Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Avoiding Evasion

Rational Jenn wrote today about one way children learn to evade:  their parents implicitly teach it to them by Parenting by Authority.  To Parent by Authority is to expect obedience from your children.  “Because I said so,” is the leitmotif of this parenting style.  Sure, we may all do this on occasion.  Each time we do it, it is a mistake,  but the real harm comes when a child is implicitly told over and over again that what he perceives, thinks, feels, and judges, is irrelevant – that what matters is what the authority figure demands.

I’ve been thinking about the same issue, but in regard to education.  Since Sammy started Montessori, I’ve been reacquainting myself with all the good reasons I had for choosing this type of school for her.  One of those reasons is that Montessori is the only widely available educational system that does not Educate by Authority.

Everything about standard schools is geared towards obedience.  Teachers decide what the students will learn, when and by what method.  Grades are the major form of feedback, but they do not measure everything the student has learned, only what the teacher has decided is important.  There is no freedom for the student to pursue a special interest deeply.  Busywork replaces the quest for real understanding.  One of the worst features of standard school is the system of grading on a curve, which pits students against each other in unhealthy competition, where one gains at the expense of another, and actual achievement in relation to reality is irrelevant.

Everything about Montessori is geared toward independence.  Students interact primarily with their environment, not with the teacher.  The students enter a prepared environment of materials that are appropriate for their age.  They are free to choose whatever “work” interests them at the moment, focusing on it for as long as it interests them.  The teachers are guides, serving only to demonstrate the use of the materials when necessary, or to gently point a floundering child in the direction of purposeful activity.  For preschoolers, almost all work is hands-on.  At this age, the students do not have the capacity to connect abstract lecture to concrete reality, at least not when learning something brand new.  They need to learn with the hand as well as with the mind.

The Montessori method recognizes that external reward systems such as grades are not necessary, and even harmful.  Children naturally want to learn.  Anyone who has observed small children can see this.  The reward for good work is in the work itself, and in the accomplishment.  Montessori materials are self-correcting – the children know whether they have done the work correctly without relying on a teacher’s stamp of approval.  The blocks of diminishing size must be stacked up from biggest to smallest or the tower will not stand.  The cylinders of diminishing size must be placed in the proper holes, or they will not all fit in the puzzle. 

Discipline in a Montessori school is almost a non-issue.  There is no need for children to sit quietly and listen to a teacher.  They are free to roam about the classroom and to interact with each other as they see fit.  Because the work holds their interest, they are generally focused on a task, and not seeking attention or looking for an outlet for their energies.  The rules that are in place are natural, for the purpose of working in a group setting: children must never interrupt others’ work, must put their materials away when finished, and generally follow the rules of social decorum that adults do.  But within those limits, they have a great deal of freedom.

One important freedom Montessori children have is the freedom to make mistakes.  Instead of a big red "X" on their paper, children who make mistakes get feedback from reality:  from the materials they are using.  If a child tries to stack the blocks and fails, he is not judged by any other person.  The tower just falls.  That is enough.  His own, internal motivation is what will drive him to try again, and his primary guide is his own mind.  He must make the connection that the smaller blocks go on top before he can build the tower.  He may observe the other students and possibly the teacher building the tower, but nobody is telling him what to do.  He is free to try again immediately or to wait.  There is no external pressure motivating him.

This trust in children’s innate (or, I would prefer to say, natural) desire to learn, to achieve, and to grow – in short, to be good – is analogous to the Positive Discipline principle of Assuming Positive Intent.  You should assume, barring any evidence to the contrary, that your child is trying to solve a problem but just doesn’t have the skills yet, or has forgotten how.  For example, if your toddler is banging his fork on the table, he’s probably not trying to irritate you.  He might be hungry and not know how else to tell you, or he might be exploring the sound or the feel of the vibration of the fork.  Your job is not to discipline him, but to try to read his signals with the assumption of positive intent, and to guide him towards the actions that will accomplish what he wants.  A teacher’s job should not be to force learning upon the child.  The child already wants to learn.  What he needs is freedom within limits, and guidance.

Why are Parenting by Authority and Educating by Authority so prevalent?  What in the world makes anybody think that children need to be disciplined and forced to learn?  There is so much evidence against this, that I can only guess that a deeply rooted premise is at work, and I suspect that it is the idea of Original Sin.  I’d like to explore this idea more.  I think it has enormous implications for parenting and education.  I know that I have unconsciously accepted this premise.  I fight it consciously, but it will take a lot more work to fully root it out.  But I already see myself thinking about ways I might homeschool differently that I envision it now.  Instead of telling Sammy what subject we will study for a semester, I may purchase all the materials I think are appropriate and set them up in a way that she can begin to explore them on her own, and see where it leads.  I might break up the day into two, 3-hour study blocks, as they do in Montessori.  I might let Sammy go a whole week studying only one subject, or I might require only that math be studied every day.  I’m not sure yet.  But I see two principles that can guide me:  Let Reality be the Judge, and Trust Internal Motivation.

16 comments:

  1. I really enjoyed this post and agree with your points about education. It's hard to step out of the mindset of education as something that needs to be done TO a child.

    You've hit on one of the reasons we've been (to the outside observer) somewhat relaxed or casual with our homeschooling efforts. I am paying careful attention to what the kids are learning, but I stay out of their way until and unless they truly need my help or guidance. And they are learning and engaged all day long. I do not have to motivate them to learn the things they will need, because they are self-motivated and engaged with reality.

    Now I certainly do guide and encourage (notably, when Ryan refuses to try to read words, I will have him give at least a good old-fashioned attempt before I help him, but that's mostly due to his personality.) And I know things will change as they get older and their thinking and learning becomes more and more abstract, but I still think my role will be one of guidance and resource-providing than one of "educating."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very good post. It made me reconsider how I teach some of my college courses. Considering that my children also attend Montessori for the same reasons, I have a lot to apply to how I run my classes and "grade" students in those classes.

    Thank you for a bit of inspiration, even if not intended.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It's great to get comments about the two ends of the age range of formal learning. One aspect of this thinking that I didn't have space (time) for in the post was how the role of the "teacher" changes as the students get older. I want to re-read what Ayn Rand and other Objectivists have said about why Montessori isn't as good past the preschool age. I know that one part is the "hands-on" issue. As children become more abstract thinkers, they need less hands-on learning, and maybe Montessori over-emphasizes that for too long. But I don't recall the other arguments against it for elementary school.

    Jenn, do you consider yourself an unschooler?

    Wow, John, I hope you let me know if you decide to change anything.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Amy--

    This was a really good post.

    I just want to add that what you've described is a normalized Montessori classroom. The positive attributes that you've described should be occurring in a Montessori classroom and parents should really conduct observations to make sure that they are happening. I took the AMI Montessori Elementary Teacher Training and observed in quite a few classrooms, both elementary and primary. I saw lots of good things occurring, but also lots of issues such as discipline problems and children choosing to socialize instead of working on their productive work (they are social beings at the elementary age, but often it would get beyond being social). I hear a lot of great praise for Montessori, which it deserves, but I would just warn parents to take each Montessori classroom on a case by case basis and encourage them to participate in classroom observations. Not all classrooms are normalized; a lot of them aren't. I just wanted to put that out there in case it could be of value to you or someone else interested in Montessori. I have some opinions of the Montessori elementary program if you're interested. I really enjoyed your post and thought you made some excellent points about freedom and following the child.

    ReplyDelete
  5. PP: I agree! I should note that I visited about 5 schools before choosing the one Sammy attends now, and researched others that weren't worth visiting. Of the 3 classrooms at Sammy's school, there was 1 that I did not want Sammy in because it was more chaotic than the other 2. Luckily, she was assigned to a class that I liked. I doubt that this school is perfect, but I think it's pretty good. I agree that, if you like the idea of Montessori, you absolutely must visit the school and sit in the classroom to observe. One school I visited was Montessori in name only - it was located in the rich neighborhood and had a beautiful classroom setting, and it had Montessori materials, but otherwise it was day care. And it cost over $2,000 more per year than the school I chose!

    I am indeed interested in what you have to say about the elementary program and will contact you privately about it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Amy and PP, I'd love to learn more about the elementary/Montessori issue.

    No, I don't really consider us unschoolers, although I will say that I'm an unschooling sympathizer. Part of the reason is that I hate that word, and it is very nebulous and vague, and can mean anything from education free-for-all to mom guides the children in their interests and stays out of it as much as possible. (I'm the latter.)

    The other reason I don't claim to be an unschooler is that I have a hard time envisioning how our homeschooling set up will change as the kids get older. Ryan is 7 and would be in second grade, so we're only just now moving out of the traditional Montessori ages. Morgan, at 4.5, is prime Montessori age. I do have ideas about the kinds of things they will need to know in order to be able to live independently and productively (based partly on my own experience, but also on my experience with my developmentally delayed semi-dependent brother-in-law).

    The other thing I'm thinking through is how to teach critical thinking skills--you can know everything about a certain subject but still lack some logic skills--that may not make sense, because I'm still trying to figure out exactly what I'm confused about!

    For now, and I believe in the future, I am committed to staying out of their way as much as possible, providing interesting materials and resources and experiences for them, and continuing our ongoing Peopleguy Dialogs, in which we talk about the skills necessary to do different kinds of jobs. I am also not super-concerned with keeping up with school-based timetables (which is why I'm fine with Ryan's somewhat late reading), and I'm not planning to do any grading until they hit the high school years--at which point they will be involved with planning for their futures and will help with the process by which we'll need to create transcripts for college, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks Amy.

    Its the whole grading based on A, B, C... thing. Unfortunately, I'm required by university guidelines to give such grades. This forces me to consider a grading curve, even when I would rather not do so. What I need to do is attach key learning objectives to each grade assigned. If students can achieve those learning objects, they will get the appropriate grade. Its not a trivial task, but I'm sure I can improve what I'm currently doing.

    ReplyDelete
  8. From what I could find, it seems that Montessori doesn't have much curriculum for the upper grades.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Amy, Where does Ayn Rand say anything about why Montessori isn’t as good past the preschool age? My recollection is that she simply acknowledged that it didn't, as far as she knew (and at the time), exist much beyond the preschool age. I think that's in Ayn Rand Answers. Does she say more somewhere? Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  10. Brad - I don't know. I just have a recollection that somebody (maybe it wasn't AR) said that. I haven't read "Answers" yet. If anybody can point both me and Brad to the right place, I'd appreciate it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. All,
    Lisa Van Damme talked about issues with Montessori in the advanced grades. I am answering from memory, so you should check out her lecture on 'Hierarchy in Education' directly. I believe one of the issues is that as knowledge advances, it no longer is perceptual/concrete, where the child can judge what comes next in difficulty/sequence by trying, but that instead on the conceptual level/higher abstractions, it is important to have someone providing the proper hierarchy, and that at that point, a lecture/teaching approach with Q&A is more useful than a totally child-guided approach where materials are just presented for them to work with.

    From what I recall, Lisa implied that Montessori in the higher grades tries to keep very conceptual material at a perceptual level, and thereby violates the hierarchy of what a child needs to know first.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm on the "authority" side of the spectrum as far as both parenting and education goes and I can assure you that it does not stem from the doctrine of "Original Sin." I was raised non-religious (no religious education at all except my grandmother's sending me to vacation Bible school for a few weeks one summer) and have been an atheist since 5. Until I discovered Ayn Rand, I had never even heard of such a noxious notion. (Now it's entirely possible that more religious folk might latch onto the idea as a rationalization for authoritarian parenting.)

    In my case, I believe that I know more than my children and that my job is to convey that knowledge to them. If an analogy would help, I am a college professor giving lectures to my students rather than leading group discussions. That, in a nutshell, seems to me to be the essential difference between what you've outlined here and my parenting style. (I'm finally working on an essay about my thoughts on parenting. I'm about ¾ of the way through the outline so it might be a week or so. I'll be sure to send you a link when it's ready.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Heike, I do remember Lisa VanDamme talking about the issue, but I thought I had heard it from AR or Dr. Peikoff long before that. Maybe not.

    Bill, I'm still not convinced that you Parent by Authority. I look forward to reading your essay.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Excellent post and comments!

    To add to Heike's point, another exceptionally good resource besides Lisa VanDamme is Leonard Peikoff's lecture, "Philosophy of Education" (available here: "http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodinfo.asp?number=LP01M").

    In the lecture, Dr. Peikoff makes abundantly clear why leaving children free to choose what they learn is not appropriate. I believe this is the aspect that limits Montessori instruction to the very young. (I realize that the choices children make in a Montessori setting are not haphazard - which is why it is a good system for budding minds.) Dr. Peikoff's point, with which I entirely agree, is that the teacher must not only present volumes of relevent facts to his students, but must present them in an order that builds concepts from the ground up (i.e. hierarchically). Concepts presented out of order - even true concepts - are necessarily floating in the child's mind. Hierarchical instruction implicitly exercises the child's mind in the practice of induction. Thus, he is not merely filled with facts but actually learns to think, which is the purpose of a proper education.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There's a couple articles by Lisa VanDamme dealing with the problems of Montessori education past pre-school scattered around the web. One was published in the Objective Standard: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/hierarchy-of-knowledge.asp In this essay, I thought she gave a very good argument not only why teachers should have to "decide what the students will learn, when and by what method", but also why it is crucial to a child's learning process.

    There are also several articles that she wrote concerning hierarchy, lecture-based teaching, etc. at capmag.com

    ReplyDelete