Continuing with my previous post on educational philosophies, I have to admit that one of the few educational paradigms that has made sense to me is that of Maria Montessori. Her philosophy is truly wonderful because it considers all aspects of a child's development. She didn't look simply at what they were learning (i.e. intellectual development) but how the emotional development, physical development and intellectual development were intertwined.
If you look at public education in it's current form, it's hard to see much of her philosophy. Indeed, I believe that this is part of the reason public education fails so many of its students. Sadly, except for Montessori schools which are officially affiliated with Association Montessori Internationale, there is no guarantee that a "Montessori School" has anything beyond the materials developed for the Montessori Method. The whole philosophy behind the materials can sometimes be lost.
My understanding of some of Montessori's main points are as follows:
1 - A teacher cannot rush learning.
2 - Even when a child has learned, a teacher cannot force a child to demonstrate learning when they do not have adequate emotional and physical development. Likewise, lack of development in these areas can hinder learning.
3 - Learning is most quickly achieved when multiple senses are involved. (I personally believe this is a way around many learning disabilities or difficulties.)
4 - Knowledge is most readily absorbed when it can be experienced.
5 - You cannot control a child. A child must learn to control him or herself. The best way to help a child to control his or her behavior is by manipulation of the environment.
6 - Most knowledge that one needs to graduate from high school can be learned by ages 12-14. Around this age, education should shift it's focus from intellectual development to the child's social development. A child should have preparation for adulthood, and self-development is a key aspect of that preparation.
Admittedly, this is simply my interpretation of her method and philosophies. It is likely that I have misunderstood on one or more points. It seems, however, that much modern education flies in the face of her knowledge and education, much to the detriment of the children.
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environment. Show all posts
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
The Paradox of Acceleration
Many parents find themselves in an awkward position because their children do not cooperate with what is required by the school for an average student, and the teachers use that behavior as the criterion for access to more advanced curriculum. It's the old chicken and egg dilemma. Gifted children don't want to work on things they already know how to do, but until they dutifully demonstrate excellent completion of grad-level work, the children can't "earn their way" into more advanced, appropriate, and interesting coursework.
...
When students experience appropriate classroom expectations and environments - classrooms that teach to their own level and pace - problems with the above expectations disappear. When there is enough real learning to do, gifted children appear more cooperative, feel more respect for their teachers, and find their natural talkative and humorous propensities appreciated rather than viewed as behavioral problems.
- Dr. Deborah Ruf, "Losing Our Minds: Gifted Children Left Behind"
This Catch 22 is simultaneously the most understandable and most frustrating aspect of enrolling gifted children in the public school environment.
School is not entirely about learning knowledge and information. Perhaps initially that was the case, but now there is much more expected of public schools. Children are also expected to learn how to get along with others, how to be respectful, how to organize themselves, how to manage their time, etc. Intellectually, teachers give high marks to those who not only learn the material but manage their time effectively so as to complete assignments and are willing to demonstrate what they have learned, which tends to be the purview of those who are people pleasers. This is not necessarily indicative of gifted children, and many gifted children are not people pleasers.
A child who is not demonstrating these abilities is generally viewed as having something wrong. They may be learning disabled, ADHD, autistic, or have any number of issues that could disrupt their learning. If nothing can be found to affect their ability to learn, they often receive labels like oppositional defiance disorder or similar.
I have often wondered how many of these label issues would be resolved if the children were challenged in school. Usually the normal response to a child like this is to assume the problem stems from a child who cannot cope with the environment. They leave these children in the same classroom but try a series of measures to make it easier for them to complete the homework.
It would be truly novel if these children were actually accelerated instead. I suspect it would make it much easier to tell who is bored and who is actually suffering from one of the afflictions mentioned above.
The problem is, as mentioned above, it seems paradoxical to accelerate children that already have difficulties in school. It seems logical that a child who is having issues learning basic topics would have more or worse issues when learning more challenging material. At it's heart, the paradox is born from the notion that the children can or should be changed, not the environment. When there is a mismatch between environment and child, it is usually the child that is expected to change, not the environment. In the public schools and many private schools, this is perhaps very realistic. It is difficult for a school to change the environment, but it is easy to medicate a child. On the other hand, schools often overestimate how difficult it would be to create a more challenging environment for children.
...
When students experience appropriate classroom expectations and environments - classrooms that teach to their own level and pace - problems with the above expectations disappear. When there is enough real learning to do, gifted children appear more cooperative, feel more respect for their teachers, and find their natural talkative and humorous propensities appreciated rather than viewed as behavioral problems.
- Dr. Deborah Ruf, "Losing Our Minds: Gifted Children Left Behind"
This Catch 22 is simultaneously the most understandable and most frustrating aspect of enrolling gifted children in the public school environment.
School is not entirely about learning knowledge and information. Perhaps initially that was the case, but now there is much more expected of public schools. Children are also expected to learn how to get along with others, how to be respectful, how to organize themselves, how to manage their time, etc. Intellectually, teachers give high marks to those who not only learn the material but manage their time effectively so as to complete assignments and are willing to demonstrate what they have learned, which tends to be the purview of those who are people pleasers. This is not necessarily indicative of gifted children, and many gifted children are not people pleasers.
A child who is not demonstrating these abilities is generally viewed as having something wrong. They may be learning disabled, ADHD, autistic, or have any number of issues that could disrupt their learning. If nothing can be found to affect their ability to learn, they often receive labels like oppositional defiance disorder or similar.
I have often wondered how many of these label issues would be resolved if the children were challenged in school. Usually the normal response to a child like this is to assume the problem stems from a child who cannot cope with the environment. They leave these children in the same classroom but try a series of measures to make it easier for them to complete the homework.
It would be truly novel if these children were actually accelerated instead. I suspect it would make it much easier to tell who is bored and who is actually suffering from one of the afflictions mentioned above.
The problem is, as mentioned above, it seems paradoxical to accelerate children that already have difficulties in school. It seems logical that a child who is having issues learning basic topics would have more or worse issues when learning more challenging material. At it's heart, the paradox is born from the notion that the children can or should be changed, not the environment. When there is a mismatch between environment and child, it is usually the child that is expected to change, not the environment. In the public schools and many private schools, this is perhaps very realistic. It is difficult for a school to change the environment, but it is easy to medicate a child. On the other hand, schools often overestimate how difficult it would be to create a more challenging environment for children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
