doing with education.

My first formal education experience was in a one-room school. It was a wonderful time for the the three of us in Grade 1, and we got to see what was happening in the other grades. I don’t remember being bullied there, but I do remember being bullied later in elementary school when we moved to a modern school, with separate classrooms for each grade.

Robert Paterson has written about the one-room school and how it was a trusted space for learning:

None of these schools had more than 50 students. Most had closer to 30. They had a wide range of ages and abilities. In practice, the teacher acted as a learning facilitator. Much of the teaching was done by the older students who helped the younger ones. So while the teacher was an authority figure, she was not the sole talker. Most of the teaching was in the form of a series of conversations between the students themselves. She did not claim to know everything either and called on the wider resources and knowledge in the community to help if needed or pointed the child to the library.

As Rob notes, the design of the school empowered the children in their learning and made them all teachers as well. John Gatto, interviewed in Flatland Magazine, explained that the one room school was too empowering and therefore dangerous to the established elites:

The one room school had a mixture of six or seven ages simultaneously. Everybody got the same work but the teacher didn’t teach. The teacher only taught a few kids, who taught a few kids, who taught a few kids. There was this tremendous powerful interdependence, where terrific confidence of talking to people older than you was developed in the course of the school day. There was concern for people younger than you. There was responsibility. It was almost a cost-free institution, and it worked splendidly, but it had to be eliminated because it doesn’t subordinate the professional staff. There are no principals, or superintendents, or assistant superintendents.

Gatto goes further in the Seven Lesson Schoolteacher, “But total-schooling as we know it is a byproduct of the two “Red Scares” of 1848 and 1919, when powerful interests feared a revolution among our own industrial poor. ”

I find the argument in favour of the one-room schoolhouse quite compelling. I believe that the model is highly suited to our networked information economy and will actually address some of the problems that those who advocate for “back to the basics” or “no child left behind” complain about.

I propose small schools, loosely joined:

• With access to the Internet a one-room school would have to reach out to the rest of the world and not be wrapped in the confines of the industrial school. Schools would have to seek out partnerships and not be isolated islands.
• Communities of learning online could be developed to link learners in several schools and even in different countries.
• No teacher would be able to “master” the subject matter, so teachers would become facilitators of learning, which is what they profess to do anyway .
• Small schools would be integrated into the community and there would be a sense of ownership by the community, not the education system.
• Most children would be able to walk to school, therefore eliminating busses, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and encouraging exercise.
• Children and parents could have more than one school to choose from.
• Sales of industrial school buildings could be used as financial capital for the transition.

The one-room school, grounded in its community but linked to a world of learners, is a model that deserves to be tested.

We attended the annual “meet the parents” session at our local high school last night. Given my criticism of the existing school system (as regular readers will know), I decided to concentrate on listening for understanding and kept my mouth shut.

I found the teachers to be interested in education and motivated to teach. They all seemed to be competent in their areas of expertise. However, on leaving the school, I tried to figure out why my gut feeling was negative. After a night of reflection, I think that my concern is the evident dichotomy between espoused theory and practice, coupled with an unsubstantiated belief in education maxims that have been scientifically proven wrong.

Let’s start with what I heard. Here are the key messages, taken from my 4 pages of notes, reinforced by the principal and teachers:

• The school’s purpose is to challenge children, therefore there will be homework every night.
• We are delighted to say that we test regularly (even though high performing students are exempted from the final exams, and these are the students who will be going to university and will continue to write exams).
• The focus is to teach to the test.
• Students are here to learn, and will be scored on behaviour in class.
• Each teacher sees over 100 students per day, so don’t expect personal attention.
• Punctuality is critical.
• Each teacher covered the assesment breakdown in great detail.
• Incorrect behaviour, described in detail, will be punished.
• We have 640 students in the school and need to maintain control at all times.
• There is very little money for new textbooks ($10,000/year – enough for one subject for one grade level), therefore we do book counts regularly.
• There is very little money for photocopying or paper

The strangest message of the evening was that hats cannot be worn in school as a sign of respect for this “learning environment” and as well as a sign of respect for those who died in previous wars. As a retired Army officer, I don’t understand this one at all.

Here are some of my concerns:

1. There are no data that show that homework improves learning and I invite anyone to show me studies that indicate this.
2. There is a school-wide belief that test performance correlates directly with learning.
3. There is a belief that learning only takes place in a classroom and is directed by a teacher. All other forms of learning are secondary.
4. If learning is so important, why is the major effort put into control and assessment?
5. There was no mention of any of the last decade’s research in brain-based learning, though the unscientific and disproven Bloom’s Taxonomy was mentioned.
6. There was an unquestioning acceptance of the reliance on a single technology – the textbook – when other technologies are available and cheaper.
7. There is an unquestioning belief that the existing regional school model, requiring strict control measures due to its size and structure, is the only viable option for education.

As we parents moved from class to class at the sound of the bell, I felt I might salivate on hearing the next one. It’s been a long time since I was in a bell-controlled environment and I found it very uncomfortable. I’ve previously mentioned John Taylor Gatto’s acceptance speech as teacher of the year, and the fact that teachers reinforce indifference to learning through the “lesson of the bells”.

I would like to quote again from Gatto because I am scared most by the subliminal messages that are being driven into our children’s minds on a daily basis:

The fifth lesson I teach is intellectual dependency. Good people wait for a teacher to tell them what to do. It is the most important lesson, that we must wait for other people, better trained than ourselves, to make the meanings of our lives. The expert makes all the important choices; only I can determine what you must study, or rather, only the people who pay me can make those decisions which I enforce. If I’m told that evolution is fact instead of a theory I transmit that as ordered, punishing deviants who resist what I have been to tell them to think.

This power to control what children will think lets me separate successful students from failures very easily. Successful children do the thinking I appoint them with a minimum of resistance and decent show of enthusiasm. Of the millions of things of value to study, I decide what few we have time for, or it is decided by my faceless employer. The choices are his, why should I argue? Curiosity has no important place in my work, only conformity.

After four years of high school, will our children become intellectually dependent? Should we be scared?

We have just elected a new Provincial government that ran on a 3-E platform (energy, education, economic development). Will any of this change?