In the text, the author references the "locus of power". In the context of schooling, the "locus of power" is external to the child/student. The adult "defines and imposes" the ideas. The author says, "And of course, adults do not just freely define and impose what they believe to be best. Rather, it is those in power who define the policies." Whereas, in education, the "locus of power" is within the individual, and others (child or adult) assist in "drawing out" the interests, potential, and creativity of that individual as the individual reflects on the world about. Education often challenges "traditional forms of thinking and doing prescribed by the processes of schooling, the culture of a given society, and so on." Schostak concludes that education can be dangerous, with which I definitely agree.
In school for example, most students are allowed to think outside of the box, but not too outside the box; not to the degree that societal expectations are no longer met. Here's the reality, school is controlled by society, so, in school, when you take consumer economics or something like that, you learn about capitalist economies. You don't learn about socialist economies, or, if you do, it is often portrayed in a negative way.
After considering these two approaches to learning and development I have realized that I am pretty lucky because I feel that my Highschool experience was, for the most part, an educational one and not one focused on schooling.
From now on in this blog post, when I refer to education it will be in the traditional sense of the word, not by the definition of Schostak.
While the peulah I spoke of above took up a major part of the seminar, the overarching theme was formal versus informal education. Here's how I define the two: Formal education is generally classroom based; it revolves around testing and grades to determine how much information a student has retained; it involves an adult teaching students from a hierarchical position. Informal education usually happens outside of a classroom setting; students often sit in circles and there may be an older person asking questions to prompt thought, but not so as too sway the students to think a specific way. I personally see benefits to both methods of learning, especially because children think in different ways. However, there lies an issue, the schools that most of us grow up in and attend, utilize formal education.
My major qualm with formal education is the grading. I live my life striving for a socialist society and human equality. The minute a child understands that our current schooling system is inherently competitive, he/she has entered the world of capitalism. I guess that makes my stance on education more complicated than simply, "I see the benefits of both." But I'm still figuring out what my thoughts are on education.
To enhance our understanding of informal education, our mechanichim ran a few different stations for us.
The first one that I attended had to do with learning how to write a peulah. We start with our goals for our chanichim (students/campers), consider our method (so as to appeal to different learning types), write some questions for the sikkum (ending discussion/wrap-up) keeping in mind: what do we our chanichim to take away from this peulah.
The next station I attended was on making collective decisions. We went over some common and stereotypical personality types and discussed what we could do to make each personality type feel most comfortable in the setting as well as help such individuals to be self aware, etc.
The final station focused on discipline and how to handle children who behave in ways that limit others' educational experiences or their own. We discussed many different methods for many different situations, and I definitely found this station very useful and thoughtful.
I really enjoyed this seminar and, though I learned a lot, I now have many questions that I'm sure I will discuss and ponder in the near and far future.
No comments:
Post a Comment