In Search of a Model
No. Not that kind of model. A model for the education of children. I keep circling back to this topic because I keep learning of new possibilities and keep noticing flaws in existing models. This search for a defensible and workable one just might take the rest of my life.
I'm glad I don't need a perfect plan before I broach the subject again. Each investigation helps clarify my mental picture of what a stellar system might look like. Viewing the picture from various angles reveals strategies and specific actions that can actually be implemented, given general agreement on the goals, and given the will to make it happen.
Duane W. asked me last week where I get the ideas for blog posts. I couldn't give a very coherent answer. What I read, hear, and observe all provide raw material. Usually, however, on the more substantive topics, input from many disparate sources has to click and connect (more like twist and churn and tumble) inside my head before anything rational emerges. On the topic of education, there's already quite a sizable glob of raw material residing inside my cranium, accumulated over years of training, experience, observing, and thinking. The integration of anything new is complicated, but ever so necessary if it's all to do any good.
My thinking recently has been stimulated by two things primarily:
1. Ongoing work on our school's curriculum committee, a multi-year project in which every subject area will be scrutinized. Resulting documents will likely include for each subject area a Philosophy Statement, a Purpose Statement, Implementation Guidelines, and Curriculum Materials list. Every committee meeting and "goalpost" prompts me to read, listen, observe, and think.
2. Exposure to the system in current use in Finland. I learned recently about a documentary by Michael Moore which contained a segment on schools in Finland. All I saw of it was a three-minute clip. Further searching turned up some really excellent writing by an American educator who spent five months in Finland's schools under the auspices of a Fulbright research assignment. Earlier she had traveled to seven countries in Asia on another educational research assignment. I am far more trusting of this writer's perspective than I am of Michael Moore's, although I don't really know enough about him to critique his work credibly. The teacher's name is Kelly. I urge you to follow her blog. Go here to sign up. Read these two posts (in this order) and the comments following, even if you can't get to anything else right away: 11Ways Finland's Educational System Shows Us That Less is More, and I Can't Find the "Less" in the Middle of So Much "More."
Kelly faithfully records what she sees as strengths in both the Finnish and the American systems, and and the collision that resulted when she tried to integrate Finnish strengths into the American system. Her words and the words of teachers who commented echo the words that sort themselves out occasionally inside my head. Reading this blog gives me the sense that Kelly really "gets it" as do some of the people who comment--all the yearning for something better, all the frustration in continuing to reach for it, the loneliness of the pursuit, the weariness of trying to steer clear of inferior pursuits while others seem intent on rushing after it, bumping into walls of all kinds, working at preserving relationships in the process, etc. She concludes, as have I, that a fundamental and widespread shift in values is needed before alternatives can take hold in America.
In my case personally, the integration effort that Kelly attempted would need to take into account also Biblical values and values consistent with an Anabaptist lifestyle. Small wonder that this seems like a gargantuan task. Chipping away at it feels too slow and too inefficient, but it also seems like the only option open to me--except for advocating homeschooling (augmented by participation in group efforts), in which these strengths can all be swiftly incorporated in some measure at least. For me, pursuing that only would mean basically "checking out" of the system in common use, rather than continuing to participate in the process of bringing about change in group education efforts--which will always be needed in some form. I'm not positive that optimism for changing "the system" is warranted, but I want to make the effort to try by staying involved.
I believe that what Anabaptist schools routinely have now is an almost-unexamined and slavish copy of the American system with some added Christian content. In many ways I don't believe it is serving us well. We can do so very much better, but we won't do so if we expend all our energies in beefing up and "enthroning" the business-as-usual system. At some point, we must back off far enough to examine the whole system, not just individual curriculum pieces of the system. I pray this happens before that system collapses from its own weight, as it almost certainly will eventually. We do some things better than public schools around us can manage, so theirs will likely collapse before ours, but I don't call outlasting them a resounding success if we stay on a collapsing trajectory. Being tardy to the collapse is far inferior to avoiding the collapse entirely by changing course early in the journey. So let the examination process begin.
In the American system which we have adopted, I see several major flaws.
1. It bears too much of the stamp of Social Darwinism. (Google definition of Social Darwinism: the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform) In plain words, there is too much emphasis on competition that allows only the fittest to survive--because they deserve it, you know. My introduction to Social Darwinism and its influence on education first occurred in History of Education classes at Sterling College. (Side note: I did not then make the connection between Social Darwinism and political conservatism, but just last week I "saw" it in a flash and explained it to Hiromi, before I saw it in print anywhere. Very interesting. I love such affirmations.)
2. It borrows too heavily from the harsh efficiency of the high-performance German industrial machine and too little from the kinder, more moderate traditions of other groups. My first introduction to the effect of German industrialism occurred through the research and writing of John Taylor Gatto, highly acclaimed educator in New York City during the late Twentieth Century. The route by which it came to influence American education threads right through the exploits of American industrialists who were influenced by Social Darwinism. My exposure to the ideas below came from a variety of sources.
A. I see the influence of our pastoral Swiss ancestors calling for a different emphasis--one of gentle ways, meticulous craftsmanship, and quiet, hard work with the good of the family and community held high. In our schools, this would mean a shift in emphasis--not begging for the family, church, and community to accept whatever is determined to be good by school standards and rally in support of it, but having the school actively engaged in supporting the purposes of the family, church, and community. This would elevate learning of practical craftsmanship to the same level of importance in school as the learning of academic skills.
B. I see in Japan's Toyota manufacturing model a highly efficient system that still values and develops each underling in the system, allowing change to occur from the bottom up--not the top down, as is likely to happen in Germany. The Japanese system is also more compatible with the Swiss values of community and craftsmanship, as opposed to the assembly line, cog-in-the-machine industrial system of Germany, which was compatible with Nazi goals and complicit in it. Efficiency coupled with placing a high value on the well-being of every individual in the system ought to be in evidence in our schools. Our schools largely subsume individual needs under the blanket of efficiency required for a group setting.
C. In Finland's system I see a deep understanding of childhood as God designed it. There is no effort to circumvent natural, gentle learning processes, and certainly no imposition of burdensome "canned" curriculum on every individual. Our schools need more flexibility to accommodate childhood in its God-created splendor. While children need training, they do not need to act like adults in a factory, beginning in kindergarten. Finland has done better than we have at striking a balance that preserves the wonder of childhood with the need for training during childhood.
D. In the kingdom of Christ I see a culture of humble servanthood as opposed to competition and visible, quantifiable high performance. Not so much in our schools. Many of our lessons and much of our grading system rewards individual student effort only--not cooperative efforts or one-on-one help from one student to another. Children are being too often asked to show what they can do (performance), not to show how they can help others (servanthood).
3. It costs too much. Money. Time. Stress (sleep deprivation, weariness, compromised health). Lost opportunity (gaining knowledge and skill in non-academic areas, building relationships outside of school, being producers rather than consumers only).
4. It shows too little recognition of the rights and responsibilities of parents. I've run out of energy and time to expand on this one. Maybe another time.
Obviously, the work is only begun when problems have been identified. Most of the hard work remains.
Join the Conversation. Report for Duty. All Hands on Deck.
Substitute your own cliche--whatever it takes to inspire and promote an education model that improves on the traditional American system.
I'm glad I don't need a perfect plan before I broach the subject again. Each investigation helps clarify my mental picture of what a stellar system might look like. Viewing the picture from various angles reveals strategies and specific actions that can actually be implemented, given general agreement on the goals, and given the will to make it happen.
Duane W. asked me last week where I get the ideas for blog posts. I couldn't give a very coherent answer. What I read, hear, and observe all provide raw material. Usually, however, on the more substantive topics, input from many disparate sources has to click and connect (more like twist and churn and tumble) inside my head before anything rational emerges. On the topic of education, there's already quite a sizable glob of raw material residing inside my cranium, accumulated over years of training, experience, observing, and thinking. The integration of anything new is complicated, but ever so necessary if it's all to do any good.
My thinking recently has been stimulated by two things primarily:
1. Ongoing work on our school's curriculum committee, a multi-year project in which every subject area will be scrutinized. Resulting documents will likely include for each subject area a Philosophy Statement, a Purpose Statement, Implementation Guidelines, and Curriculum Materials list. Every committee meeting and "goalpost" prompts me to read, listen, observe, and think.
2. Exposure to the system in current use in Finland. I learned recently about a documentary by Michael Moore which contained a segment on schools in Finland. All I saw of it was a three-minute clip. Further searching turned up some really excellent writing by an American educator who spent five months in Finland's schools under the auspices of a Fulbright research assignment. Earlier she had traveled to seven countries in Asia on another educational research assignment. I am far more trusting of this writer's perspective than I am of Michael Moore's, although I don't really know enough about him to critique his work credibly. The teacher's name is Kelly. I urge you to follow her blog. Go here to sign up. Read these two posts (in this order) and the comments following, even if you can't get to anything else right away: 11Ways Finland's Educational System Shows Us That Less is More, and I Can't Find the "Less" in the Middle of So Much "More."
Kelly faithfully records what she sees as strengths in both the Finnish and the American systems, and and the collision that resulted when she tried to integrate Finnish strengths into the American system. Her words and the words of teachers who commented echo the words that sort themselves out occasionally inside my head. Reading this blog gives me the sense that Kelly really "gets it" as do some of the people who comment--all the yearning for something better, all the frustration in continuing to reach for it, the loneliness of the pursuit, the weariness of trying to steer clear of inferior pursuits while others seem intent on rushing after it, bumping into walls of all kinds, working at preserving relationships in the process, etc. She concludes, as have I, that a fundamental and widespread shift in values is needed before alternatives can take hold in America.
In my case personally, the integration effort that Kelly attempted would need to take into account also Biblical values and values consistent with an Anabaptist lifestyle. Small wonder that this seems like a gargantuan task. Chipping away at it feels too slow and too inefficient, but it also seems like the only option open to me--except for advocating homeschooling (augmented by participation in group efforts), in which these strengths can all be swiftly incorporated in some measure at least. For me, pursuing that only would mean basically "checking out" of the system in common use, rather than continuing to participate in the process of bringing about change in group education efforts--which will always be needed in some form. I'm not positive that optimism for changing "the system" is warranted, but I want to make the effort to try by staying involved.
I believe that what Anabaptist schools routinely have now is an almost-unexamined and slavish copy of the American system with some added Christian content. In many ways I don't believe it is serving us well. We can do so very much better, but we won't do so if we expend all our energies in beefing up and "enthroning" the business-as-usual system. At some point, we must back off far enough to examine the whole system, not just individual curriculum pieces of the system. I pray this happens before that system collapses from its own weight, as it almost certainly will eventually. We do some things better than public schools around us can manage, so theirs will likely collapse before ours, but I don't call outlasting them a resounding success if we stay on a collapsing trajectory. Being tardy to the collapse is far inferior to avoiding the collapse entirely by changing course early in the journey. So let the examination process begin.
In the American system which we have adopted, I see several major flaws.
1. It bears too much of the stamp of Social Darwinism. (Google definition of Social Darwinism: the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals. Now largely discredited, social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform) In plain words, there is too much emphasis on competition that allows only the fittest to survive--because they deserve it, you know. My introduction to Social Darwinism and its influence on education first occurred in History of Education classes at Sterling College. (Side note: I did not then make the connection between Social Darwinism and political conservatism, but just last week I "saw" it in a flash and explained it to Hiromi, before I saw it in print anywhere. Very interesting. I love such affirmations.)
2. It borrows too heavily from the harsh efficiency of the high-performance German industrial machine and too little from the kinder, more moderate traditions of other groups. My first introduction to the effect of German industrialism occurred through the research and writing of John Taylor Gatto, highly acclaimed educator in New York City during the late Twentieth Century. The route by which it came to influence American education threads right through the exploits of American industrialists who were influenced by Social Darwinism. My exposure to the ideas below came from a variety of sources.
A. I see the influence of our pastoral Swiss ancestors calling for a different emphasis--one of gentle ways, meticulous craftsmanship, and quiet, hard work with the good of the family and community held high. In our schools, this would mean a shift in emphasis--not begging for the family, church, and community to accept whatever is determined to be good by school standards and rally in support of it, but having the school actively engaged in supporting the purposes of the family, church, and community. This would elevate learning of practical craftsmanship to the same level of importance in school as the learning of academic skills.
B. I see in Japan's Toyota manufacturing model a highly efficient system that still values and develops each underling in the system, allowing change to occur from the bottom up--not the top down, as is likely to happen in Germany. The Japanese system is also more compatible with the Swiss values of community and craftsmanship, as opposed to the assembly line, cog-in-the-machine industrial system of Germany, which was compatible with Nazi goals and complicit in it. Efficiency coupled with placing a high value on the well-being of every individual in the system ought to be in evidence in our schools. Our schools largely subsume individual needs under the blanket of efficiency required for a group setting.
C. In Finland's system I see a deep understanding of childhood as God designed it. There is no effort to circumvent natural, gentle learning processes, and certainly no imposition of burdensome "canned" curriculum on every individual. Our schools need more flexibility to accommodate childhood in its God-created splendor. While children need training, they do not need to act like adults in a factory, beginning in kindergarten. Finland has done better than we have at striking a balance that preserves the wonder of childhood with the need for training during childhood.
D. In the kingdom of Christ I see a culture of humble servanthood as opposed to competition and visible, quantifiable high performance. Not so much in our schools. Many of our lessons and much of our grading system rewards individual student effort only--not cooperative efforts or one-on-one help from one student to another. Children are being too often asked to show what they can do (performance), not to show how they can help others (servanthood).
3. It costs too much. Money. Time. Stress (sleep deprivation, weariness, compromised health). Lost opportunity (gaining knowledge and skill in non-academic areas, building relationships outside of school, being producers rather than consumers only).
4. It shows too little recognition of the rights and responsibilities of parents. I've run out of energy and time to expand on this one. Maybe another time.
Obviously, the work is only begun when problems have been identified. Most of the hard work remains.
Join the Conversation. Report for Duty. All Hands on Deck.
Substitute your own cliche--whatever it takes to inspire and promote an education model that improves on the traditional American system.
posted by Mrs. I (Miriam Iwashige) at
2:58 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home