Late night television recently aired a tape of a child who calls 911 for help while doing his math homework. Here is an excerpt of it:
Operator: 911 emergencies.
Boy: Yeah I need some help.
Operator: What’s the matter?
Boy: With my math.
.....
Operator: What kind of math do you have that you need help with?
Boy: I have take aways. 16 take away 8 is what?
Operator: You tell me. How much do you think it is?
Boy: I don’t know, 1?
Operator: No. How old are you?
Boy: I’m only 4.
Operator: 4!
Boy: Yeah.
Operator: What’s another problem, that was a tough one.
Boy: Um, oh here’s one. 5 take away 5.
Operator: 5 take away 5 and how much do you think that is?
Boy: 5.
Woman: Johnny what do you think you’re doing?!
Boy: The policeman is helping me with my math.
Woman: What did I tell you about going on the phone?
Boy: You said if I need help to call somebody.
Woman: I didn’t mean the police!
While this is funny, it is also pretty alarming to me. Even the Operator and the boy seem to realize that being "only 4" is really young for independently doing subtraction problems! You can see from his answers that this child is clearly not understanding such an abstract concept, yet he was expected to work on his own to do it.
In my neighborhood the first of the year's parent-teacher conferences are starting, and I have seen several requests for Kindergarten reading tutors through the neighborhood list serve. What is wrong with this picture? It is no coincidence that there are many Kindergartners who are having trouble reading - they are not typically developmentally ready for it! Back when a Kindergartner's day was determined by educators, it was about playing, socialization, art, singing, napping, and the introduction of letters, numbers, shapes and colors. Now Kindergartner's fate is set by politicians with no training necessary in child development, the "fun stuff" has been discarded so that there is more time to rush them to literacy and quadratic equations. There is something truly scary to me about a 4 or 5 year old getting that much pressure to be so serious. It doesn't seem all that different than putting them on a factory job at a young age. We, in this country, find that scenario appalling but too many seem to have no trouble robbing children of their brief time to be playful, joyful, and young.
Let me be clear: I am not saying that all parents who get tutors for their children are bad people. On the contrary! I think the problem lies with what we have allowed our schools to become. The ubiquity of Kindergarten literacy expectations, standardized testing, excessive homework battles,calls for longer and more days in school, etc. have caused parents (who want the best for their children) to conform to the pressure. We have been there. My older son had a tutor in first grade so that he could attempt to keep up with the rest of his class, where ability varied dramatically. We eventually stopped the madness. No more homework, no more tutoring, no more expectations above his abilities. Once we did that, Ronan regained his childhood, his confidence, his curiosity - himself. I truly regret that year, but we certainly all learned a lot (just not what was intended).
A friend recently shared a quote by Robert Kiyosaki. He said, "Our school system is based on the fear of failure not the love of learning, if that changes, when that changes, then we will have a more peaceful world cause we will develop more peaceful people." I completely agree, and when this does change, our children will have their childhood back and we will no longer be in a state of educational emergency. And, who knows, with the world at peace, maybe 911 operators would have no more calls about domestic violence, crime, or math problems, and could focus on health and accident-related calls!
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Recommended Reads - Mrs. Biddlebox and Mrs. Murphy
I love children's books that not only entertain but teach in a clever, memorable way. In early childhood, story telling is one of the most effective ways to teach many things, like values, math, history, social studies among others. There are two books on my kids' bookshelf that fit this category and have become family favorites.
"On a knotty little hill, in a dreary little funk, Mrs. Biddlebox rolled over on the wrong side of her bunk". And so begins a story about a woman in a grouchy mood having a bad day from the very start. She decides to turn the whole rotten morning into a cake, taking the lawn, the sun, the sky and baking it into submission. As she goes about the business of making this unique, from-scratch cake, the reader can see she is taking starting to feel some satisfaction in whipping her day into something better. By the end of the day her cake is done and she sits down to eat, at first taking a dainty slice, but eventually eating the whole thing. Her belly is full, she has changed her attitude, and the first contented smile appears on her face she heads to bed. The illustrations by Marla Frazee are as imaginative and fun as the story itself, bringing alive her fierce determination to actively welcome something better. My kids love the funny illustrations and the fantasy of taking a bad day and making into something really good. I like the book's message of empowerment and responsibility to meet the day with a positive attitude, no matter what happens. "Mrs. Biddlebox" is all the more poignant in that the author, Linda Smith was inspired to write the book as she battled cancer. Intended for four to eight year olds, the book is a real pleasure to read for us as well.
"Mrs. Murphy's Marvelous Mansion", by Emma Perry Roberts is written for the same age group and is about the peculiarly dressed Mrs. Murphy and her quirky little house. She lives on a cul-de-sac surrounded by large, vanilla houses remarkable only in their uniformity. The neighbors try to ignore the eccentric Mrs. Murphy and her odd house, until the Very Finest Neighborhood Contest brings out their neighborhood pride and intolerance. The neighbors let her know that she doesn't belong on their street. Mrs Murphy is surprised but invites them all over to her house for lunch so that they can see for themselves that her house is lovely too. Merely out of curiosity the neighbors accept her invitation. When they enter her tiny-seeming house, they are surprised at how spacious it seems and how beautiful it is. After the guests are shown around and each has commented appreciatively on some wonderful aspect of her house, they eat lunch together and there are smiles all around the table. As the neighbors are leaving one comments, "On the outside, her house is so much different than I expected." Another neighbor agrees that when they looked only at the outside, they couldn't appreciate the inside. Mrs. Murphy closes her door, thinking to herself that "it is a fine day indeed when we learn that beauty on the inside matters more than beauty on the outside." The old message of not judging a book by its cover is brought home in a powerful way that kids can really relate to. The illustrations by Robert Rogalski are as eccentric as Mrs. Murphy, with bold, rich colors and strangely beautiful rooms that give a sense of vast spaciousness and whimsy. The book's message of appreciating and looking for the goodness that is found on the inside makes for a lively discussion and a fun read.
"On a knotty little hill, in a dreary little funk, Mrs. Biddlebox rolled over on the wrong side of her bunk". And so begins a story about a woman in a grouchy mood having a bad day from the very start. She decides to turn the whole rotten morning into a cake, taking the lawn, the sun, the sky and baking it into submission. As she goes about the business of making this unique, from-scratch cake, the reader can see she is taking starting to feel some satisfaction in whipping her day into something better. By the end of the day her cake is done and she sits down to eat, at first taking a dainty slice, but eventually eating the whole thing. Her belly is full, she has changed her attitude, and the first contented smile appears on her face she heads to bed. The illustrations by Marla Frazee are as imaginative and fun as the story itself, bringing alive her fierce determination to actively welcome something better. My kids love the funny illustrations and the fantasy of taking a bad day and making into something really good. I like the book's message of empowerment and responsibility to meet the day with a positive attitude, no matter what happens. "Mrs. Biddlebox" is all the more poignant in that the author, Linda Smith was inspired to write the book as she battled cancer. Intended for four to eight year olds, the book is a real pleasure to read for us as well.
"Mrs. Murphy's Marvelous Mansion", by Emma Perry Roberts is written for the same age group and is about the peculiarly dressed Mrs. Murphy and her quirky little house. She lives on a cul-de-sac surrounded by large, vanilla houses remarkable only in their uniformity. The neighbors try to ignore the eccentric Mrs. Murphy and her odd house, until the Very Finest Neighborhood Contest brings out their neighborhood pride and intolerance. The neighbors let her know that she doesn't belong on their street. Mrs Murphy is surprised but invites them all over to her house for lunch so that they can see for themselves that her house is lovely too. Merely out of curiosity the neighbors accept her invitation. When they enter her tiny-seeming house, they are surprised at how spacious it seems and how beautiful it is. After the guests are shown around and each has commented appreciatively on some wonderful aspect of her house, they eat lunch together and there are smiles all around the table. As the neighbors are leaving one comments, "On the outside, her house is so much different than I expected." Another neighbor agrees that when they looked only at the outside, they couldn't appreciate the inside. Mrs. Murphy closes her door, thinking to herself that "it is a fine day indeed when we learn that beauty on the inside matters more than beauty on the outside." The old message of not judging a book by its cover is brought home in a powerful way that kids can really relate to. The illustrations by Robert Rogalski are as eccentric as Mrs. Murphy, with bold, rich colors and strangely beautiful rooms that give a sense of vast spaciousness and whimsy. The book's message of appreciating and looking for the goodness that is found on the inside makes for a lively discussion and a fun read.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Schooled on Giftedness - An Apology, An Interview, An Alliance
A recent article I wrote on the subject of giftedness caused a rather heated discussion. The end result of it (understanding and ideas) was very positive, but I wish to apologize all the same to many readers whom I might have offended. While it did give a great springboard for discussion and learning, my attempt at humor at the beginning of the article obfuscated the message and I felt terrible that I had offended some without intention. That humbling moment was not in vain, though. I got to to talk to the fabulous Suki Wessling (after we both put down our dukes) and really enjoyed hearing her perspective. Suki is a writer and homeschooler and knows a lot about the subject of giftedness. We decided to do a written conversation on this so that others might understand this topic more.
Suki, you and I agreed that the term giftedness is a woefully inadequate descriptor. I have never disputed that there are very advanced (gifted) children, but took aim at the lack of clarity and it revealed my general dislike for labels. You call it a different term. Can you explain what it is and why it is better?
Parents and educators of "gifted" kids often bat around possible terms to replace gifted, which is such a loaded word because it implies a value judgment. As parents of gifted kids can tell you, parenting a gifted child can be very, very difficult, and their prospects for success are not any better, and sometimes worse, than other kids'. The term I prefer is borrowed from someone else: neuro-nontypical. A neuro-typical person is one who fits pretty easily into that nebulous region we call "typical" or "average" as far as their neurology goes (how they learn, behave, feel). A neuro-nontypical person is just different. Really, that term would include autistic people and Down's syndrome kids, and it's definitely not a value judgment. It's just an acknowledgement that when you're talking about educating a human being, a neurologically unusual child, whether learning disabled or "highly enabled," need a different approach.
Aside from the inadequacy of the term "gifted" why do you think there is such alienation and misunderstanding surrounding it?
A few reasons. One is that we live in a society that pretends to understand the value of intellect, but all indicators say that it doesn't value intellect in the least. Just look at our popular entertainment, our most revered public figures, and the relative salaries of intellectuals vs. non-intellectuals if you want proof.
Another reason is that parents are really feeling under the gun to help their children "succeed." We are bombarded with information that makes us anxious: Your child needs to know all his colors and numbers to get into the best preschool; your child needs to start reading in kindergarten to achieve testing goals; your child needs to be top in her class to get into the college you like. So when a parent says the word "gifted," imagine how loaded that is. "My child has a gift; your child is gonna have to work his butt off!" This is not true of most parents of neuro-nontypical kids, yet the word itself implies it.
When I went to the website called "Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted" (www.sengifted.org) I found a brochure on how to identify a gifted child. I think that part of the problem in identifying giftedness is that is not very clear. It includes characteristics like being very curious and observant, strong vocabulary and reasoning, pattern recognition, problem solving, and strong memory. I realize that there is a matter of degree here, but it is understandable why so many people think there child is gifted. What is gifted and what is it not?
It depends on the situation. Our public schools use certain measures for gifted programs, so some people would use those definitions. Psychologists who work with gifted children may use others. I think it's important to think of it similar to autism: parents of autistic kids often use the phrase "on the spectrum," meaning that a child is autistic, but is in his own unique place on the spectrum of the disorder. "Gifted" just means "good at something" in its most colloquial use. As a term for diagnosis, it's something you can certainly test: does the child learn in a different, faster way than typical children? Does she have any of the corresponding sensitivities and personality traits? Does he have special schooling needs because of the way he learns?
One reader used "smarter" as a synonym for gifted. Does that mean smarter in every category? If we just focused on the pure academics, does that mean a child is smarter in algebra, geometry, zoology, chemistry, writing, reading, geography, etc. or is it in a certain area?
This gets back to that "value judgment" aspect of the word. Frankly, a highly gifted person can be darn stupid in many ways. I remember a friend when I was at Stanford saying, "Why is it all these really smart women we know are so stupid about love?" What she was pointing out is that being good at test-taking, being articulate, good at analysis and dissection -- all those things that got us into Stanford -- have no relationship to good interpersonal skills, good hand-eye coordination, a good sense of humor, or any of the other many traits that we value in human beings.
Gifted people are usually not better at all academic subjects, and the more gifted (i.e. the more removed from the average set of learners out there) a person is, the less likely they seem to have average skills in a wide variety of areas. We all knew the math professor who forgot to wash his clothing, or the really smart 8th-grader who would get hit by balls on the head in P.E. because she was lost in thought, or the kid who hadn't learned to read but had diagrammed the entire New York City subway system inside his English textbook. These are examples of people whose brains were really good at some things, but were not able to function in situations that other people take for granted.
Most gifted people have wide areas of strength, though, so it is probably safe to say that a kid gifted in math would do well at everything that takes mathematical skills (including music, which is often tied to mathematical skills).
What about the Theory of Multiple Intelligences? Beyond academic ability, what about musical, social, athletic, and other skills many of us are blessed with?
Some public school GATE programs take that into account, and include some non-academic areas of giftedness in their programs. The reality is, however, that academic giftedness is that one that causes problems for kids in school. All the other ones you mention are an asset to a student. Yes, a highly social, musical, or athletic child might not be doing great in academics because their passion is taking up so much time, but we don't really see that as so much of a problem. Does anyone know what Barry Bonds' high school grades were?
I think that the theory of multiple intelligences is a great way to integrate all children into a social group, and teach that we should value all children. However, I have seen at least one teacher use it to try to "put the smart kids in their place," which was very destructive. Multiple intelligences should not be used in a school setting to equalize, because we aren't all the same. It is our difference that makes us strong! We are the most highly varied species on the planet, and that is one of our greatest assets. We need to value all the skills that people have. Frankly, even the class clown who disrupts a test with farty sounds is an asset to a classroom, and teachers need to understand that and figure out how to work with it.
We talked a bit about IQ tests. I don't feel they are a good measurement of a person's needs and abilities and have read a lot of Sir Ken Robinson's views on this subject. He insists that IQ tests and scores are outdated, flawed, and changing. Indeed the 100+ year history of the test has had it share of critics, including Alfred Binet, who pioneered the first intelligence scale. Many critics point out that it is impossible to measure intelligence when we have not even defined it properly. What are your thoughts on this?
My parents chose not to have their kids' IQ tested, and my husband I have chosen the same route. The number really doesn't matter to us, because we have found ways to create a positive learning environment for our kids: one of them is thriving in a public homeschool program; the other is thriving at a very socially positive and supportive private school.
The value that parents have found in the IQ test, as far as I have heard, is just that it sometimes can point out important things about how a child learns. Sometimes when trying to educate a child who seems ineducable, finding out that he has a top-of-the-charts IQ can help you understand how to reach him. Another value is that a child who has been pegged learning disabled in a school can be tested and be found to be profoundly gifted, which sometimes looks very similar to learning disabled, oddly enough. The number in that case is ammunition the parents can use to get their child the services she needs.
I don't see any value in IQ testing as a matter of course. It just seems weird to pin a number on people and then write them off. Rent the movie Gattaca!
Another point about IQ as it relates to determining giftedness is that the cut-off seems fairly arbitrary. Who is to say that someone with an IQ of, say 129 is not gifted, but someone with one of 130 is? It seems to me that the number does not change the fact that you still must meet the individual needs of each student.
Totally arbitrary. You suggested in your post that all kids need IEPs -- I agree with you. That is the beauty of homeschooling and smaller school programs: each child can be given what she needs and what inspires her. Once you get to large public schools, however, that cut-off is sometimes the difference between being stuck in a class that is going to drill the information for The Test yet again for the umpteenth time, and a class that's going to dissect frogs! That's when you get parents tearing their hair out trying to help their child "succeed." And that's when you get parents feeling like they're in battle with each other to get services for their kids. It's similar to the parents of kids in special education who feel they have to justify that their child has an aide when the classroom doesn't have enough money for crayons. If all students' needs were funded, I believe the cut-off would just be an arbitrary place for the school to start to say, "does this child have special needs that we haven't noticed?" Otherwise, yes, it is totally arbitrary and divisive.
In my original post I suggested that rather than focusing on our differences (high or low IQ, learning disabled or gifted) I thought it would be better to focus on meeting every kid right where he is (this was meant to be the main point). I like the approach of each kid getting an IEP (Individualized Education Plan), which are typically given to struggling students. Why not give each kid one? Sure, it would not fit with the conventional model found in most schools and it does not do much for standardization, but the fact that we are talking about the challenges of giftedness doesn't speak much for the reality or goal of standardization. In a Democratic School, students are given far more independence in their learning so that it meets their interests and needs, adding a level of maturity, responsibility, and customization to their education. (See my post about a school in Denver that does this:
http://abettereducation.blogspot.com/2009/07/beautiful-marriage-of-opendemoc
ratic.html). What about offering more schools like this?
I'm all for it! I have spent my kids' school years trying to keep them in programs that suit them. Here in Santa Cruz County (California), we are blessed with a huge population of families who care about education, and thus a higher than average number of special programs, charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling options. As my children age, I start to see their former preschool classmates trickling into these special programs as parents realize their children's needs aren't being met.
My utopic vision of a public education system is this: Each county (or whatever geographic area makes sense in each location) would be one district. The schools would be small and fluid: Some kids would go to the same school every day. Some kids would only go to school certain days and learn independently other days. Some kids would go to different programs at different schools depending on their needs. Some kids would never go to school. All kids would be able to take part in the programs that they enjoy. Testing would happen just a couple of times, perhaps 3rd and 6th grade, just to make sure that nothing is being missed as far as the basic tools of modern life are concerned.
Unlike many homeschoolers, I do believe that there is a real reason for public education, and I do strongly believe that education needs to be compulsory. How you put together an education for a child, however, would be much more fluid than it is now, more focused on what "success" means for each student rather than what "success" means for administrators of a school district.
What are the alternatives for students who are not challenged enough in schools?
That depends on the location. Private schools can often offer more, but that is not necessarily the case. Parents should pay very close attention to the peer group at a private school to make sure it's the right fit for their child, since private schools tend to have a student population that is more narrowly focused and often their educational approach is very specific, such as Montessori.
Some public school GATE programs are run with the child in mind, and really do offer a more appropriate education within the public school system. Some, however, are just geared to pile on more busy work, faster, which doesn't serve most children, gifted or not.
Public charter schools and special programs can sometimes be a great fit for a student who needs more challenging work. It's important to note that "challenging" does NOT mean more busy work! Most kids whose brains function at a higher level tend not to be satisfied with yet another worksheet of math problems that they can do. Instead, they will excel if they are offered experiential programs that incorporate and expand their skills. Find out about local charter schools through your school district office or at http://www.uscharterschools.org/.
Homeschooling is a very good option for gifted kids who are extremely unusual learners or who have emotional/social difficulties. Homeschooling can happen within all sorts of different programs or outside of programs. In California, any family can set up their own private school and homeschool that way. If families want to be attached to a school, most districts have homeschool programs (either charter schools or special programs). We also have multi-locale charters that families can sign up with if there's no homeschool program near them. (Some of these take kids from a wide geographic area.) To learn more about homeschooling in California, visit the Homeschool Association of California - http://hsc.org/.
Describe the emotional issues of neuro-advanced students.
You mentioned http://sengifted.org -- I highly recommend that parents of gifted kids go there to get help. Neurologically different kids are usually not just different academically. Common issues that can show up in neuro-nontypical kids include high sensitivities, difficulties with social skills, asynchronous development, behaviors that resemble oppositional disorder, ADHD or bipolar, and more. Often these problems cannot be addressed sufficiently unless the whole child -- including his advanced intellect -- is considered as a package. A significant number of gifted kids are probably given unnecessary drug therapy when a change in learning environment or help with life skills might suffice.
Tracy, thank you so much for responding the way you did to criticism from parents of gifted kids. We need to learn from each other so that we can figure out how to make education better for all kids. I know that the tight budgets and balkanized educational theories make us all defensive, and I appreciate how you are doing your part to break down the barriers. -- Suki Wessling
To read more from Suki, check out her blog at http://sukiwessling.parentclickblog.com/
Suki, you and I agreed that the term giftedness is a woefully inadequate descriptor. I have never disputed that there are very advanced (gifted) children, but took aim at the lack of clarity and it revealed my general dislike for labels. You call it a different term. Can you explain what it is and why it is better?
Parents and educators of "gifted" kids often bat around possible terms to replace gifted, which is such a loaded word because it implies a value judgment. As parents of gifted kids can tell you, parenting a gifted child can be very, very difficult, and their prospects for success are not any better, and sometimes worse, than other kids'. The term I prefer is borrowed from someone else: neuro-nontypical. A neuro-typical person is one who fits pretty easily into that nebulous region we call "typical" or "average" as far as their neurology goes (how they learn, behave, feel). A neuro-nontypical person is just different. Really, that term would include autistic people and Down's syndrome kids, and it's definitely not a value judgment. It's just an acknowledgement that when you're talking about educating a human being, a neurologically unusual child, whether learning disabled or "highly enabled," need a different approach.
Aside from the inadequacy of the term "gifted" why do you think there is such alienation and misunderstanding surrounding it?
A few reasons. One is that we live in a society that pretends to understand the value of intellect, but all indicators say that it doesn't value intellect in the least. Just look at our popular entertainment, our most revered public figures, and the relative salaries of intellectuals vs. non-intellectuals if you want proof.
Another reason is that parents are really feeling under the gun to help their children "succeed." We are bombarded with information that makes us anxious: Your child needs to know all his colors and numbers to get into the best preschool; your child needs to start reading in kindergarten to achieve testing goals; your child needs to be top in her class to get into the college you like. So when a parent says the word "gifted," imagine how loaded that is. "My child has a gift; your child is gonna have to work his butt off!" This is not true of most parents of neuro-nontypical kids, yet the word itself implies it.
When I went to the website called "Supporting Emotional Needs of the Gifted" (www.sengifted.org) I found a brochure on how to identify a gifted child. I think that part of the problem in identifying giftedness is that is not very clear. It includes characteristics like being very curious and observant, strong vocabulary and reasoning, pattern recognition, problem solving, and strong memory. I realize that there is a matter of degree here, but it is understandable why so many people think there child is gifted. What is gifted and what is it not?
It depends on the situation. Our public schools use certain measures for gifted programs, so some people would use those definitions. Psychologists who work with gifted children may use others. I think it's important to think of it similar to autism: parents of autistic kids often use the phrase "on the spectrum," meaning that a child is autistic, but is in his own unique place on the spectrum of the disorder. "Gifted" just means "good at something" in its most colloquial use. As a term for diagnosis, it's something you can certainly test: does the child learn in a different, faster way than typical children? Does she have any of the corresponding sensitivities and personality traits? Does he have special schooling needs because of the way he learns?
One reader used "smarter" as a synonym for gifted. Does that mean smarter in every category? If we just focused on the pure academics, does that mean a child is smarter in algebra, geometry, zoology, chemistry, writing, reading, geography, etc. or is it in a certain area?
This gets back to that "value judgment" aspect of the word. Frankly, a highly gifted person can be darn stupid in many ways. I remember a friend when I was at Stanford saying, "Why is it all these really smart women we know are so stupid about love?" What she was pointing out is that being good at test-taking, being articulate, good at analysis and dissection -- all those things that got us into Stanford -- have no relationship to good interpersonal skills, good hand-eye coordination, a good sense of humor, or any of the other many traits that we value in human beings.
Gifted people are usually not better at all academic subjects, and the more gifted (i.e. the more removed from the average set of learners out there) a person is, the less likely they seem to have average skills in a wide variety of areas. We all knew the math professor who forgot to wash his clothing, or the really smart 8th-grader who would get hit by balls on the head in P.E. because she was lost in thought, or the kid who hadn't learned to read but had diagrammed the entire New York City subway system inside his English textbook. These are examples of people whose brains were really good at some things, but were not able to function in situations that other people take for granted.
Most gifted people have wide areas of strength, though, so it is probably safe to say that a kid gifted in math would do well at everything that takes mathematical skills (including music, which is often tied to mathematical skills).
What about the Theory of Multiple Intelligences? Beyond academic ability, what about musical, social, athletic, and other skills many of us are blessed with?
Some public school GATE programs take that into account, and include some non-academic areas of giftedness in their programs. The reality is, however, that academic giftedness is that one that causes problems for kids in school. All the other ones you mention are an asset to a student. Yes, a highly social, musical, or athletic child might not be doing great in academics because their passion is taking up so much time, but we don't really see that as so much of a problem. Does anyone know what Barry Bonds' high school grades were?
I think that the theory of multiple intelligences is a great way to integrate all children into a social group, and teach that we should value all children. However, I have seen at least one teacher use it to try to "put the smart kids in their place," which was very destructive. Multiple intelligences should not be used in a school setting to equalize, because we aren't all the same. It is our difference that makes us strong! We are the most highly varied species on the planet, and that is one of our greatest assets. We need to value all the skills that people have. Frankly, even the class clown who disrupts a test with farty sounds is an asset to a classroom, and teachers need to understand that and figure out how to work with it.
We talked a bit about IQ tests. I don't feel they are a good measurement of a person's needs and abilities and have read a lot of Sir Ken Robinson's views on this subject. He insists that IQ tests and scores are outdated, flawed, and changing. Indeed the 100+ year history of the test has had it share of critics, including Alfred Binet, who pioneered the first intelligence scale. Many critics point out that it is impossible to measure intelligence when we have not even defined it properly. What are your thoughts on this?
My parents chose not to have their kids' IQ tested, and my husband I have chosen the same route. The number really doesn't matter to us, because we have found ways to create a positive learning environment for our kids: one of them is thriving in a public homeschool program; the other is thriving at a very socially positive and supportive private school.
The value that parents have found in the IQ test, as far as I have heard, is just that it sometimes can point out important things about how a child learns. Sometimes when trying to educate a child who seems ineducable, finding out that he has a top-of-the-charts IQ can help you understand how to reach him. Another value is that a child who has been pegged learning disabled in a school can be tested and be found to be profoundly gifted, which sometimes looks very similar to learning disabled, oddly enough. The number in that case is ammunition the parents can use to get their child the services she needs.
I don't see any value in IQ testing as a matter of course. It just seems weird to pin a number on people and then write them off. Rent the movie Gattaca!
Another point about IQ as it relates to determining giftedness is that the cut-off seems fairly arbitrary. Who is to say that someone with an IQ of, say 129 is not gifted, but someone with one of 130 is? It seems to me that the number does not change the fact that you still must meet the individual needs of each student.
Totally arbitrary. You suggested in your post that all kids need IEPs -- I agree with you. That is the beauty of homeschooling and smaller school programs: each child can be given what she needs and what inspires her. Once you get to large public schools, however, that cut-off is sometimes the difference between being stuck in a class that is going to drill the information for The Test yet again for the umpteenth time, and a class that's going to dissect frogs! That's when you get parents tearing their hair out trying to help their child "succeed." And that's when you get parents feeling like they're in battle with each other to get services for their kids. It's similar to the parents of kids in special education who feel they have to justify that their child has an aide when the classroom doesn't have enough money for crayons. If all students' needs were funded, I believe the cut-off would just be an arbitrary place for the school to start to say, "does this child have special needs that we haven't noticed?" Otherwise, yes, it is totally arbitrary and divisive.
In my original post I suggested that rather than focusing on our differences (high or low IQ, learning disabled or gifted) I thought it would be better to focus on meeting every kid right where he is (this was meant to be the main point). I like the approach of each kid getting an IEP (Individualized Education Plan), which are typically given to struggling students. Why not give each kid one? Sure, it would not fit with the conventional model found in most schools and it does not do much for standardization, but the fact that we are talking about the challenges of giftedness doesn't speak much for the reality or goal of standardization. In a Democratic School, students are given far more independence in their learning so that it meets their interests and needs, adding a level of maturity, responsibility, and customization to their education. (See my post about a school in Denver that does this:
http://abettereducation.blogspot.com/2009/07/beautiful-marriage-of-opendemoc
ratic.html). What about offering more schools like this?
I'm all for it! I have spent my kids' school years trying to keep them in programs that suit them. Here in Santa Cruz County (California), we are blessed with a huge population of families who care about education, and thus a higher than average number of special programs, charter schools, private schools, and homeschooling options. As my children age, I start to see their former preschool classmates trickling into these special programs as parents realize their children's needs aren't being met.
My utopic vision of a public education system is this: Each county (or whatever geographic area makes sense in each location) would be one district. The schools would be small and fluid: Some kids would go to the same school every day. Some kids would only go to school certain days and learn independently other days. Some kids would go to different programs at different schools depending on their needs. Some kids would never go to school. All kids would be able to take part in the programs that they enjoy. Testing would happen just a couple of times, perhaps 3rd and 6th grade, just to make sure that nothing is being missed as far as the basic tools of modern life are concerned.
Unlike many homeschoolers, I do believe that there is a real reason for public education, and I do strongly believe that education needs to be compulsory. How you put together an education for a child, however, would be much more fluid than it is now, more focused on what "success" means for each student rather than what "success" means for administrators of a school district.
What are the alternatives for students who are not challenged enough in schools?
That depends on the location. Private schools can often offer more, but that is not necessarily the case. Parents should pay very close attention to the peer group at a private school to make sure it's the right fit for their child, since private schools tend to have a student population that is more narrowly focused and often their educational approach is very specific, such as Montessori.
Some public school GATE programs are run with the child in mind, and really do offer a more appropriate education within the public school system. Some, however, are just geared to pile on more busy work, faster, which doesn't serve most children, gifted or not.
Public charter schools and special programs can sometimes be a great fit for a student who needs more challenging work. It's important to note that "challenging" does NOT mean more busy work! Most kids whose brains function at a higher level tend not to be satisfied with yet another worksheet of math problems that they can do. Instead, they will excel if they are offered experiential programs that incorporate and expand their skills. Find out about local charter schools through your school district office or at http://www.uscharterschools.org/.
Homeschooling is a very good option for gifted kids who are extremely unusual learners or who have emotional/social difficulties. Homeschooling can happen within all sorts of different programs or outside of programs. In California, any family can set up their own private school and homeschool that way. If families want to be attached to a school, most districts have homeschool programs (either charter schools or special programs). We also have multi-locale charters that families can sign up with if there's no homeschool program near them. (Some of these take kids from a wide geographic area.) To learn more about homeschooling in California, visit the Homeschool Association of California - http://hsc.org/.
Describe the emotional issues of neuro-advanced students.
You mentioned http://sengifted.org -- I highly recommend that parents of gifted kids go there to get help. Neurologically different kids are usually not just different academically. Common issues that can show up in neuro-nontypical kids include high sensitivities, difficulties with social skills, asynchronous development, behaviors that resemble oppositional disorder, ADHD or bipolar, and more. Often these problems cannot be addressed sufficiently unless the whole child -- including his advanced intellect -- is considered as a package. A significant number of gifted kids are probably given unnecessary drug therapy when a change in learning environment or help with life skills might suffice.
Tracy, thank you so much for responding the way you did to criticism from parents of gifted kids. We need to learn from each other so that we can figure out how to make education better for all kids. I know that the tight budgets and balkanized educational theories make us all defensive, and I appreciate how you are doing your part to break down the barriers. -- Suki Wessling
To read more from Suki, check out her blog at http://sukiwessling.parentclickblog.com/
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Waldorf and Montessori - Fantasy Versus Reality
Many parents are familiar with the Waldorf and Montessori education models but not always clear on the differences between them. My children have been in both types of schools, so we had the pleasure of learning about both models in theory and in practice. I appreciate and respect many things about both modalities and I do understand that there can be a great deal of variation in many Waldorf and Montessori classrooms around the world.
Typically Montessori encourages a firm grounding in reality for a child and their materials help to cement that understanding. At the Montessori school my children attended, children were not to play with the manipulative materials in a way that is not in keeping with their purpose. For example, the math beads were to be used for counting in a certain sequential way when a child is ready to use them for math purposes. The classrooms emphasize order, with tidy workstations and plenty to do as a child chooses. While I do love the way Montessori encourages a child to learn through the use of manipulative materials instead instead of more abstract methods, I also appreciate the way Waldorf encourages fantasy play.
In a Waldorf classroom, play is considered a fundamental part of learning and fantasy is viewed as essential to creating happy and imaginative students. Waldorf teachers capitalize on the power of a story to teach children. The classrooms are beautiful and inviting. They are dreamy and colorful with found items from nature and plenty of gorgeous, natural fabrics draped to create a sense of space. In addition to creating the setting of the room, fabrics are also used to play make believe. Waldorf advocates for plenty of imaginative play and the teachers encourage it by providing natural toys made of wood or cotton that are minimally finished to encourage a strong sense of imagination. I love how the stories about Andy Add and Sammy Subtract help to bring alive an abstract idea.
In the Waldorf school we were a part of, there were plenty of stories on fairies. Children were told stories of fairies that mirrored their lives and helped them to make sense of their world and the world they cannot see. My children have built many a fairy house, using found objects in nature or a cardboard box. I love how it brings out the nurturing side of them (building a comfortable shelter for them) and their creativity. My children have written to their fairies and received answers and an occasional small gift from them. It is sort of like Christmas each time it happens, but it is not about the material item they get (a fortune cookie, a few coins, a figurine, some stickers) but the delight at the special connection and attention that they love.
In an eclectic education, the best of both can be used. I try to make use of manipulative materials and a story to make sense of an abstract concept. We do frequent nature walks, taking pictures of items that we will later use to learn. For example, we went on a photographic scavenger hunt this week, taking pictures of things that are brown, things that are dry, things that are soft, etc. to use for a sorting exercise later for my four year old. I am grateful that we can draw from the wisdom of both modalities to make our homeschooling experience all the richer.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
"All kids are gifted; some just open their packages earlier than others"
That great quote by Michael Carr brings to mind a story. One of my children got his first tooth quite early, compared to his peers. We knew he was dentally gifted. We made sure he tested into the top dentists, we surrounded him with other dentally precocious children, and we gave him a special diet that would encourage his gift to grow further and faster. I also got a bumper sticker for my car to advertise his advanced toothiness.
All right, that's not true, but it is what I think of on the topic of giftedness. Any time someone talks about their child being gifted, I want to ask them "in what area is your child an early learner?" Giftedness is such an inadequate and highly charged word. It seems to imply that a certain group of children are blessed with an all-encompassing, ever-advanced intelligence while the rest of the population is hopelessly average or worse.
Some kids learn to read quite quickly but have no aptitude for math. Others are great at understanding patterns, but are verbally behind their peers. I know many little boys who have an early propensity for dinosaurs - they know the names and habits of every dinosaur known to man, yet they are socially or physically awkward. The term giftedness does not adequately describe a child's singular area of proficiency, but instead tends to confer a blanket of superiority around the child, leaving others in the cold.
Does early achievement really mean permanent giftedness? Well, what if you do have a child who is an early reader? By, say, 6th Grade, does that child actually read any better than the child who learned to read a year or two later? At age 10, can you tell which child learned to talk or walk earlier than the others? Just like those that are dentally gifted, a head start in a particular area of growth and development does not necessarily make for an enduring advantage. By the same token, a delayed start does not equate to mental inferiority. Albert Einstein is a great example of that. Not only would he not have been in the Highly Gifted and Talented Program as a young student, he would likely have had an Individual Education Plan (IEP) to help him up to average.
And what about the theory of multiple intelligences? Does giftedness take into account a particularly athletic girl if she horrible at algebra? Does giftedness include the musically talented boy who is an awful speller and grammatically delayed? Is a child with advanced social skills less gifted than a child who can read a Harry Potter book at age seven?
It is natural for parents to notice and take pride in each of the developmental milestones our children achieve. We are supposed to marvel at them and cheer them on, but we should stop short at pressuring them too hard or setting them on a pedestal above others. I overheard a woman talking to the head of our pre-school as she complained how hard the Highly Gifted and Talented test was. She had had her son take the test three times and he failed to qualify each time. I have to believe that is damaging to the child in some way. Why is it so important to her to have the title of giftedness for her child?
It is the job of every parent and educator to recognize the strengths that lie in every child and to facilitate further development in those areas. How would it be if we honored all learning differences in every subject, whether they were advanced or delayed, kinesthetic or auditory, etc.? All children should have an IEP custom-made according to their strengths and learning styles! What if we treated all children as gifted and we optimized the education of each child according to his specific gifts? Our schools and communities would be stronger if we were to recognize and grow the gifts that each child possesses to everyone's benefit.
Just like on their birthdays, I look forward to seeing what gifts my children got and how they will use them!
All right, that's not true, but it is what I think of on the topic of giftedness. Any time someone talks about their child being gifted, I want to ask them "in what area is your child an early learner?" Giftedness is such an inadequate and highly charged word. It seems to imply that a certain group of children are blessed with an all-encompassing, ever-advanced intelligence while the rest of the population is hopelessly average or worse.
Some kids learn to read quite quickly but have no aptitude for math. Others are great at understanding patterns, but are verbally behind their peers. I know many little boys who have an early propensity for dinosaurs - they know the names and habits of every dinosaur known to man, yet they are socially or physically awkward. The term giftedness does not adequately describe a child's singular area of proficiency, but instead tends to confer a blanket of superiority around the child, leaving others in the cold.
Does early achievement really mean permanent giftedness? Well, what if you do have a child who is an early reader? By, say, 6th Grade, does that child actually read any better than the child who learned to read a year or two later? At age 10, can you tell which child learned to talk or walk earlier than the others? Just like those that are dentally gifted, a head start in a particular area of growth and development does not necessarily make for an enduring advantage. By the same token, a delayed start does not equate to mental inferiority. Albert Einstein is a great example of that. Not only would he not have been in the Highly Gifted and Talented Program as a young student, he would likely have had an Individual Education Plan (IEP) to help him up to average.
And what about the theory of multiple intelligences? Does giftedness take into account a particularly athletic girl if she horrible at algebra? Does giftedness include the musically talented boy who is an awful speller and grammatically delayed? Is a child with advanced social skills less gifted than a child who can read a Harry Potter book at age seven?
It is natural for parents to notice and take pride in each of the developmental milestones our children achieve. We are supposed to marvel at them and cheer them on, but we should stop short at pressuring them too hard or setting them on a pedestal above others. I overheard a woman talking to the head of our pre-school as she complained how hard the Highly Gifted and Talented test was. She had had her son take the test three times and he failed to qualify each time. I have to believe that is damaging to the child in some way. Why is it so important to her to have the title of giftedness for her child?
It is the job of every parent and educator to recognize the strengths that lie in every child and to facilitate further development in those areas. How would it be if we honored all learning differences in every subject, whether they were advanced or delayed, kinesthetic or auditory, etc.? All children should have an IEP custom-made according to their strengths and learning styles! What if we treated all children as gifted and we optimized the education of each child according to his specific gifts? Our schools and communities would be stronger if we were to recognize and grow the gifts that each child possesses to everyone's benefit.
Just like on their birthdays, I look forward to seeing what gifts my children got and how they will use them!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
In Praise of BaLaNcE
Ronan got his first bike with training wheels on his third birthday, though he didn't want anything to do with it for a few months. Eventually he rode around on it until he had a minor biking accident that hurt and scared him and he stopped riding it again for awhile. Over the course of almost four more years we tried a few times to take the training wheels off so that he could ride a big boy bike but each time he requested that the training wheels be put back on. He wasn't ready. One day, we took off the training wheels, the crank and the pedals and made our own balance/push bike. He tried this out for a couple of weeks, getting the hang of balancing his body to keep the bike upright. On the last day of school when he was almost seven, I took him to a consignment bike store to pick out a bike that was appropriate for his size in anticipation that this would be the summer he would be ready to ride a big boy bike. He picked out one he liked and took it for a test drive and I let go. He took off, riding off down the sidewalk as if he had been riding without training wheels for months! We were both so thrilled!
Although he had a year of pedaling practice with a big wheel, we decided to start Jude off with a balance bike, which he got for his fourth birthday. Just like Ronan, he wouldn't touch it for a few weeks. Then he started riding it cautiously, and within a week he was not only balancing, but even doing tricks on a moving bike. Within a month he asked to try a big boy bike with pedals and without training wheels. On his very first try he rode off down the driveway like a seasoned rider. Again, parent and child were thrilled!
Given the popularity of balance bikes, we are not the only ones who have found that they are great for learning to ride a bike. I think that the balance bikes are a great metaphor for education. Just like on a bike, each kid learns at his own natural pace and what makes him ready is not the external work, but something from within.
A child will learn to read not so much by constant effort and badgering by another person, but by being ready and willing on a timeline that is natural and unique to each person. True, it does take effort, and practice, and plenty of opportunity to learn both bike riding and reading, but neither can be rushed. Both will happen when there is a sense of balance, confidence, and willingness - the internal pieces that must be in place for the independence on bikes or books to occur.
In education, a child that is pressured to read through nearly constant practice and tutoring has no balance. Academic balance comes from not only exposure to literacy, but to other important aspects of humanity, like nature, art, science, math, socializing, history, play, etc. Through the exploration of all of the interesting aspects that make us human we achieve a vital sense of balance that enables us to grow in each area. Not only is a maniacal focus on ever earlier literacy unnecessary and developmentally inappropriate, it also robs us of the opportunity to understand and explore other subjects. At a young age, breadth is what allows us to understand our world. This foundation gives us balance and the ability to grow. It allows us to achieve not only literacy but a strong foundation of knowledge in any other subject.
Balance and biking and literacy will all come if we act as facilitators for them to naturally unfold at their own rate with enthusiasm, encouragement, respect, understanding, and patience. Then, look out! They will take off with joy and confidence to fuel them forward!
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Slowing Down
One of the greatest gifts and the hardest thing to adjust to homeschooling is the pace of life. People in my office used to hear me coming by the sound of my hasty footsteps approaching them. I used to drive over the speed limit even if I was going to be early. I love to get things done and I have often stacked a lot on my plate just to savor the goofy happiness of crossing it off my to-do list. Homeschooling has a way of slowing you down and redefining efficiency. It has a way of forcing you into being in the now and being present.
I am always planning things. I've planned pregnancies, fundraising events, social engagements, and now lesson plans. I even plan great vacations and then don't always enjoy them to the fullest because the planning stage is over and I don't know what to do with just relaxing. But I've noticed that homeschooling requires a lot of attention and executing on the plans, with little time for more planning. I have learned pretty quickly that I need to keep the momentum going with the schoolwork, or I lose my kids to chaos and play. I have to give them my complete attention for everything to go smoothly. On days where I succumb to looking up one more book on the library website, or looking through an anthology for just the right story, it does not pay!
I have also come to understand that getting things done is not going to feel like it used to. I used to get through a whole day's worth of work-related tasks, not to mention picking up children in two different schools, cooking dinner, cleaning up (well, sometimes), and getting everyone ready for bed. Now, an errand or two can eat up the entire day and leave me feeling panicked that not enough learning took place. Even on days when we do not leave the house, I have the notion we will get through reading, writing, math, time-telling, calendar work, geography, Spanish, sociology, art, music and cooking with plenty of time for play and lunch. I have yet to have a day where we worked all of that in! However, I have come to the pragmatic realization that, like nutrition, it is what you do over the course of the week that counts. Getting everything done every day is not practical or possible, so I am learning to relax about it and shoot for the larger goal over the course of a week or the month.
Jude, who learned how to ride a bike with no training wheels and no assistance recently, asked if we could ride bikes to the zoo instead of drive as I had planned. It's only about three and a half miles from our house, so I agreed. I knew it would be a slower ride than I am used to, but this was the kind of ride that was actually difficult for me to stay upright due to lack of momentum. A person with 12" bike rims has to pedal a lot more to move than a person on an adult's bike, but we made it to the zoo without any complaints. On our bike ride we noticed tree houses, birdhouses, dogs, gardens, leaves, and puddles. (Here's a tip: although drafting works well for Lance Armstrong, it is not a great idea to draft a four year old!) I would not have noticed any of these had I been driving or riding at my own speedy pace, in a hurry for no reason. Not only did we appreciate all of the sights and sounds along the way, it was so gratifying to see the obvious pride on Jude's face, having completed his first impressive bike ride and keeping up with the rest of us. That was definitely worth being present for!
I am always planning things. I've planned pregnancies, fundraising events, social engagements, and now lesson plans. I even plan great vacations and then don't always enjoy them to the fullest because the planning stage is over and I don't know what to do with just relaxing. But I've noticed that homeschooling requires a lot of attention and executing on the plans, with little time for more planning. I have learned pretty quickly that I need to keep the momentum going with the schoolwork, or I lose my kids to chaos and play. I have to give them my complete attention for everything to go smoothly. On days where I succumb to looking up one more book on the library website, or looking through an anthology for just the right story, it does not pay!
I have also come to understand that getting things done is not going to feel like it used to. I used to get through a whole day's worth of work-related tasks, not to mention picking up children in two different schools, cooking dinner, cleaning up (well, sometimes), and getting everyone ready for bed. Now, an errand or two can eat up the entire day and leave me feeling panicked that not enough learning took place. Even on days when we do not leave the house, I have the notion we will get through reading, writing, math, time-telling, calendar work, geography, Spanish, sociology, art, music and cooking with plenty of time for play and lunch. I have yet to have a day where we worked all of that in! However, I have come to the pragmatic realization that, like nutrition, it is what you do over the course of the week that counts. Getting everything done every day is not practical or possible, so I am learning to relax about it and shoot for the larger goal over the course of a week or the month.
Jude, who learned how to ride a bike with no training wheels and no assistance recently, asked if we could ride bikes to the zoo instead of drive as I had planned. It's only about three and a half miles from our house, so I agreed. I knew it would be a slower ride than I am used to, but this was the kind of ride that was actually difficult for me to stay upright due to lack of momentum. A person with 12" bike rims has to pedal a lot more to move than a person on an adult's bike, but we made it to the zoo without any complaints. On our bike ride we noticed tree houses, birdhouses, dogs, gardens, leaves, and puddles. (Here's a tip: although drafting works well for Lance Armstrong, it is not a great idea to draft a four year old!) I would not have noticed any of these had I been driving or riding at my own speedy pace, in a hurry for no reason. Not only did we appreciate all of the sights and sounds along the way, it was so gratifying to see the obvious pride on Jude's face, having completed his first impressive bike ride and keeping up with the rest of us. That was definitely worth being present for!
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Project Zero - An Interview with Larry Scripp
Larry Scripp, Ed.D is a musician, educator, research, program developer, and administrator. He is the Chair of the Music Education department (and its Music-In-Education program) at New England Conservatory. As Founding Director of Center for Music-In-Education, he designs and implements Music Plus Music Integration programs in public schools through a coalition of schools of music and education, arts organizations, and school reform organizations through the arts. I first was introduced to Larry when I had researched Project Zero, which he was kind enough to explain to me.
Larry, first please tell us, what is Project Zero?
Project Zero is an educational research group at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education. Its mission is to understand the relationship of human development in the arts, and to find ways to enhance learning, thinking, and creativity in the arts, as well as humanistic and scientific disciplines, at the individual and institutional levels. I believe that the name Project Zero was used because Nelson Goodman, its founder, felt that there was zero literature to start with in the field of normal human development and in the arts, and he set out to create such a literature along with his graduate students at that time, David Perkins and Howard Gardner
I understand there are many different research projects under the Project Zero umbrella. What areas of research were you involved in during your 10 years of work with this group?
I was involved in the Music and Early Symbolization Project, Arts PROPEL arts assessment in Pittsburgh Public Schools, Lincoln Center Institute Study, and a Music Technology and Composition Project. In the early days it was all about research guided by Piagetian frameworks, but in the 80s it began to focus on applied research, working directly with schools. Arts PROPEL is an acronym for essential components of artistic knowing - Perception, Reflection and Production - and it was the framework for organizating assessment practices in creative writing, visual and musical arts. The project was involved with setting standards of teaching, documenting frameworks from developmental stages, and creating devices and instruments in schools. This project developed new standards for the documentation, organization and assessment of student learning in the arts in public schools. We created prototypes for what are now considered common practice portfolio assessment methods. We didn’t just go into schools to test our own ideas, but worked with the teachers and talked about assessments in the arts and how to do it. This was a collaboration with Pittsburgh Public School District to develop authentic assessments that could be implemented in both general music classrooms and ensemble rehearsal studios.
Broadly speaking, what conclusions have you reached in your research about the arts in education?
I have reached the conclusion that although art forms are very different, each contributes an essential medium of learning and provides a model for learning in other disciplines; that multiple intelligence theory (penned by Howard Gardner), though valuable in its day, has now evolved to acknowledge the complexity of factors involved in artistic intelligences and their possible integration across domains. I have come to realize that the younger generation of music educators now acknowledge that authentic arts learning depends on the integration of other forms of intelligences.
In the Music-in-Education National Consortium – a group that I founded to explore learning both in and through music - we now believe in the creative tension between ‘differentiation and synthesis,” that is, the paradoxical notion that learning in the arts depends on knowledge of other domains of knowing, and that the productive integration of artistic knowing with other subject areas requires deep knowledge in each separate domain. Cognitive skills, intelligence in schools and in life develop in the constantly changing stages of dis-equilibrium between differentiation and synthesis of knowing in and across other disciplines. For example, there are certain parts of the brain where auditory abilities and linguistic abilities share neural networks, yet function within “separate” cognitive domains. Schools are still behind in recognizing this, but they are starting to come to that realization when music and music-integrated instruction takes root in both musical and academic studies.
How has this work helped communities and schools improve and enrich education?
By advocating arts learning in separate domains as a necessity for human development that enhances general education and whole school improvement. It has helped advocate for the arts and connect arts to cognitive skills. Those that learn music realize that there is a certain inextricable sense of cognitive interrelatedness and that the complexity of this interrelatedness grows as you learn and master music learning processes. With this interrelatedness and complexity comes a increasingly powerful musical imagination, critical thought and analytic perspectives that result in a greater sense of intentionality in the creative process. Cognitive-rich creativity is learned in the domain in the context of each art form; it is not a thing to itself. What we are now learning now is that integrated learning processes foster an understanding of parallel problem-finding and problem-solving skills that appear to result in a deeper and broader range of cognition embedded in this synthesis of interdisciplinary work.
Part of Project Zero’s mission is to foster critical and creative thinking through the arts. How does Project Zero and/or education through the arts accomplish this goal?
Mainly to demonstrate assessment of arts learning in relation to cognitive skills, and see that creativity is intrinsic to authentic, comprehensive arts learning. If we look at creative aspects of the arts and the cognitive skills involved in critical and creative thinking, we see something intrinsic to arts learning at every juncture of its developmental progression. Paying attention to the discipline of the art form is really important. Learning takes place both through and within the arts. It is important to learn the arts for its own sake but also to pay attention to the impact of arts learning across domains. Those who study music are more apt to understand proportion and balance differently than in other art forms. The arts can teach a different way of looking at things and a deeper understanding shared between disciplines. It is a particularly engaging way of learning. Arts learning and teaching is not a uniform phenomenon in formal education. How it is taught and supported makes a big difference. We need to get away from anachronistic views of talent (choosing only the very best and grooming them) to a policy that allows access and equal opportunity for arts learning to occur in unexpected ways across a wide set of problems and disciplines.
As Piaget says, to invent is to understand, and creativity informed by critical thinking is the hallmark of music cognitive development. I take that to heart in all my work in education. Creativity is not an ideal moment or special occasion; rather it is a staple of all kinds of problem solving situations. Ken Robinson talks about creativity as applied imagination, which is creativity to solve problems through imaginative thinking. We need to keep these concepts in play and we need to find ways to assess the potency of these skills in all learners.. With good arts-rich educational policy our schools will contribute a much healthier source of creativity to our society.
How do you foster collaborative relationships with schools, universities, museums and other institutions to improve education?
With Project Zero it was at first through assessment in individual art forms. I left Project Zero in order to pursue research in music learning in school networks. I started the Conservatory Lab Charter School as a major experiment in music and music integrated learning in 1998. Although this small school failed to achieve the promise of its charter on its own, the research findings that began with this project have since resulted in twelve years of federal funding for the creation of the Music-in-Education National Consortium and its Learning Laboratory School Network. If have tried to apply the Project Zero concepts of meaningful, authentic research, assessment, documentation, and assessments in my work to advance education today.
In your estimation what does an ideal learning setting look like in a K-12th grade setting?
It is an arts-rich, project and portfolio based, and a longitudinally assessed program within a school learning community. It is a setting where active, research-based professional learning and leadership modeled on music and music integration program development are valued. This productivity is constructive for both teachers and students. Engagement is a two way street with peer learning, group learning, visual learning, and the full diversity of process that includes music and arts integrated practices.. There should be plenty of expressivity, media, and materials as well as objects worthy of study. Education should be project and portfolio based. Students’ work should be about generating new knowledge based on a deep understanding of fundamental concepts that can be learned in the context of interdisciplinary cognition. The recitation of isolated facts is not necessarily indicative of a good learning environment; facts take on new significance when a curriculum of worthy objects of study is investigated on a deeply personal, yet rich informed basis. Even arts learning works best when it fosters an ethos of a school as a learning organization that constantly focuses on the optimal balance of creativity and imagination, inquiry and reflection, and performance and understanding.
I see that you are currently involved with the Music-in-Education National Consortium that furthers your work of integrating music in public schools. Can you tell me about this organization and your efforts there?
I have a personal focus on music as a medium and model for learning in other arts, academics, and social-emotional development. MIENC was created to use arts partnerships to bring programs and research into schools and the MIENC Learning Laboratory School Network, guided by 10 principles of school improvement, was created to investigate music based program development and its impact on schools. The organization publishes journals to make practices and research visible, and actionable in school networks (see journal.music-in-education.org and develops longitudinal assessments of music literacy learning in schools among other programs.
For more information on Project Zero, go to http://www.pz.harvard.edu/index.cfm
For more information on Music-In-Education National Consortium, go to http://www.music-in-education.org/
Larry, first please tell us, what is Project Zero?
Project Zero is an educational research group at Harvard’s Graduate School of Education. Its mission is to understand the relationship of human development in the arts, and to find ways to enhance learning, thinking, and creativity in the arts, as well as humanistic and scientific disciplines, at the individual and institutional levels. I believe that the name Project Zero was used because Nelson Goodman, its founder, felt that there was zero literature to start with in the field of normal human development and in the arts, and he set out to create such a literature along with his graduate students at that time, David Perkins and Howard Gardner
I understand there are many different research projects under the Project Zero umbrella. What areas of research were you involved in during your 10 years of work with this group?
I was involved in the Music and Early Symbolization Project, Arts PROPEL arts assessment in Pittsburgh Public Schools, Lincoln Center Institute Study, and a Music Technology and Composition Project. In the early days it was all about research guided by Piagetian frameworks, but in the 80s it began to focus on applied research, working directly with schools. Arts PROPEL is an acronym for essential components of artistic knowing - Perception, Reflection and Production - and it was the framework for organizating assessment practices in creative writing, visual and musical arts. The project was involved with setting standards of teaching, documenting frameworks from developmental stages, and creating devices and instruments in schools. This project developed new standards for the documentation, organization and assessment of student learning in the arts in public schools. We created prototypes for what are now considered common practice portfolio assessment methods. We didn’t just go into schools to test our own ideas, but worked with the teachers and talked about assessments in the arts and how to do it. This was a collaboration with Pittsburgh Public School District to develop authentic assessments that could be implemented in both general music classrooms and ensemble rehearsal studios.
Broadly speaking, what conclusions have you reached in your research about the arts in education?
I have reached the conclusion that although art forms are very different, each contributes an essential medium of learning and provides a model for learning in other disciplines; that multiple intelligence theory (penned by Howard Gardner), though valuable in its day, has now evolved to acknowledge the complexity of factors involved in artistic intelligences and their possible integration across domains. I have come to realize that the younger generation of music educators now acknowledge that authentic arts learning depends on the integration of other forms of intelligences.
In the Music-in-Education National Consortium – a group that I founded to explore learning both in and through music - we now believe in the creative tension between ‘differentiation and synthesis,” that is, the paradoxical notion that learning in the arts depends on knowledge of other domains of knowing, and that the productive integration of artistic knowing with other subject areas requires deep knowledge in each separate domain. Cognitive skills, intelligence in schools and in life develop in the constantly changing stages of dis-equilibrium between differentiation and synthesis of knowing in and across other disciplines. For example, there are certain parts of the brain where auditory abilities and linguistic abilities share neural networks, yet function within “separate” cognitive domains. Schools are still behind in recognizing this, but they are starting to come to that realization when music and music-integrated instruction takes root in both musical and academic studies.
How has this work helped communities and schools improve and enrich education?
By advocating arts learning in separate domains as a necessity for human development that enhances general education and whole school improvement. It has helped advocate for the arts and connect arts to cognitive skills. Those that learn music realize that there is a certain inextricable sense of cognitive interrelatedness and that the complexity of this interrelatedness grows as you learn and master music learning processes. With this interrelatedness and complexity comes a increasingly powerful musical imagination, critical thought and analytic perspectives that result in a greater sense of intentionality in the creative process. Cognitive-rich creativity is learned in the domain in the context of each art form; it is not a thing to itself. What we are now learning now is that integrated learning processes foster an understanding of parallel problem-finding and problem-solving skills that appear to result in a deeper and broader range of cognition embedded in this synthesis of interdisciplinary work.
Part of Project Zero’s mission is to foster critical and creative thinking through the arts. How does Project Zero and/or education through the arts accomplish this goal?
Mainly to demonstrate assessment of arts learning in relation to cognitive skills, and see that creativity is intrinsic to authentic, comprehensive arts learning. If we look at creative aspects of the arts and the cognitive skills involved in critical and creative thinking, we see something intrinsic to arts learning at every juncture of its developmental progression. Paying attention to the discipline of the art form is really important. Learning takes place both through and within the arts. It is important to learn the arts for its own sake but also to pay attention to the impact of arts learning across domains. Those who study music are more apt to understand proportion and balance differently than in other art forms. The arts can teach a different way of looking at things and a deeper understanding shared between disciplines. It is a particularly engaging way of learning. Arts learning and teaching is not a uniform phenomenon in formal education. How it is taught and supported makes a big difference. We need to get away from anachronistic views of talent (choosing only the very best and grooming them) to a policy that allows access and equal opportunity for arts learning to occur in unexpected ways across a wide set of problems and disciplines.
As Piaget says, to invent is to understand, and creativity informed by critical thinking is the hallmark of music cognitive development. I take that to heart in all my work in education. Creativity is not an ideal moment or special occasion; rather it is a staple of all kinds of problem solving situations. Ken Robinson talks about creativity as applied imagination, which is creativity to solve problems through imaginative thinking. We need to keep these concepts in play and we need to find ways to assess the potency of these skills in all learners.. With good arts-rich educational policy our schools will contribute a much healthier source of creativity to our society.
How do you foster collaborative relationships with schools, universities, museums and other institutions to improve education?
With Project Zero it was at first through assessment in individual art forms. I left Project Zero in order to pursue research in music learning in school networks. I started the Conservatory Lab Charter School as a major experiment in music and music integrated learning in 1998. Although this small school failed to achieve the promise of its charter on its own, the research findings that began with this project have since resulted in twelve years of federal funding for the creation of the Music-in-Education National Consortium and its Learning Laboratory School Network. If have tried to apply the Project Zero concepts of meaningful, authentic research, assessment, documentation, and assessments in my work to advance education today.
In your estimation what does an ideal learning setting look like in a K-12th grade setting?
It is an arts-rich, project and portfolio based, and a longitudinally assessed program within a school learning community. It is a setting where active, research-based professional learning and leadership modeled on music and music integration program development are valued. This productivity is constructive for both teachers and students. Engagement is a two way street with peer learning, group learning, visual learning, and the full diversity of process that includes music and arts integrated practices.. There should be plenty of expressivity, media, and materials as well as objects worthy of study. Education should be project and portfolio based. Students’ work should be about generating new knowledge based on a deep understanding of fundamental concepts that can be learned in the context of interdisciplinary cognition. The recitation of isolated facts is not necessarily indicative of a good learning environment; facts take on new significance when a curriculum of worthy objects of study is investigated on a deeply personal, yet rich informed basis. Even arts learning works best when it fosters an ethos of a school as a learning organization that constantly focuses on the optimal balance of creativity and imagination, inquiry and reflection, and performance and understanding.
I see that you are currently involved with the Music-in-Education National Consortium that furthers your work of integrating music in public schools. Can you tell me about this organization and your efforts there?
I have a personal focus on music as a medium and model for learning in other arts, academics, and social-emotional development. MIENC was created to use arts partnerships to bring programs and research into schools and the MIENC Learning Laboratory School Network, guided by 10 principles of school improvement, was created to investigate music based program development and its impact on schools. The organization publishes journals to make practices and research visible, and actionable in school networks (see journal.music-in-education.org and develops longitudinal assessments of music literacy learning in schools among other programs.
For more information on Project Zero, go to http://www.pz.harvard.edu/index.cfm
For more information on Music-In-Education National Consortium, go to http://www.music-in-education.org/
Sunday, September 13, 2009
A Revolution in School Cafeterias
Revolution Foods is making its mark in school cafeterias across the country. School lunches have had a well-earned, legendary reputation for barely being edible and barely resembling actual food. Revolution Foods is changing the way our schools do hot lunches, by making them tasty, nutritious, and easy.
How did Revolution Foods begin?
Revolution Foods began with a founding team who believed that all students should have access to healthy, fresh food and nutrition education on a daily basis. Co-founders Kristin Richmond http://www.revfoods.com/browse/board_of_directors and Kirsten Tobey http://www.revfoods.com/browse/board_of_directors met at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley and shared a vision of creating a social venture that would make their idea a daily reality for schools nationwide. It didn’t hurt that they both loved great food as well!
Having a background in education themselves, Kristen and Kirsten knew that in order for this venture to be successful they needed to reach out those that matter most: the school communities that they would serve, interviewing teachers, students, families and school leaders from over 40 Bay Area schools. They built a key partnership with Whole Foods who believed in their mission of getting as much fresh, healthy food as they could to as many students as possible. Prior to launching they also had the incredible fortune to meet their first hire, Executive Chef and partner extraordinaire, Amy Klein.
Driven by passion and supported by their families, friends and greater Bay Area community, Kristin and Kirsten launched Revolution Foods in the Summer of 2006.
How are your lunches better than the standard hot lunches found in schools across the country?
Revolution Foods prides itself on its high food quality standards, and this is one piece of what makes our meals and our lunch program unique. We also have a comprehensive nutrition education program. In terms of food standards, our partnership with Whole Foods helps us gain access to the highest quality ingredients available, that we can then use to create meals that are student favorites. Here’s a little bit about our lunches:
• Every lunch is served with fresh fruit and vegetables
• Our meats, baked goods and produce meet Whole Foods Market’s stringent quality standards
• Our milk is rBST- and hormone-free and our meats are hormone- and antibiotic-free
• Our food is prepared fresh daily; we do not serve fried or overly processed food
• Our meals do not contain high-fructose corn syrup or trans fat
• We use organic and locally produced ingredients whenever possible
We highly value the input from our students, school partners, administrators, and parents. Each school site has a dedicated School Account Manager who visits regularly, eats lunch with students, and gathers their feedback about the lunches. The relationships that School Account Managers build with students and schools are a unique component of our lunch program.
How many schools do you serve?
Revolution Foods serves over 120 schools and programs in the California, and has recently launched in Denver and Washington D.C., totaling over 160 schools throughout the United States.
What kinds of foods do you offer?
We offer a wide range of menu options. A few sample Revolution Foods menus include:
• All Natural Grilled Chicken with Homemade Teriyaki Sauce and Sesame Stir-Fried Bok Choy, Red Peppers and Carrots served atop a Fresh Noodle Nest, served with a Clementine orange
• All Natural Honey Glazed Chicken served with Roasted New Potatoes and Collard Greens served with a local peach.
Other popular items include Handmade Chicken Tamales, All Natural Spaghetti and Meatballs, Chicken Caesar Salad, and All Natural Hamburger with Organic Cheese on a Whole Wheat Bun. All meals are served with fresh fruit and vegetables and a carton of all natural, hormone free, rBST free low fat milk. Many of our most popular items came from student suggestions.
I see you have a program for packed lunches too. What do you offer those students?
In addition to our home style, fresh meal platform for schools, we have a delicious retail line of 100% organic snack foods sold in Whole Foods Market, Toys r Us, Babies r Us, HEB, Amazon.com, Drugstore.com and more. A percentage of the revenues of this line are used to fund our healthy meal program in low income schools.
How do you balance nutrition with good taste?
We have always started with high quality, fresh, all natural ingredients and used feedback from our school communities to craft our menus. This student focused menu design coupled with the fact that we adhere to stringent food standards and our meals meet the USDA recommended portion sizes and nutritional guidelines for the age groups we serve helps us accomplish our mission of balancing nutrition with good taste.
How do you educate parents, students and school staff on nutrition?
Another integral part of our lunch program is nutrition education. We believe it is important to inform students, families, and schools on how to make healthy choices both inside and outside of the lunchroom. We provide students, schools and parents with written materials as well as lessons and activities at school sites that focus on nutrition and healthy eating.
Because you cook the foods made daily in your own kitchen, how can this save a school district or organization in the long run? Do they save on kitchen costs?
This healthy meal program is ideal for schools that do not have the facilities or infrastructure to prepare fresh, home style meals. We custom design a plan for schools and districts that makes sense for them based on their vision for a health and wellness platform and the resources they currently have in house.
Do you serve the elderly community and other organizations beyond schools?
Although we primarily serve schools, we also serve summer camps, after school programs, recreational centers and non-profit organizations. We are able to touch even more organizations through our catering services.
How can a school get Revolution Foods in their lunch rooms?
We are always eager to include more schools in this School Lunch Revolution. You can get in contact with us by emailing info@revolutionfoods.com . You can also check us out on the web at www.revolutionfoods.com.
How did Revolution Foods begin?
Revolution Foods began with a founding team who believed that all students should have access to healthy, fresh food and nutrition education on a daily basis. Co-founders Kristin Richmond http://www.revfoods.com/browse/board_of_directors and Kirsten Tobey http://www.revfoods.com/browse/board_of_directors met at the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley and shared a vision of creating a social venture that would make their idea a daily reality for schools nationwide. It didn’t hurt that they both loved great food as well!
Having a background in education themselves, Kristen and Kirsten knew that in order for this venture to be successful they needed to reach out those that matter most: the school communities that they would serve, interviewing teachers, students, families and school leaders from over 40 Bay Area schools. They built a key partnership with Whole Foods who believed in their mission of getting as much fresh, healthy food as they could to as many students as possible. Prior to launching they also had the incredible fortune to meet their first hire, Executive Chef and partner extraordinaire, Amy Klein.
Driven by passion and supported by their families, friends and greater Bay Area community, Kristin and Kirsten launched Revolution Foods in the Summer of 2006.
How are your lunches better than the standard hot lunches found in schools across the country?
Revolution Foods prides itself on its high food quality standards, and this is one piece of what makes our meals and our lunch program unique. We also have a comprehensive nutrition education program. In terms of food standards, our partnership with Whole Foods helps us gain access to the highest quality ingredients available, that we can then use to create meals that are student favorites. Here’s a little bit about our lunches:
• Every lunch is served with fresh fruit and vegetables
• Our meats, baked goods and produce meet Whole Foods Market’s stringent quality standards
• Our milk is rBST- and hormone-free and our meats are hormone- and antibiotic-free
• Our food is prepared fresh daily; we do not serve fried or overly processed food
• Our meals do not contain high-fructose corn syrup or trans fat
• We use organic and locally produced ingredients whenever possible
We highly value the input from our students, school partners, administrators, and parents. Each school site has a dedicated School Account Manager who visits regularly, eats lunch with students, and gathers their feedback about the lunches. The relationships that School Account Managers build with students and schools are a unique component of our lunch program.
How many schools do you serve?
Revolution Foods serves over 120 schools and programs in the California, and has recently launched in Denver and Washington D.C., totaling over 160 schools throughout the United States.
What kinds of foods do you offer?
We offer a wide range of menu options. A few sample Revolution Foods menus include:
• All Natural Grilled Chicken with Homemade Teriyaki Sauce and Sesame Stir-Fried Bok Choy, Red Peppers and Carrots served atop a Fresh Noodle Nest, served with a Clementine orange
• All Natural Honey Glazed Chicken served with Roasted New Potatoes and Collard Greens served with a local peach.
Other popular items include Handmade Chicken Tamales, All Natural Spaghetti and Meatballs, Chicken Caesar Salad, and All Natural Hamburger with Organic Cheese on a Whole Wheat Bun. All meals are served with fresh fruit and vegetables and a carton of all natural, hormone free, rBST free low fat milk. Many of our most popular items came from student suggestions.
I see you have a program for packed lunches too. What do you offer those students?
In addition to our home style, fresh meal platform for schools, we have a delicious retail line of 100% organic snack foods sold in Whole Foods Market, Toys r Us, Babies r Us, HEB, Amazon.com, Drugstore.com and more. A percentage of the revenues of this line are used to fund our healthy meal program in low income schools.
How do you balance nutrition with good taste?
We have always started with high quality, fresh, all natural ingredients and used feedback from our school communities to craft our menus. This student focused menu design coupled with the fact that we adhere to stringent food standards and our meals meet the USDA recommended portion sizes and nutritional guidelines for the age groups we serve helps us accomplish our mission of balancing nutrition with good taste.
How do you educate parents, students and school staff on nutrition?
Another integral part of our lunch program is nutrition education. We believe it is important to inform students, families, and schools on how to make healthy choices both inside and outside of the lunchroom. We provide students, schools and parents with written materials as well as lessons and activities at school sites that focus on nutrition and healthy eating.
Because you cook the foods made daily in your own kitchen, how can this save a school district or organization in the long run? Do they save on kitchen costs?
This healthy meal program is ideal for schools that do not have the facilities or infrastructure to prepare fresh, home style meals. We custom design a plan for schools and districts that makes sense for them based on their vision for a health and wellness platform and the resources they currently have in house.
Do you serve the elderly community and other organizations beyond schools?
Although we primarily serve schools, we also serve summer camps, after school programs, recreational centers and non-profit organizations. We are able to touch even more organizations through our catering services.
How can a school get Revolution Foods in their lunch rooms?
We are always eager to include more schools in this School Lunch Revolution. You can get in contact with us by emailing info@revolutionfoods.com . You can also check us out on the web at www.revolutionfoods.com.
Sunday, September 6, 2009
The Fastest, Cheapest, Easiest Way to Enlightenment
The Dalai Lama was once asked in front of a live audience what was the cheapest, fastest, easiest way to enlightenment. His reaction was to put his face in his hands and weep. After a few moments, he said that this was not a question a practitioner (of meditation) would ask, and that if he knew what enlightenment was, there would be no hesitation to do what it takes to attain it.
In this same way I could weep when I hear those who wield influence in the field of education talk about the cheapest, fastest, easiest way to get a kid through school. If we knew of the value of a rich, purposeful, meaningful education we would not hesitate to do what it takes to provide each child with one.
While enlightenment and graduation are very worthy end goals, there is a lot of time and effort that goes into them that cannot be sped through or done without mindfulness. This time and effort is not only necessary, but also valuable in and of itself. As tempting as it is to get to the end goal, there are tremendous benefits all along the journey.
It may be no coincidence that Buddhism is referred to as a "path" rather than a religion. A path is a journey. The Buddhist path is full of opportunities for personal growth through and to self-discipline, practice, reflection, examination, striving, and compassion. It is through the thousands of attempts of mastery that we become masters. These are many of the qualities we would like for our children, and they each take time and effort. If education were viewed as a path, not just a goal, would we take the time to savor it, to value the everyday efforts and achievement that make each experience an important step along the way?
How gratifying and powerful education would be if we all (politicians, parents, educators, students) viewed education as a path to explore slowly, carefully, and joyfully - as a daily gift. The thought that there may be no end to the path might change our perspective and our willingness to "do" rather than to "get".
In this same way I could weep when I hear those who wield influence in the field of education talk about the cheapest, fastest, easiest way to get a kid through school. If we knew of the value of a rich, purposeful, meaningful education we would not hesitate to do what it takes to provide each child with one.
While enlightenment and graduation are very worthy end goals, there is a lot of time and effort that goes into them that cannot be sped through or done without mindfulness. This time and effort is not only necessary, but also valuable in and of itself. As tempting as it is to get to the end goal, there are tremendous benefits all along the journey.
It may be no coincidence that Buddhism is referred to as a "path" rather than a religion. A path is a journey. The Buddhist path is full of opportunities for personal growth through and to self-discipline, practice, reflection, examination, striving, and compassion. It is through the thousands of attempts of mastery that we become masters. These are many of the qualities we would like for our children, and they each take time and effort. If education were viewed as a path, not just a goal, would we take the time to savor it, to value the everyday efforts and achievement that make each experience an important step along the way?
How gratifying and powerful education would be if we all (politicians, parents, educators, students) viewed education as a path to explore slowly, carefully, and joyfully - as a daily gift. The thought that there may be no end to the path might change our perspective and our willingness to "do" rather than to "get".
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Holistic Dance Instruction - An Interview with Between the Bones Founder, Mary Lynn Lewark
Nationally recognized for her solo choreography and performances by age 18, Mary Lynn Lewark's passion for dance, creativity and education fueled her desire to build a dance school. Since founding Between the Bones in 1996, she has produced and directed 11 original productions. Today, Mary Lynn continues to generate new and innovative dance experiences for her students and faculty. Her life experiences as a dance artist and educator – as well as mother to Sydney, Ellery and Lucy - bring a joyous “break the mold” dance curriculum to Between the Bones.
How did you get into dance instruction?
I have been a dancer most of my life. By the age of 18 I had my share of dance injuries. I had been teaching dance and got my degree in education. My first teaching job was at an Expeditionary Learning School, where I taught Kindergarten through 2nd grade for three years. I was struck at how the way the school is set up so that everyone wins and everyone learns. It is very collaborative rather than competitive. Yet, typically in dance it is very competitive and is designed to ensure that only the best participate. When I opened up my dance school I wanted to build on the idea formed in Expeditionary Learning that dancing, too, could be collaborative and inclusive and yet still competitive with other programs. I like the idea of working thematically and then building backwards; thinking about what you want a dancer to be in the end– expressive, graceful, talented and skilled, athletic, healthy and working backwards to put elements in place to allow them to achieve just that.
I understand you take an unconventional approach to dance instruction in that you teach in a holistic way? Can you describe that?
What is unique about our school is the somatic nature of it using the Feldenkrais philosophy. Somatic education has many forms but they lend themselves to teaching people how to use their bodies well. The Feldenkrais Method teaches possibilities of movement, through experience rather than imitation. Over the last ten years I have worked with Feldenkrais Practitioner Bethany Cobb applying the Method to our dance education. Typically you get to Feldenkrais only after an injury or as you get older. That is how I found it! But I thought, why wait for that? Including Feldenkrais in our dance curriculum builds a foundation along the way for knowing and understanding our bodies, when to push, when to listen and how to reduce the risk of injury.
What is Feldenkrais and how does it benefit people?
Moshe Feldenkrais is the man who originated it as a form of rehabilitating his self. I look at it as a constructivist model for learning. Its philosophy is to set up a situation for learning without telling the students what they will learn. Dancing is usually about imitation and this is the opposite. It is designed to encourage an internal knowing. It helps to make people to become more aware of their bodies and helps to reduce the risk of injury by breaking down movement so that learning can occur. These days we see a lot of people who are much less coordinated and less flexible. It is likely a result of our way of living, where we don’t climb trees or run, our play is restricted. No one comes in perfect. We all have missed developmental milestones, like crossing over the mid-line, right and left coordination, etc. Dance and Feldenkrais help to achieve these.
What is the mission of Between the Bones?
It is to provide a balanced dance education. What I mean by that is we want to balance strength with softness; technique with expression; skills with self-awareness. By balancing each aspect of dance with its opposite the kids become whole people, whole dancers.
How does Between the Bones help students grow, learn and succeed outside of the studio or off the stage?
Dance in general gives body awareness and confidence. You are the ultimate multi-tasker as a dancer – you have to be present yet think ahead. You have to do a difficult move with great concentration yet express a sense of ease or something else. It takes tremendous self-control and elegance. You have to be able to learn quickly. Dance students make great problem solvers. When you make a mistake on stage you have to be able to deal with that and move on. You don’t know exactly what is going to happen next, so you have to be open to it. Dancing in a performance will help build skills in any field. It helps with both process and product and encourages intellectual curiosity and interest.
The way you integrate dance with other related topics, like nutrition, classic literature, and history brings these lessons alive for your students. Describe how dance can make other subjects meaningful.
I am biased but I believe you could learn everything through dance! When you are researching before a dance performance, you look into the time periods and observe why they are wearing what they are wearing. You get a look at the politics and religious values of that time while preparing for the dance. When we did Alice in Wonderland we explored that period of time and talked a lot about the author, the historical time frame, and did a lot of critical thinking and questioning in preparation for the performance to really understand what we were going to be doing and telling.
I appreciate that you encourage students of all body types to dance. Please tell me about your philosophy in that regard.
Modern dance and jazz are particularly more accepting of bodies of all types. The goal is to be healthy and in shape and it is a challenge to balance healthy with rigorous. The dancing we do requires skill and discipline. We’ve had body types of all kinds and many on the too thin side. It is helpful if they get caught up in dance and find it in themselves to improve for their own benefit rather than through the external pressure imposed on them. Feldenkrais is good with providing a balanced approach and a sense of self.
How can dance help us tap into the Age of Creativity?
At Between the Bones we use the story to drive our work and our performances. When the dancers are a part of the creative process like they are at Between the Bones, they become part of a collaborative team involving teachers, costume makers, and students to take a leap and solve problems that haven’t been solved before. It is not just imitative or just a recital. The story gives boundaries and rules and allows us to think creatively. It is constructivist: you throw all of the pieces together that you can work with, knowing that those are the only things you can use to create. Let’s see what happens.
For more information on Between the Bones, visit: www.betweenthebones.com
How did you get into dance instruction?
I have been a dancer most of my life. By the age of 18 I had my share of dance injuries. I had been teaching dance and got my degree in education. My first teaching job was at an Expeditionary Learning School, where I taught Kindergarten through 2nd grade for three years. I was struck at how the way the school is set up so that everyone wins and everyone learns. It is very collaborative rather than competitive. Yet, typically in dance it is very competitive and is designed to ensure that only the best participate. When I opened up my dance school I wanted to build on the idea formed in Expeditionary Learning that dancing, too, could be collaborative and inclusive and yet still competitive with other programs. I like the idea of working thematically and then building backwards; thinking about what you want a dancer to be in the end– expressive, graceful, talented and skilled, athletic, healthy and working backwards to put elements in place to allow them to achieve just that.
I understand you take an unconventional approach to dance instruction in that you teach in a holistic way? Can you describe that?
What is unique about our school is the somatic nature of it using the Feldenkrais philosophy. Somatic education has many forms but they lend themselves to teaching people how to use their bodies well. The Feldenkrais Method teaches possibilities of movement, through experience rather than imitation. Over the last ten years I have worked with Feldenkrais Practitioner Bethany Cobb applying the Method to our dance education. Typically you get to Feldenkrais only after an injury or as you get older. That is how I found it! But I thought, why wait for that? Including Feldenkrais in our dance curriculum builds a foundation along the way for knowing and understanding our bodies, when to push, when to listen and how to reduce the risk of injury.
What is Feldenkrais and how does it benefit people?
Moshe Feldenkrais is the man who originated it as a form of rehabilitating his self. I look at it as a constructivist model for learning. Its philosophy is to set up a situation for learning without telling the students what they will learn. Dancing is usually about imitation and this is the opposite. It is designed to encourage an internal knowing. It helps to make people to become more aware of their bodies and helps to reduce the risk of injury by breaking down movement so that learning can occur. These days we see a lot of people who are much less coordinated and less flexible. It is likely a result of our way of living, where we don’t climb trees or run, our play is restricted. No one comes in perfect. We all have missed developmental milestones, like crossing over the mid-line, right and left coordination, etc. Dance and Feldenkrais help to achieve these.
What is the mission of Between the Bones?
It is to provide a balanced dance education. What I mean by that is we want to balance strength with softness; technique with expression; skills with self-awareness. By balancing each aspect of dance with its opposite the kids become whole people, whole dancers.
How does Between the Bones help students grow, learn and succeed outside of the studio or off the stage?
Dance in general gives body awareness and confidence. You are the ultimate multi-tasker as a dancer – you have to be present yet think ahead. You have to do a difficult move with great concentration yet express a sense of ease or something else. It takes tremendous self-control and elegance. You have to be able to learn quickly. Dance students make great problem solvers. When you make a mistake on stage you have to be able to deal with that and move on. You don’t know exactly what is going to happen next, so you have to be open to it. Dancing in a performance will help build skills in any field. It helps with both process and product and encourages intellectual curiosity and interest.
The way you integrate dance with other related topics, like nutrition, classic literature, and history brings these lessons alive for your students. Describe how dance can make other subjects meaningful.
I am biased but I believe you could learn everything through dance! When you are researching before a dance performance, you look into the time periods and observe why they are wearing what they are wearing. You get a look at the politics and religious values of that time while preparing for the dance. When we did Alice in Wonderland we explored that period of time and talked a lot about the author, the historical time frame, and did a lot of critical thinking and questioning in preparation for the performance to really understand what we were going to be doing and telling.
I appreciate that you encourage students of all body types to dance. Please tell me about your philosophy in that regard.
Modern dance and jazz are particularly more accepting of bodies of all types. The goal is to be healthy and in shape and it is a challenge to balance healthy with rigorous. The dancing we do requires skill and discipline. We’ve had body types of all kinds and many on the too thin side. It is helpful if they get caught up in dance and find it in themselves to improve for their own benefit rather than through the external pressure imposed on them. Feldenkrais is good with providing a balanced approach and a sense of self.
How can dance help us tap into the Age of Creativity?
At Between the Bones we use the story to drive our work and our performances. When the dancers are a part of the creative process like they are at Between the Bones, they become part of a collaborative team involving teachers, costume makers, and students to take a leap and solve problems that haven’t been solved before. It is not just imitative or just a recital. The story gives boundaries and rules and allows us to think creatively. It is constructivist: you throw all of the pieces together that you can work with, knowing that those are the only things you can use to create. Let’s see what happens.
For more information on Between the Bones, visit: www.betweenthebones.com
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Opening a Public Waldorf School - an Interview with Alliance for Public Waldorf Education
How does the Alliance for Public Waldorf Education assist people and communities?
The Alliance for Public Waldorf Education is a member organization, supporting established schools, developing schools and initiatives in the planning and start up phase. The Alliance provides resources and free consultation from experienced administrators to its member schools. In addition, the Alliance provides an annual conference, professional development opportunities, and is developing partnerships in support of the public/charter schools movement.
How close does the public version of Waldorf come to the traditional Waldorf schools?
The curriculum and pedagogical approach looks very similar in both public and independent Waldorf schools. The public sector lens comes with additional transparency and accountability requirements, particularly around documenting grade-by-grade curriculum and academic standards. Most people wouldn’t notice much difference in the classroom if they visited a private Waldorf school or a public school inspired by Waldorf education.
With public schools' inflexibility on standardized testing, how do you keep the integrity of the pace of Waldorf with literacy?
At most public Waldorf schools, the curriculum doesn’t vary much from the traditional independent Waldorf program. Meeting literacy and all academic standards while nurturing the development of the whole child is integral to a Waldorf education. A Waldorf curriculum takes a different approach to reading in grades one and two; however, students are not tested in most states until grade three, by which time students’ literacy is basically on par with the testing standards. California schools test a year earlier than the federal government recommends or requires, and students tend to do poorly on the second grade exams. In later years, however, student test results are comparable and above, as would be expected with the full Waldorf curriculum.
In public Waldorf schools, do the students stick with the same teacher for 8 years or at least several years?
Yes. When a teacher has a class for several years, the teacher and the children come to know and understand each other in a deeper way. Children who feel secure in that familiar relationship, may be better able to learn. The interaction of teacher and parents also can become meaningful over time, which can be supportive to the child’s development.
How do you strive to keep the hands, heart and head balance in the public school setting?
Waldorf curriculum and pedagogy seeks to nurture all aspects of the child’s development leading to excellence in intellectual and academic capabilities. Artistic and practical subjects such as gardening, hand work, and woodworking play a significant role in preparing students for life in the ‘real’ world.
In addition to reading, writing, math, history, geography, and the sciences, children learn to sing, play a musical instrument, draw, paint, carve and work with wood, speak clearly and act in a play, think independently, and work harmoniously and respectfully with others. Lessons are primarily delivered orally by the teacher in a thoughtful, interactive and artistic manner, thereby engaging hands, heart and head into all lessons and activities of a student’s day.
How many public Waldorf schools are there in the United States?
There are 46 schools and initiatives in the United States.
How successful have they been?
Lower grade students moving to a comprehensive high school (public or private) are often recognized for their keen ability to think, for being well-rounded young adults, and as having experience as learners rather than merely digesters. High school graduates are likely to have well developed sense of themselves, sound thinking and reasoning skills, a genuine curiosity of their world, and love of learning. While public schools inspired by Waldorf education are relatively new in the United States, even the most prestigious colleges embrace Waldorf educated students as likely to be a contributing, engaged student and have a successful college experience. The Yuba River Charter School in Nevada City, CA, whose oldest graduates are now 25 years old, has had a group graduate from UCLA and Berkeley this year and has their first high school graduate attending Harvard. Other students are now finishing graduate school and one is a Waldorf teacher!
For more information on the Alliance for Public Waldorf Education, go to http://allianceforpublicwaldorfeducation.org/
The Alliance for Public Waldorf Education is a member organization, supporting established schools, developing schools and initiatives in the planning and start up phase. The Alliance provides resources and free consultation from experienced administrators to its member schools. In addition, the Alliance provides an annual conference, professional development opportunities, and is developing partnerships in support of the public/charter schools movement.
How close does the public version of Waldorf come to the traditional Waldorf schools?
The curriculum and pedagogical approach looks very similar in both public and independent Waldorf schools. The public sector lens comes with additional transparency and accountability requirements, particularly around documenting grade-by-grade curriculum and academic standards. Most people wouldn’t notice much difference in the classroom if they visited a private Waldorf school or a public school inspired by Waldorf education.
With public schools' inflexibility on standardized testing, how do you keep the integrity of the pace of Waldorf with literacy?
At most public Waldorf schools, the curriculum doesn’t vary much from the traditional independent Waldorf program. Meeting literacy and all academic standards while nurturing the development of the whole child is integral to a Waldorf education. A Waldorf curriculum takes a different approach to reading in grades one and two; however, students are not tested in most states until grade three, by which time students’ literacy is basically on par with the testing standards. California schools test a year earlier than the federal government recommends or requires, and students tend to do poorly on the second grade exams. In later years, however, student test results are comparable and above, as would be expected with the full Waldorf curriculum.
In public Waldorf schools, do the students stick with the same teacher for 8 years or at least several years?
Yes. When a teacher has a class for several years, the teacher and the children come to know and understand each other in a deeper way. Children who feel secure in that familiar relationship, may be better able to learn. The interaction of teacher and parents also can become meaningful over time, which can be supportive to the child’s development.
How do you strive to keep the hands, heart and head balance in the public school setting?
Waldorf curriculum and pedagogy seeks to nurture all aspects of the child’s development leading to excellence in intellectual and academic capabilities. Artistic and practical subjects such as gardening, hand work, and woodworking play a significant role in preparing students for life in the ‘real’ world.
In addition to reading, writing, math, history, geography, and the sciences, children learn to sing, play a musical instrument, draw, paint, carve and work with wood, speak clearly and act in a play, think independently, and work harmoniously and respectfully with others. Lessons are primarily delivered orally by the teacher in a thoughtful, interactive and artistic manner, thereby engaging hands, heart and head into all lessons and activities of a student’s day.
How many public Waldorf schools are there in the United States?
There are 46 schools and initiatives in the United States.
How successful have they been?
Lower grade students moving to a comprehensive high school (public or private) are often recognized for their keen ability to think, for being well-rounded young adults, and as having experience as learners rather than merely digesters. High school graduates are likely to have well developed sense of themselves, sound thinking and reasoning skills, a genuine curiosity of their world, and love of learning. While public schools inspired by Waldorf education are relatively new in the United States, even the most prestigious colleges embrace Waldorf educated students as likely to be a contributing, engaged student and have a successful college experience. The Yuba River Charter School in Nevada City, CA, whose oldest graduates are now 25 years old, has had a group graduate from UCLA and Berkeley this year and has their first high school graduate attending Harvard. Other students are now finishing graduate school and one is a Waldorf teacher!
For more information on the Alliance for Public Waldorf Education, go to http://allianceforpublicwaldorfeducation.org/
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Reggio Emilia - Another Fine Italian Import Interpreted by Daniel Bigler
Daniel Bigler, previously a guest blogger here has graciously returned to explain Reggio Emilia. Daniel is a former Reggio Emilia-inspired teacher and eloquently explains more on this education modality or philosophy.
What is the Reggio Emilia philosophy?
It might be best to understand the philosophy within the context of its birthplace: Reggio Emilia, Italy. Reggio Emilia is a small region in northern Italy and after the devastation of World War II, many of its local communities and parents began to realize that the way to move beyond this violence laid within education. So among the war-torn rubble, mothers literally began to piece their communities back together by coming around their young children and building preschools for them. Loris Malaguzzi was a young journalist and educator at the time and impressed by the parents' efforts. He helped them build a system of schools that would ultimately support their different concept of how to exist within the world.
In many respects, it's hard to separate what's become known as the Reggio Emilia philosophy of education with their larger philosophy of life. If I had to try, though, it'd be characterized by these things:
* A respect for children and their capacities and curiosities
* An emergent curriculum that comes from the children and their inquiries about the world, which often manifests in in-depth project work
* A belief that children can learn through different "languages" and art mediums, and that representing and exploring learning through these is central to true understanding. Thus, at the center of every classroom is the Art Studio
* A sense of harmony and connection between the classroom and the broader community, the natural world, and others
* A letting go of time, of hurriedness and unnecessary expectations as part of an attempt to get back to the joy of learning. "Nothing without joy," as Loris Malaguzzi once said.
There's probably many other defining characteristics of the Reggio Emilia philosophy and each person I've found working in it is drawn to the philosophy for different reasons. I can only explore and share what Reggio Emilia is to me – though many others, like Lella Gandini, Louise Boyd-Cadwell, and George Forman have done a truly fantastic job at introducing Reggio Emilia's philosophy and practices to American audiences. There's a wealth of wisdom about education and "the Reggio Emilia way" in their books, if you're interested.
I understand it is more of a guiding philosophy than a methodology or set curriculum. Can you explain that?
Reggio Emilia's philosophy about education can really be summed up, I think, with this question: What is your Image of the child? Do you view children as capable, competent, strong, and wise? Do children have something to contribute to broader society? Are they able to be in charge of their own learning?
I wonder if you really have to be in the right place mentally, to work in a truly Reggio-inspired way: a conceptual place where you no longer place any "value" on education in the sense that you expect it to do certain things, and produce pre-established sets of knowledge and skills. This approach requires you to take a step back and do away with all the adult expectations of what children "should be learning" and instead just allow and encourage the children in front of you to learn what comes naturally to them. The emphasis is really shifted from the system to the child.
It's often mistakenly assumed that the Reggio Emilia philosophy requires less work of the teacher, because you don't have a curriculum; but really, it is the opposite. As a teacher, you're asked to be constantly and deeply engaged with the children you're among, and constantly reflective of where they are at mentally, emotionally, physically – fully aware of the possibilities of where their learning might go from here.
It's sort of as if you're committed philosophically to making everything up as you go along, without the past theorists and wealth of knowledge about "child development" to fall back on and get in the way of recognizing the children as they truly are. You're certainly engaged with these ideas from the broader culture, but you take nothing for granted. Instead of some checklist handed off from above or an abstract theory a guy wrote in a book once of how and what children learn, the children themselves become the benchmark for whether you're doing it right.
Reggio Emilia touches on our connection to each other, the community, the food on our plate, etc. Why is relationship and connection so important?
I'm certain some of this is simply reflective of the Reggio Emilia philosophy's Italian roots: the Italians emphasize family, simplicity, enjoyment. Their worldview is one of living life slowly and appreciating it fully, with others close to them. In that way, the way Reggio Emilia does "education" is a natural extension of how they do "life" altogether.
I don't know how much of this transfers easily (especially to America), since so much of it is worldview, but I do think there some important truths here. For instance, if we want kids to really explore an interest deeply and passionately, mindful that it's largely the process and not the content that matters most in children's cognitive development, then we have to give them ample time to do so. We have to value unstructured, unhurried days and not be bound to the clock. We have to let kids continue to play and build, even though our adult heads might say it's time to put away the blocks and sit down for lunch. Children need to be able to depend on and expect a certain continuity to their work – they have to be able to trust that they can revisit, for instance, their pretend dinosaur play or pirate ship block building the next day and the next, and not be hurried along to another thing on some curriculum list somewhere.
Likewise, if we want our children to truly know the value of human life and learn how to work and collaborate together then we have to emphasize and build *real* communities, and we have to set the structure and culture of our classroom so that everybody in it (adults and kids alike) truly rely and depend on each other, with an equal investment in the community as well as self.
In the same way, the children *have to* be connected to the broader community, woven into the fabric of the broader social life happening around them. They shouldn't be shoved aside in a child care classroom, guarded by a gatekeeper, while the adults of a community go off to work and live. Children need to be present and an active part of the life of a community – they need to be known and accepted at the local farmer's market, the park, area businesses.
This idea of fostering true community among children and integrating them into the broader community might be the biggest obstacle for American schools hoping to transplant the Reggio Emilia philosophy. Our strong individualistic tendencies and emphasis often get in the way of children truly learning to be a part of a broader classroom, community, or world. We often want our children to "develop" enough and become "educated" enough, become autonomous enough before we weave them into our society. But if we stop and think, this is a rather silly way of doing it. If we what we're after is empowered, capable, strong learners and thinkers who can go out into our society and make the world better, then we absolutely need to have them be an integral, welcomed and supported part of that world first.
I think most Italians would be appalled at our "child care" centers – aghast especially at the idea that we treat children's care as an economic good. Children have become little more than add-ons to our lives, not connected in any meaningful way to the broader cultural life and community. Until they are quality, purposeful early childhood education in America can never be fully realized.
How is the role of the teacher different in this setting?
Most education occurs within a deficit-oriented, authority-based paradigm. Teachers work to put knowledge and skills out into the classroom, making them accessible to children "at their level", so that children can become filled up with those (very culturally-bound) things. It's a future-oriented setting, always with the teachers looking onward at what children need to know next, looking for ways to impart this knowledge to them. Simply put, most education has children as passive bystanders in their own education.
In the Reggio Emilia philosophy, the opposite is the case: teachers believe that children are natural learners and inherently empowered individuals capable of incredible thinking and inquiry. The world, as Reggio-inspired teachers see it, is rich enough for children to learn from – and unless they've been taught out of it, children have a natural and insatiable curiosity for knowledge and understanding. Children are encouraged to experiment and make mistakes, to explore their own interests, The teacher's role is simply to support this, taking their cue from the child himself.
It's easy to mistake this as doing nothing, but in actuality there's a lot more work involved with this kind of teaching paradigm. One of the main new roles of the teacher is as observer and documenter: teachers listen to children's dialogue and questions, observe their play and activities, and root out their deeper passions and interests. Then in documenting their observations, teachers give themselves something to reflect on, an insight about further "provocations" and subtle changes they can offer, that might add a richer, deeper dimension to the children's exploration and activity. You slowly see the classroom's curriculum "emerge" this way, with teachers using their observation and documentation to reflexively introduce just "one more thing" to the classroom at a time – careful not to get too ahead of the children, but at the same time artfully scaffolding their experiences.
There is, of course, many other role implications to such a drastically different teaching paradigm. The teachers are collaborators with children, and don't necessarily provide them the answers, rather they encourage open-ended inquiry. At its core is this different concept of relating to children.
What is meant by the expression, The Hundred Languages of Children?
Understandably, it's not a literal expression and it's also not meant to be limiting, as "the hundred" might suggest. Instead, the expression "The Hundred Languages of Children" encapsulates the idea that children discover, learn, do, and exist in endless ways. Think of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences: it's the notion that children learn and achieve literacy about a topic through multiple ways, many different languages. The Hundred Languages is meant to communicate this open expanse of opportunity about how learning can happen.
It's also meant to engender a certain respect and acknowledge for each child as a gifted, thoughtful, and unique individual. A child may be naturally gifted at dance. Or a child might choose to sketch a drawing to express his understanding of how leaves form and maybe resemble the "skeleton bones" in our hands. The visual arts, physical movement, speech, music, hand work, dance, dramatic play... all of these can be languages of learning for children. Reggio-inspired teachers recognize this, and work with children to open these languages up to them for their use. This is why the L'Atelier – the "Art Studio" – is at the heart of any Reggio Emilia-inspired classroom. Through developing a proficiency in and meaningfully using these languages, children can – on their own, in the very truest sense of empowerment – deeply engage and explore topics, ideas, and inquiries in very real and concrete ways.
From a scientific perspective, allowing and encouraging children to explore one topic or object through a diverse variety of physical media increases and enhances the neurological connections centralized around that topic or object, deepening a child's schema of understanding about that thing. Representing and exploring things in different ways allows our brains to fully, comprehensively understand and appreciate those things in a way that simple bookwork would never allow.
How does this approach address matters of balance (academic, emotional, social, physical, etc.)?
You know, I think there's just a natural holism to the Reggio Emilia approach. Teachers approach children as a whole, and I don't think that many people who work in this approach tend to think much about these matters of balancing the social, emotional, physical, cognitive domains. It simply comes rather naturally.
I sometimes think we, as adults break children's lives and experiences down too much. We narrow a child's life to such precisely defined parameters, that I wonder if we lose a part of it in the process. I don't think that the Reggio Emilia approach neglects any of these aspects of life. In fact, I think the balance is a lot richer and deeper than most educational approaches – but it's not something we spend any particular effort in doing. When you discard any adult expectations of how children should be, and view them simply as they are, it's much easier to meet children's needs.
How does the approach take sides in the debate of play-based education or early learning education in the younger years?
I don't know if the approach particularly does take sides. For its part, the Reggio Emilia philosophy is largely about culture. At its core it's a way of thinking about children, acknowledging their abilities and listening to them. There's a decent amount of mutual respect involved, but how this approach might actually "look" depends drastically on the individual community it's in and a part of.
Naturally, some classrooms may be more play and exploratory-based, while others might seem more "serious"; it simply depends on the children, the culture and experiences they bring with them, and how their interests manifest in the every-day activity of the classroom. Often this is through play, but sometimes it's through arts-based representation and exploration, project work, or other ways. As adults, we just try to let it happen, whatever it is and support it however we can. Of course as teachers we're kept incredibly busy but our roles change, from say, instructors and traffic monitors to observers, documentarians, provocateurs, and co-learners.
At the preschool I worked at – with many of our parents being working professionals – we had the children for a good portion of the day. We spent much of the morning engaged in more "focused" work, spending a lot of time in our art studio, either exploring and practicing different art media, or continuing long-term projects if we have any going on. The larger part our day has a natural, relaxed ebb and flow to it. We try to minimize transitions and group or adult-directed times during the day and children mainly work and play in small groups with their friends. The "curriculum" and activity of the classroom emerges from their own thoughts and ideas. In this way, "education" becomes a living, breathing thing, when put in the hands of the children themselves.
Is it only for younger kids?
Not at all! One of the very best (elementary) schools I've seen was a charter school in Portland, Oregon, that worked out of a Reggio-inspired philosophy. They had a preschool program, yes, but they also had grades above that – up to 5th grade, the last time I was there. It's very much a philosophy that largely transcends both age and, for that matter, culture.
The philosophy manifests itself in different ways at different ages, of course. When I was at this particular school, for instance, the 3rd and 4th graders were wrapping up these immensely impressive and elaborate projects on issues like civil rights, explored and represented through different media and experiences. They also didn't neglect the more "traditional" subjects like mathematics, although they explore them through holistic, interdisciplinary means, like integrating math with their other projects, for instance, or through kinesthetic and spatial means, like advanced architectural building with blocks.
The preschoolers, on the other end, had spent the year exploring issues of power and identity. The class had some unusually active young boys, and instead of having their unusually strong inclination toward rough-and-tumble play and pretend fighting suppressed, the teachers recognized its connection with another strong interest the children had that year – their interest in the animals that they saw at their semi-regular trips to a nearby zoo. The teachers magnificently wove both of these threads together, and, over time, these kids knew and, as unusual as it sounds, could innately sympathize with these animals on such an intimate level. Toward the end of the year, they spent several long weeks in the art studio, the children laboring intently over what would become these elaborately detailed, intricately painted paper måché masks that represented the different zoo animals. They finished them just in time for one last trip to the zoo, where the children donned their masks and truly, physically, emotionally *became* the animals on the other side of the fences. It's these transcendent moments that you only rarely get to witness that let you know there can truly be more – a lot more – to a child's education.
So the philosophy may appear differently at different ages, but it's very much for any age. If there's a central commitment to supporting children's inquiry, learning through arts- and materials-based representation and expression, and reflective, community-based teaching practices, then the Reggio philosophy can, in my mind really be taken anywhere.
How does the Reggio Emilia classroom look and feel compared to a conventional classroom?
In terms of the materials, I don't know if this is as defined as some would like to think. The philosophy can inspire any teacher or school – even those with few resources or funding – and it's really mostly the immaterial culture that stands in sharpest contrast to conventional classrooms.
I do think, though, that when teachers and adults are mindful about the environment that the children are in– "The Third Teacher," as the Reggio Emilia approach calls it, they find ways around resource limitations to imbue their environment with a certain spirit. Children learn just as much from the physical spaces and places around them, from the materials around them, so this is important. Even if a school is dirt-broke though, teachers can carefully consider what physically is allowed in their classroom, only permitting what they find to be meaningful or provocative to children's learning, in harmony with the children themselves and the spirit of the classroom as a whole. Teachers can foster attunement with the natural world by bringing in stumps, leaves, dirt, and so forth and they encourage resourcefulness and creativity by bringing in materials that are largely "blank" of their own accord in the beginning, but which allow children to project their own worlds and play onto them. In this sense, minimalism can often be a good thing – one of the best things, in fact. Children aren't distracted by the horrendously bright colors and flashy "educational" posters found in most conventional classrooms, and instead their classroom space really begins to take on, over time the simple lives and character of the children themselves.
It's this sense of harmony and attunement with the children themselves – not just some far off, distant concept of who the children are or should be – that I really can't adequately describe. It's very much a dynamic thing, changing over the years with different groups of children, and because it comes from individual children, it can never be replicated.
This harmony can in many ways be encouraged by setting a soothing, calm stage without distractions, by allowing the natural world in, placing live plants in and around the classroom, and by doing what is possible to let natural light in. This also means discouraging adult-designed or overly-specific toys or displays, and replacing the cute alphabet and weather posters with children's own artwork, carefully articulated documentation of children's learning, and photographs. Certainly, great attention is also given to the Art Studio, to make it a place of rich and diverse opportunity for exploring material languages and representing learning. There are a great many ideas and strategies that may physically set aside a Reggio Emilia-inspired classroom from others. But in the end, it's the classroom's teacher who has the responsibility to mindfully this place.
This place will be different for each context, taking into account the culture, material resources at hand, and the children's lives – but we usually find that if teachers take the proper time out to think through the environment, not simply settling for the status quo out of a catalog but carefully considering the physical space in the perspective of this different philosophy of children and learning, then they end up with a classroom offering children much more meaning and spirit than a conventional classroom.
Daniel's blog can be found at http://www.danielsaurus.com
What is the Reggio Emilia philosophy?
It might be best to understand the philosophy within the context of its birthplace: Reggio Emilia, Italy. Reggio Emilia is a small region in northern Italy and after the devastation of World War II, many of its local communities and parents began to realize that the way to move beyond this violence laid within education. So among the war-torn rubble, mothers literally began to piece their communities back together by coming around their young children and building preschools for them. Loris Malaguzzi was a young journalist and educator at the time and impressed by the parents' efforts. He helped them build a system of schools that would ultimately support their different concept of how to exist within the world.
In many respects, it's hard to separate what's become known as the Reggio Emilia philosophy of education with their larger philosophy of life. If I had to try, though, it'd be characterized by these things:
* A respect for children and their capacities and curiosities
* An emergent curriculum that comes from the children and their inquiries about the world, which often manifests in in-depth project work
* A belief that children can learn through different "languages" and art mediums, and that representing and exploring learning through these is central to true understanding. Thus, at the center of every classroom is the Art Studio
* A sense of harmony and connection between the classroom and the broader community, the natural world, and others
* A letting go of time, of hurriedness and unnecessary expectations as part of an attempt to get back to the joy of learning. "Nothing without joy," as Loris Malaguzzi once said.
There's probably many other defining characteristics of the Reggio Emilia philosophy and each person I've found working in it is drawn to the philosophy for different reasons. I can only explore and share what Reggio Emilia is to me – though many others, like Lella Gandini, Louise Boyd-Cadwell, and George Forman have done a truly fantastic job at introducing Reggio Emilia's philosophy and practices to American audiences. There's a wealth of wisdom about education and "the Reggio Emilia way" in their books, if you're interested.
I understand it is more of a guiding philosophy than a methodology or set curriculum. Can you explain that?
Reggio Emilia's philosophy about education can really be summed up, I think, with this question: What is your Image of the child? Do you view children as capable, competent, strong, and wise? Do children have something to contribute to broader society? Are they able to be in charge of their own learning?
I wonder if you really have to be in the right place mentally, to work in a truly Reggio-inspired way: a conceptual place where you no longer place any "value" on education in the sense that you expect it to do certain things, and produce pre-established sets of knowledge and skills. This approach requires you to take a step back and do away with all the adult expectations of what children "should be learning" and instead just allow and encourage the children in front of you to learn what comes naturally to them. The emphasis is really shifted from the system to the child.
It's often mistakenly assumed that the Reggio Emilia philosophy requires less work of the teacher, because you don't have a curriculum; but really, it is the opposite. As a teacher, you're asked to be constantly and deeply engaged with the children you're among, and constantly reflective of where they are at mentally, emotionally, physically – fully aware of the possibilities of where their learning might go from here.
It's sort of as if you're committed philosophically to making everything up as you go along, without the past theorists and wealth of knowledge about "child development" to fall back on and get in the way of recognizing the children as they truly are. You're certainly engaged with these ideas from the broader culture, but you take nothing for granted. Instead of some checklist handed off from above or an abstract theory a guy wrote in a book once of how and what children learn, the children themselves become the benchmark for whether you're doing it right.
Reggio Emilia touches on our connection to each other, the community, the food on our plate, etc. Why is relationship and connection so important?
I'm certain some of this is simply reflective of the Reggio Emilia philosophy's Italian roots: the Italians emphasize family, simplicity, enjoyment. Their worldview is one of living life slowly and appreciating it fully, with others close to them. In that way, the way Reggio Emilia does "education" is a natural extension of how they do "life" altogether.
I don't know how much of this transfers easily (especially to America), since so much of it is worldview, but I do think there some important truths here. For instance, if we want kids to really explore an interest deeply and passionately, mindful that it's largely the process and not the content that matters most in children's cognitive development, then we have to give them ample time to do so. We have to value unstructured, unhurried days and not be bound to the clock. We have to let kids continue to play and build, even though our adult heads might say it's time to put away the blocks and sit down for lunch. Children need to be able to depend on and expect a certain continuity to their work – they have to be able to trust that they can revisit, for instance, their pretend dinosaur play or pirate ship block building the next day and the next, and not be hurried along to another thing on some curriculum list somewhere.
Likewise, if we want our children to truly know the value of human life and learn how to work and collaborate together then we have to emphasize and build *real* communities, and we have to set the structure and culture of our classroom so that everybody in it (adults and kids alike) truly rely and depend on each other, with an equal investment in the community as well as self.
In the same way, the children *have to* be connected to the broader community, woven into the fabric of the broader social life happening around them. They shouldn't be shoved aside in a child care classroom, guarded by a gatekeeper, while the adults of a community go off to work and live. Children need to be present and an active part of the life of a community – they need to be known and accepted at the local farmer's market, the park, area businesses.
This idea of fostering true community among children and integrating them into the broader community might be the biggest obstacle for American schools hoping to transplant the Reggio Emilia philosophy. Our strong individualistic tendencies and emphasis often get in the way of children truly learning to be a part of a broader classroom, community, or world. We often want our children to "develop" enough and become "educated" enough, become autonomous enough before we weave them into our society. But if we stop and think, this is a rather silly way of doing it. If we what we're after is empowered, capable, strong learners and thinkers who can go out into our society and make the world better, then we absolutely need to have them be an integral, welcomed and supported part of that world first.
I think most Italians would be appalled at our "child care" centers – aghast especially at the idea that we treat children's care as an economic good. Children have become little more than add-ons to our lives, not connected in any meaningful way to the broader cultural life and community. Until they are quality, purposeful early childhood education in America can never be fully realized.
How is the role of the teacher different in this setting?
Most education occurs within a deficit-oriented, authority-based paradigm. Teachers work to put knowledge and skills out into the classroom, making them accessible to children "at their level", so that children can become filled up with those (very culturally-bound) things. It's a future-oriented setting, always with the teachers looking onward at what children need to know next, looking for ways to impart this knowledge to them. Simply put, most education has children as passive bystanders in their own education.
In the Reggio Emilia philosophy, the opposite is the case: teachers believe that children are natural learners and inherently empowered individuals capable of incredible thinking and inquiry. The world, as Reggio-inspired teachers see it, is rich enough for children to learn from – and unless they've been taught out of it, children have a natural and insatiable curiosity for knowledge and understanding. Children are encouraged to experiment and make mistakes, to explore their own interests, The teacher's role is simply to support this, taking their cue from the child himself.
It's easy to mistake this as doing nothing, but in actuality there's a lot more work involved with this kind of teaching paradigm. One of the main new roles of the teacher is as observer and documenter: teachers listen to children's dialogue and questions, observe their play and activities, and root out their deeper passions and interests. Then in documenting their observations, teachers give themselves something to reflect on, an insight about further "provocations" and subtle changes they can offer, that might add a richer, deeper dimension to the children's exploration and activity. You slowly see the classroom's curriculum "emerge" this way, with teachers using their observation and documentation to reflexively introduce just "one more thing" to the classroom at a time – careful not to get too ahead of the children, but at the same time artfully scaffolding their experiences.
There is, of course, many other role implications to such a drastically different teaching paradigm. The teachers are collaborators with children, and don't necessarily provide them the answers, rather they encourage open-ended inquiry. At its core is this different concept of relating to children.
What is meant by the expression, The Hundred Languages of Children?
Understandably, it's not a literal expression and it's also not meant to be limiting, as "the hundred" might suggest. Instead, the expression "The Hundred Languages of Children" encapsulates the idea that children discover, learn, do, and exist in endless ways. Think of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences: it's the notion that children learn and achieve literacy about a topic through multiple ways, many different languages. The Hundred Languages is meant to communicate this open expanse of opportunity about how learning can happen.
It's also meant to engender a certain respect and acknowledge for each child as a gifted, thoughtful, and unique individual. A child may be naturally gifted at dance. Or a child might choose to sketch a drawing to express his understanding of how leaves form and maybe resemble the "skeleton bones" in our hands. The visual arts, physical movement, speech, music, hand work, dance, dramatic play... all of these can be languages of learning for children. Reggio-inspired teachers recognize this, and work with children to open these languages up to them for their use. This is why the L'Atelier – the "Art Studio" – is at the heart of any Reggio Emilia-inspired classroom. Through developing a proficiency in and meaningfully using these languages, children can – on their own, in the very truest sense of empowerment – deeply engage and explore topics, ideas, and inquiries in very real and concrete ways.
From a scientific perspective, allowing and encouraging children to explore one topic or object through a diverse variety of physical media increases and enhances the neurological connections centralized around that topic or object, deepening a child's schema of understanding about that thing. Representing and exploring things in different ways allows our brains to fully, comprehensively understand and appreciate those things in a way that simple bookwork would never allow.
How does this approach address matters of balance (academic, emotional, social, physical, etc.)?
You know, I think there's just a natural holism to the Reggio Emilia approach. Teachers approach children as a whole, and I don't think that many people who work in this approach tend to think much about these matters of balancing the social, emotional, physical, cognitive domains. It simply comes rather naturally.
I sometimes think we, as adults break children's lives and experiences down too much. We narrow a child's life to such precisely defined parameters, that I wonder if we lose a part of it in the process. I don't think that the Reggio Emilia approach neglects any of these aspects of life. In fact, I think the balance is a lot richer and deeper than most educational approaches – but it's not something we spend any particular effort in doing. When you discard any adult expectations of how children should be, and view them simply as they are, it's much easier to meet children's needs.
How does the approach take sides in the debate of play-based education or early learning education in the younger years?
I don't know if the approach particularly does take sides. For its part, the Reggio Emilia philosophy is largely about culture. At its core it's a way of thinking about children, acknowledging their abilities and listening to them. There's a decent amount of mutual respect involved, but how this approach might actually "look" depends drastically on the individual community it's in and a part of.
Naturally, some classrooms may be more play and exploratory-based, while others might seem more "serious"; it simply depends on the children, the culture and experiences they bring with them, and how their interests manifest in the every-day activity of the classroom. Often this is through play, but sometimes it's through arts-based representation and exploration, project work, or other ways. As adults, we just try to let it happen, whatever it is and support it however we can. Of course as teachers we're kept incredibly busy but our roles change, from say, instructors and traffic monitors to observers, documentarians, provocateurs, and co-learners.
At the preschool I worked at – with many of our parents being working professionals – we had the children for a good portion of the day. We spent much of the morning engaged in more "focused" work, spending a lot of time in our art studio, either exploring and practicing different art media, or continuing long-term projects if we have any going on. The larger part our day has a natural, relaxed ebb and flow to it. We try to minimize transitions and group or adult-directed times during the day and children mainly work and play in small groups with their friends. The "curriculum" and activity of the classroom emerges from their own thoughts and ideas. In this way, "education" becomes a living, breathing thing, when put in the hands of the children themselves.
Is it only for younger kids?
Not at all! One of the very best (elementary) schools I've seen was a charter school in Portland, Oregon, that worked out of a Reggio-inspired philosophy. They had a preschool program, yes, but they also had grades above that – up to 5th grade, the last time I was there. It's very much a philosophy that largely transcends both age and, for that matter, culture.
The philosophy manifests itself in different ways at different ages, of course. When I was at this particular school, for instance, the 3rd and 4th graders were wrapping up these immensely impressive and elaborate projects on issues like civil rights, explored and represented through different media and experiences. They also didn't neglect the more "traditional" subjects like mathematics, although they explore them through holistic, interdisciplinary means, like integrating math with their other projects, for instance, or through kinesthetic and spatial means, like advanced architectural building with blocks.
The preschoolers, on the other end, had spent the year exploring issues of power and identity. The class had some unusually active young boys, and instead of having their unusually strong inclination toward rough-and-tumble play and pretend fighting suppressed, the teachers recognized its connection with another strong interest the children had that year – their interest in the animals that they saw at their semi-regular trips to a nearby zoo. The teachers magnificently wove both of these threads together, and, over time, these kids knew and, as unusual as it sounds, could innately sympathize with these animals on such an intimate level. Toward the end of the year, they spent several long weeks in the art studio, the children laboring intently over what would become these elaborately detailed, intricately painted paper måché masks that represented the different zoo animals. They finished them just in time for one last trip to the zoo, where the children donned their masks and truly, physically, emotionally *became* the animals on the other side of the fences. It's these transcendent moments that you only rarely get to witness that let you know there can truly be more – a lot more – to a child's education.
So the philosophy may appear differently at different ages, but it's very much for any age. If there's a central commitment to supporting children's inquiry, learning through arts- and materials-based representation and expression, and reflective, community-based teaching practices, then the Reggio philosophy can, in my mind really be taken anywhere.
How does the Reggio Emilia classroom look and feel compared to a conventional classroom?
In terms of the materials, I don't know if this is as defined as some would like to think. The philosophy can inspire any teacher or school – even those with few resources or funding – and it's really mostly the immaterial culture that stands in sharpest contrast to conventional classrooms.
I do think, though, that when teachers and adults are mindful about the environment that the children are in– "The Third Teacher," as the Reggio Emilia approach calls it, they find ways around resource limitations to imbue their environment with a certain spirit. Children learn just as much from the physical spaces and places around them, from the materials around them, so this is important. Even if a school is dirt-broke though, teachers can carefully consider what physically is allowed in their classroom, only permitting what they find to be meaningful or provocative to children's learning, in harmony with the children themselves and the spirit of the classroom as a whole. Teachers can foster attunement with the natural world by bringing in stumps, leaves, dirt, and so forth and they encourage resourcefulness and creativity by bringing in materials that are largely "blank" of their own accord in the beginning, but which allow children to project their own worlds and play onto them. In this sense, minimalism can often be a good thing – one of the best things, in fact. Children aren't distracted by the horrendously bright colors and flashy "educational" posters found in most conventional classrooms, and instead their classroom space really begins to take on, over time the simple lives and character of the children themselves.
It's this sense of harmony and attunement with the children themselves – not just some far off, distant concept of who the children are or should be – that I really can't adequately describe. It's very much a dynamic thing, changing over the years with different groups of children, and because it comes from individual children, it can never be replicated.
This harmony can in many ways be encouraged by setting a soothing, calm stage without distractions, by allowing the natural world in, placing live plants in and around the classroom, and by doing what is possible to let natural light in. This also means discouraging adult-designed or overly-specific toys or displays, and replacing the cute alphabet and weather posters with children's own artwork, carefully articulated documentation of children's learning, and photographs. Certainly, great attention is also given to the Art Studio, to make it a place of rich and diverse opportunity for exploring material languages and representing learning. There are a great many ideas and strategies that may physically set aside a Reggio Emilia-inspired classroom from others. But in the end, it's the classroom's teacher who has the responsibility to mindfully this place.
This place will be different for each context, taking into account the culture, material resources at hand, and the children's lives – but we usually find that if teachers take the proper time out to think through the environment, not simply settling for the status quo out of a catalog but carefully considering the physical space in the perspective of this different philosophy of children and learning, then they end up with a classroom offering children much more meaning and spirit than a conventional classroom.
Daniel's blog can be found at http://www.danielsaurus.com
Monday, August 10, 2009
Ecoliteracy - An Interview with Lisa Bennett
Lisa Bennett is the communications director for the Center for Ecoliteracy. She is also a former fellow at Harvard University's Center on Press, Politics, and Public Policy in the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and is currently writing a book about parents and global warming.
What is the mission of the Center for Ecoliteracy?
Our mission is education for sustainable living. We provide expertise, inspiration, and support to the immensely hopeful and vital schooling for sustainability movement that is rising among a growing number of public and independent schools in the U.S.
We’re committed to this for two reasons: First, because schooling for sustainability is grounded in ecological knowledge and hands-on experiences in the natural world—and this kind of schooling inherently stimulating, relevant, and alive. It makes education exciting again.
Second, schooling for sustainability is a promising answer to our many environmental challenges. Addressing climate change, the end of cheap energy, and other issues, after all, will require citizens who can think ecologically. And where else can young people be prepared for this but at school?
What services do you provide for schools?
We offer a wide range of services, depending on what a particular school needs. In fact, our work typically begins with identifying the appropriate starting point for each school. Usually, this tends to be the theme or pathway most people in that school community care about. It might, for example, be around food, gardens, the campus, community, or larger curriculum.
We offer seminars that attract people from around the United States and many other countries, and books, such as Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World and Smart by Nature: Schooling for Sustainability, which will be available in September 2009.
We also offer curriculum audits, coaching for teaching and learning, in-depth curriculum development, school sustainability report cards, and technical assistance. You can find more information at www.ecoliteracy.org/about/services.html
What kinds of schools do you typically work with?
We have worked with hundreds of schools, both public and independent, and seen extraordinary successes in almost every setting imaginable. The article, “Greening a K-12 Curriculum,” describes how we worked with one school that sought to integrate sustainability education throughout its entire curriculum. (See http://www.ecoliteracy.org/publications/head_royce.html)
Why is sustainability an important concept for an elementary school student? Shouldn’t they spend their time on reading and math instead?
The good news is that this is not an either-or choice. That is, schooling for sustainability is not another “add on” that teachers must somehow squeeze into their day. Rather, it is a richly creative approach to education that allows teachers to integrate an ecological shift in perspective into subjects ranging from art and English to science and mathematics.
To support this shift, the Center for Ecoliteracy offers a framework called Smart by Nature: Schooling for Sustainability (also the title of our new book!) This is grounded in four guiding principles, which can be applied in a single classroom or entire K-12 school:
1. Nature Is Our Teacher
2. Sustainability Is a Community Practice
3. The Real World Is the Optimal Learning Environment
4. Sustainable Living Is Rooted in a Deep Knowledge of Place
I love the statement that food is an organizing principle for encouraging ecological understanding. It certainly brings ecology from the conceptual level to the practical, meaningful level. Can you explain this more fully?
Food is so central to human survival and experience that it can be a pathway for integrating nearly any subject—science, health, history, social studies, geography, art, economics. Nutrition education makes more sense when studied in the context of how nature provides.
How we grow, process, transport, market, prepare, and dispose of food is critical to the central issues of sustainable living: resource use, energy, pollution, water and soil conservation. Food serves as an ideal entry point for understanding the interrelations of such world issues as hunger, trade policy, energy use, and climate change.
Students can track the sources of the food in their lunches and calculate the resources and energy used to bring it to them. They can research what types of foods would be available to them if they were to adopt a regional “hundred-mile diet”—eating only food grown within a hundred-mile radius in order to emphasize fresh and seasonal ingredients, support local agriculture, and reduce the energy and expense needed to preserve and ship food over long distances.
You advocate education of the head, hands and heart. Why not just the head, as most schools focus on and test?
As our cofounder and executive director, Zenobia Barlow says, "We know from considerable experience that human beings struggle with cognitive dissonance, which means that we can uphold an idea or a value, while simultaneously acting in ways that are inconsistent with that idea or value, causing us to resolve those dissonances or rationalize them. Our current lifestyles are an example in terms of consumption and its implications. Left to the head alone, we are in trouble as a species."
Sustainability is also a practice that involves skills. Addressing environmental problems like climate change requires complex thinking and changes in behavior. For example, look at how the Southern Hemisphere—or the people on the other side of the tracks, so to speak—is forced to live with the consequences of our decisions to place toxic dumpsites or ship toxic waste to their backyards. To fully grasp this issue, one needs to genuinely care about who is downstream, and then act on it. The Head alone won't get us there.
Furthermore, living sustainably implies living in community. It's not for the faint-hearted or the single person dwelling in isolation. Living sustainably involves relationship, communication, and cooperation skills. We can’t achieve mastery by reading or philosophizing about them.
If you read the brain research on how people learn, it's multi-modal. Talking at people about ideas isn't a very effective education strategy. People learn by actively constructing their knowledge base—and that is best accomplished by engagement, grappling with real problems.
The people who dreamed up nuclear energy or bombs without having figured out what to do with the toxic waste exemplify what happens when education primarily engages the head.
Humans have a range of competencies. Education poses the challenge of responding to the vast spectrum of human capabilities. Remember the notion of "I think therefore I am." That was the Cartesian logic of a few centuries ago. We need an updated education model, don't you think?
It seems Ecoliteracy takes on not only the classroom, but the school at large, involving the staff and community as well. It demonstrates that schools are not just institutions for students learning, but, as you put it, they should be a healthy network of relationships that include everyone. What is the school sustainability report card and what is done to help schools achieve good marks on it?
Absolutely! Because, as we say in our Smart by Nature principles, sustainability is a community practice. That is, sustainability depends on a healthy network of relationships that includes all members of the community.
When educators, parents, trustees, and other members of the school community make decisions and act collaboratively, they demonstrate sustainability as a community practice. School communities also have the opportunity to model sustainable practice through the ways in which they provision themselves with food, energy, and other basic needs, and how they relate to the larger communities of which they are a part.
The Center for Ecoliteracy sustainability report card is a broad assessment of schools' sustainability policies and practices. It is conducted through the lens of campus, curriculum, community, and school food systems.
Tell me about Smart by Nature.
Smart by Nature: Schooling for Sustainability a new book from the Center for Ecoliteracy and our senior editor Michael K. Stone. Available in September 2009 from U.C. Press and Amazon.com, it portrays the hopeful new sustainability movement that is growing among public and independent schools in the U.S.
Endorsed by Daniel Goleman, Alice Waters, the National Wildlife Federation and others, Smart by Nature offers a compelling framework for schooling for sustainability that is based on nearly 20 years of experience in schools. With its roots in systems thinking and whole-school change, this framework is organized around the four central principles I mentioned earlier: Nature is our teacher; Sustainability is a community practice; The real world is the optimal learning environment; and Sustainable living is rooted in a deep knowledge of place.
This book also offers concrete strategies for greening the campus and curriculum, conducting environmental audits, rethinking school food, and transforming schools into models of sustainable community.
Smart by Nature is also the name of our larger initiative that is dedicated to supporting the schooling for sustainability movement nationwide. You can learn more by signing up for our newsletter at www.ecoliteracy.org
What is the mission of the Center for Ecoliteracy?
Our mission is education for sustainable living. We provide expertise, inspiration, and support to the immensely hopeful and vital schooling for sustainability movement that is rising among a growing number of public and independent schools in the U.S.
We’re committed to this for two reasons: First, because schooling for sustainability is grounded in ecological knowledge and hands-on experiences in the natural world—and this kind of schooling inherently stimulating, relevant, and alive. It makes education exciting again.
Second, schooling for sustainability is a promising answer to our many environmental challenges. Addressing climate change, the end of cheap energy, and other issues, after all, will require citizens who can think ecologically. And where else can young people be prepared for this but at school?
What services do you provide for schools?
We offer a wide range of services, depending on what a particular school needs. In fact, our work typically begins with identifying the appropriate starting point for each school. Usually, this tends to be the theme or pathway most people in that school community care about. It might, for example, be around food, gardens, the campus, community, or larger curriculum.
We offer seminars that attract people from around the United States and many other countries, and books, such as Ecological Literacy: Educating Our Children for a Sustainable World and Smart by Nature: Schooling for Sustainability, which will be available in September 2009.
We also offer curriculum audits, coaching for teaching and learning, in-depth curriculum development, school sustainability report cards, and technical assistance. You can find more information at www.ecoliteracy.org/about/services.html
What kinds of schools do you typically work with?
We have worked with hundreds of schools, both public and independent, and seen extraordinary successes in almost every setting imaginable. The article, “Greening a K-12 Curriculum,” describes how we worked with one school that sought to integrate sustainability education throughout its entire curriculum. (See http://www.ecoliteracy.org/publications/head_royce.html)
Why is sustainability an important concept for an elementary school student? Shouldn’t they spend their time on reading and math instead?
The good news is that this is not an either-or choice. That is, schooling for sustainability is not another “add on” that teachers must somehow squeeze into their day. Rather, it is a richly creative approach to education that allows teachers to integrate an ecological shift in perspective into subjects ranging from art and English to science and mathematics.
To support this shift, the Center for Ecoliteracy offers a framework called Smart by Nature: Schooling for Sustainability (also the title of our new book!) This is grounded in four guiding principles, which can be applied in a single classroom or entire K-12 school:
1. Nature Is Our Teacher
2. Sustainability Is a Community Practice
3. The Real World Is the Optimal Learning Environment
4. Sustainable Living Is Rooted in a Deep Knowledge of Place
I love the statement that food is an organizing principle for encouraging ecological understanding. It certainly brings ecology from the conceptual level to the practical, meaningful level. Can you explain this more fully?
Food is so central to human survival and experience that it can be a pathway for integrating nearly any subject—science, health, history, social studies, geography, art, economics. Nutrition education makes more sense when studied in the context of how nature provides.
How we grow, process, transport, market, prepare, and dispose of food is critical to the central issues of sustainable living: resource use, energy, pollution, water and soil conservation. Food serves as an ideal entry point for understanding the interrelations of such world issues as hunger, trade policy, energy use, and climate change.
Students can track the sources of the food in their lunches and calculate the resources and energy used to bring it to them. They can research what types of foods would be available to them if they were to adopt a regional “hundred-mile diet”—eating only food grown within a hundred-mile radius in order to emphasize fresh and seasonal ingredients, support local agriculture, and reduce the energy and expense needed to preserve and ship food over long distances.
You advocate education of the head, hands and heart. Why not just the head, as most schools focus on and test?
As our cofounder and executive director, Zenobia Barlow says, "We know from considerable experience that human beings struggle with cognitive dissonance, which means that we can uphold an idea or a value, while simultaneously acting in ways that are inconsistent with that idea or value, causing us to resolve those dissonances or rationalize them. Our current lifestyles are an example in terms of consumption and its implications. Left to the head alone, we are in trouble as a species."
Sustainability is also a practice that involves skills. Addressing environmental problems like climate change requires complex thinking and changes in behavior. For example, look at how the Southern Hemisphere—or the people on the other side of the tracks, so to speak—is forced to live with the consequences of our decisions to place toxic dumpsites or ship toxic waste to their backyards. To fully grasp this issue, one needs to genuinely care about who is downstream, and then act on it. The Head alone won't get us there.
Furthermore, living sustainably implies living in community. It's not for the faint-hearted or the single person dwelling in isolation. Living sustainably involves relationship, communication, and cooperation skills. We can’t achieve mastery by reading or philosophizing about them.
If you read the brain research on how people learn, it's multi-modal. Talking at people about ideas isn't a very effective education strategy. People learn by actively constructing their knowledge base—and that is best accomplished by engagement, grappling with real problems.
The people who dreamed up nuclear energy or bombs without having figured out what to do with the toxic waste exemplify what happens when education primarily engages the head.
Humans have a range of competencies. Education poses the challenge of responding to the vast spectrum of human capabilities. Remember the notion of "I think therefore I am." That was the Cartesian logic of a few centuries ago. We need an updated education model, don't you think?
It seems Ecoliteracy takes on not only the classroom, but the school at large, involving the staff and community as well. It demonstrates that schools are not just institutions for students learning, but, as you put it, they should be a healthy network of relationships that include everyone. What is the school sustainability report card and what is done to help schools achieve good marks on it?
Absolutely! Because, as we say in our Smart by Nature principles, sustainability is a community practice. That is, sustainability depends on a healthy network of relationships that includes all members of the community.
When educators, parents, trustees, and other members of the school community make decisions and act collaboratively, they demonstrate sustainability as a community practice. School communities also have the opportunity to model sustainable practice through the ways in which they provision themselves with food, energy, and other basic needs, and how they relate to the larger communities of which they are a part.
The Center for Ecoliteracy sustainability report card is a broad assessment of schools' sustainability policies and practices. It is conducted through the lens of campus, curriculum, community, and school food systems.
Tell me about Smart by Nature.
Smart by Nature: Schooling for Sustainability a new book from the Center for Ecoliteracy and our senior editor Michael K. Stone. Available in September 2009 from U.C. Press and Amazon.com, it portrays the hopeful new sustainability movement that is growing among public and independent schools in the U.S.
Endorsed by Daniel Goleman, Alice Waters, the National Wildlife Federation and others, Smart by Nature offers a compelling framework for schooling for sustainability that is based on nearly 20 years of experience in schools. With its roots in systems thinking and whole-school change, this framework is organized around the four central principles I mentioned earlier: Nature is our teacher; Sustainability is a community practice; The real world is the optimal learning environment; and Sustainable living is rooted in a deep knowledge of place.
This book also offers concrete strategies for greening the campus and curriculum, conducting environmental audits, rethinking school food, and transforming schools into models of sustainable community.
Smart by Nature is also the name of our larger initiative that is dedicated to supporting the schooling for sustainability movement nationwide. You can learn more by signing up for our newsletter at www.ecoliteracy.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
