1. What is Dewey’s defense of theory in the opening paragraph? Does he persuade you with it?
Well, he isn't defending "theory" per se; just one particular analytical framework putting clarity of terms around his "philosophy of experience." Without such clarity and framework, he argues that attempts to develop schools around the idea that learning occurs through life experience are bound to confuse non-educative and mis-educative experiences for genuine learning. The implication being, *with* adequate clarity around what constitues genuinely educative experiences, the types of disappointments encountered by "progressive" schools attempting to based themselves around his principles that (to his credit) he recognizes can be avoided.
Does he persuade me with it. Well, if pressed to answer in a sound byte, I'd have to answer "no." Not because I don't myself see a value for theory: I do; and not because I don't see much in Dewey's framework to admire: I do. But I strongly believe that every choice has attendant trade-offs. If, at the level of values, you define experience over skills and content, that's terrific, but there *is* an attendant tradeoff, and content and skills *will* be (as Dewey concedes in his Creed, Article 3) subordinated. Not everything that used to be covered will be covered anymore. As long as the larger population (including parents, as well as administrators driven by test-driven imperatives) continues to value skills and content, there will be an inherent tension, a disequilibrium, that no amount of theory, or clarification of terms, can ever patch over.
2. When it comes to social control, Dewey suggests that much of it is not felt as an infringement on individual freedom. Indeed, certain forms of control are necessary. Why? Well, without rules, there is no game. The rules are an inherent part of the game; they are not experienced by the players as chafing, but as necessary.
3. Apart from his example with regard to games, think of other forms of social control that are not felt as infringements or impositions. Does the lack of feeling of being imposed upon guarantee that one is not being imposed upon? (Bennett says, “Clearly not.” Can you see why he might say that? Bring an example where one doesn’t feel like things are being imposed upon one but they are.)
Certain care-related obligations -- interestingly, some of the very ones that lack the reciprocity that Noddings says is central -- are, I think, generally not experienced as "impositions." Care of a just-newborn child, care of a parent who has fallen into a coma, care of an extraordinarily disabled child, care of an aged dog. Of course the care *is* in a physical sense a tremendous burden, but the fact that they truly cannot help it, and really are not even aware of the care, goes a long way toward alleviating the sense of imposition. We feel imposed upon by the (lesser!) demands made by those (less dire, more able) who we feel could do more, to pull more weight, or be more gracious, etc. Bennett, I suppose, is hinting at a sort of false consciousness, where people might be so deeply enmeshed in cultural or social expectations that they don't experience those roles as being constraining. See example under inappropriate touching, below.
4. It is clear from the application of the example of games, that Dewey sees education taking place within an educative community. How does this fact play into his discussion of social control? I'm not sure I understand the question. "Educative communities," meaning schools; as opposed to home? If that is indeed the question (which I somehow doubt), then I would answer that it is far easier, in a sheerly logistical sense, to frame genuinely educative experiences in an environment which has only a few students. It is easier to put Dewey into practice in a homeschooling environment than in one with 20-30 students in a class. It also is far easier to differentiate learning in a homeschooling environment. It is also far easier to encourage physical movement while learning, to organize field trips around individual interests, to move faster or slower based on individual needs, etc. Somehow though I don't think I understood the question right.
5. What role does the teacher play in all this? What keeps the teacher’s role from being an instance of imposition? Dewey is clear that the teacher is not just another player in the game: he notes that this is one of the mistakes that many progressive schools frequently make. "As the most mature member of the group, (the teacher) has a peculiar responsibility for the conduct of the interactions and intercommunications which are the very life of the group as a community." (p. 58)
6. Note that for Dewey the vision of the school as a learning community is identified with progressive education; he assumes that in the traditional school the students do not form a community and thus are controlled in a dictatorial fashion.
Indeed. And this is, indeed, an assumption.
7. What is his defense of planning? Is he talking about lesson plans or something broader or both?
He means planning the nature of the environment, what constitutes desirable forms of interaction between school community members, how the opportunities for experiences should be framed so as to ensure that they are genuinely educative, etc. One could take the game metaphor a bit further: before practice the coach is checking that the playing field is dry enough to play on and is free of holes and stones that might cause injury; he's thinking of how to divide the team so different members can work on discrete skills they most need to develop; he's also coming up with activities that will build team habits. Once he's come up with this frame, though, he has to step outside the line and let the kids do their stuff: when game time comes, they're the ones who'll be out there, not him: they have to get to the point where they're making the choices and doing the moves on their own. The planning necessarily has to be broad.
8. You should be able to explain the claim that the movement from the traditional to the progressive is a movement in which “the teacher loses the position of external boss or dictator but takes on that of leader of group activities” (p. 59).
Well, as you move from content to process, the role of content deliverer-- I mean, dictator-- becomes a lot less important, doesn't it. The role of the adult becomes more like that of Julie on the Love Boat.
9. What is Dewey’s defense of manners? Would it persuade Neill of Summerhill?
Dewey says that learning manners is among "the most important lessons in life, that of mutual accommodation and adaptation." (p. 60). Again, to his credit, he notes that many experiments in progressive education have utterly failed in this dimension. I actually think Neill might go along with much of that core sentiment, though they might well differ at some of its more elaborated manifest forms (I imagine Dewey, for example, caring more about table manners).
Summerhill School:
1. Note the two defining features of Summerhill. Think of all the things that would get in the way of implementing them in your own teaching/learning environment, here at the University or elsewhere in your life. 1) All class attendance, homework and assessment is solely at the discretion of the learner; and 2) all rules within the school are democratically agreed upon, one person one vote.
2. Does giving the opinion of a five year old the same weight as that of an adult with advanced degrees make any sense at all? How would you defend it? Why is it important?
It depends on what the question is, doesn't it. If the question is what we'll have for dinner, or what movie we'll watch, then the five year old has just as much standing, and nearly as much context and information, as anyone else. If the question is how we'll use the family vacation budget, she might have equal standing, but less ability to manage the math, or context about the range of possible options. If the question is what model replacement car to buy, she has less standing than the primary driver. If the question is what outfit she'll wear, she has more standing than anyone else. Giving all children as much choice and as much standing as is feasible is important both for their own immediate dignity and also for them to develop decisionmaking skills over the medium term.
3. Is Summerhill a community where people live together which also happens to be a school or is it a school that is set in a democratic community? Does the distinction being emphasized here–the difference between community and school–ultimately hold up? (What would Dewey say about the distinction?)
Summerhill is sleepaway camp, where kids who wish to learn academic subjects may do so on an essentially autodidactic basis to the extent that they have the self discipline to make any kind of sustained progress. It's not a school.
With the obvious caveat that, just as history is written by the victors, so too are websites written by the promoters... it certainly appears that Summerhill has succeeded in creating a sustainable and nourishing community. They are also honest that the creation of such a community is their (only) ultimate goal. All schools lie someplace on a spectrum between focusing mostly on matters of the heart and soul, versus focusing mostly on content and skills. Summerhill has clearly and explicitly staked out its position on this spectrum. In this clarity they are unlike many other progressive schools which claim (believe?) that they can eat their cake and have it too: focus each day around children's own interests; and yet still attain academic excellence. Dewey also wanted badly to believe that both were possible; and tried hard to work out a theoretical framework that outlined the necessary ingredients. His framework entails more adult direction than Summerhill's and places more value on at least certain types of educative experiences, and so his ideal is not positioned in quite as extreme a position on this spectrum as Summerhill.
4. Note all the different roles in The Meeting. Do you know of any institutions that have ombudsmen? Titled as such, no. I have been involved with a number of groups with democratic decisionmaking. My daughter attended a tiny K-8 Quaker school that uses many of the same conventions as Summerhill, including weekly meeting, along with rotating leadership thereof. (A notable difference between that school and Summerhill is that parents are invited to any meeting they'd like to attend.) I participate in two book groups and another Faith Club, all of which use consensus-based decisionmaking with greater or lesser (mostly lesser, actually) degrees of formality of roles and responsibilities. My extended family (20++ people spanning three generations) regularly goes on vacation together, and we inevitably have to generate various decisions.
5. What are some of the values you see being expressed here? What are some of the pitfalls you anticipate?
A lot of the same values I admire in the Quakers: the dignity and worth of every individual; the value in having each voice heard; the necessary corollary of learning when to stand firm and when to "stand aside" and let consensus be achieved even when you disagree.
The pitfalls... well, it all comes down to infinite variations on the same basic theme. Left to their own devices, most kids will eat more candy than nutritionists advise; and brush their teeth less regularly than dentists advise. For a day -- for four weeks at sleepaway camp, even -- that's OK. Over the long haul of a full childhood, though, it's incumbent upon the adults ("the most mature member(s) in the group," as Dewey notes) in their lives to frame their options responsibly. Often that means limiting the amount of candy in the house, or making sure they brush their teeth. This can be accomplished through fear-inducing dictatorial means, or other.
6. In the Meeting image you see an adult with his hands on a child’s shoulders. Here we are told that if your child looks miserable, “the .. staff will ... issue cuddles and comfort if permitted!” What makes the cuddles permitted or not is the desire of the child, not rules and regulations. I’m particularly interested in your reaction to the physical contact between staff and child, especially in light of the fact that many school districts now explicitly ban hugs and the like. Thoughts about such affectionate physical contact?
In private schools, adults still do touch students in appropriate affectionate ways. In a context where kids have access to multiple trusted adults, in a context where the issue of inappropriate contact is explicitly addressed *with all students* on a regular and systematic way, and in a context where kids have "escape valves" outside of school, that contact can be healthy and positive. Parents touch their kids, right?
In the specific context of Summerhill -- eight full time teachers? Parents have "no involvement" with the school? Kids are there for three months at a time without leaving campus? -- not all those conditions hold. The possibility that gravely *inappropriate* touching might go unreported far longer than elsewhere is real. There's a real sense in which these kids are "trapped." Bennett alludes above to the idea that just because a person does not *feel* imposed upon, does not necessarily mean no imposition is occuring: this very often is true in the early stages of teacher-student touching.
7. Here parents are explicitly counseled not to have high expectations of their children–indeed, we are told that “no expectations at all would be better!” What is the point of this advice? What’s wrong with it? What’s right with it?
I can't think of one thing right with it.
8. It should be clear that there are no grades nor report cards issued. Why do you think this is the school’s policy?
Many progressive schools don't "do" grades or report cards. One reason is the idea that kids should be measured against their own potential, or if that's too nebulous their own prior performance, rather than against any other child or norm based on other children. Another is the (Alfie Kohn) idea that grades are not motivating over the long haul, that kids do better if motivated intrinsically and that grades "train" them to respond extrinsically. A third is that grades are inherently flawed instruments -- too subjective, too different across institutions and teachers -- to be meaningful. A fourth (commonly heard in FU) is that wherever there are tests, there is inevitably "teaching to the test" which in turn drives time and resources in lamentable directions that have nothing to do with true learning.
In Summerhill's case, specifically, where students show up strictly on an as-in-the-mood basis and complete only the assignments they choose, I don't know how tests or grades would be possible. In this case, expediency as much as principle would seem to drive the no-grades practice.
9. How does the site rationalize the policy of making lessons optional? If their argument fails to persuade, why? The optional lessons policy is justified in terms of "intelligent choice." The students are understood to have the maturity and wisdom to understand what lessons will be helpful to them, and the discipline to make sound choices. As well, the school believes in the value of boredom in fostering creativity and autonomy.
I fully agree re: boredom; my observations lead me to a different view re: discipline. (Even many adults struggle mightily re: discipline. See: exercise regimens, weight loss, tedious housekeeping tasks, flossing...)
10. In this section you get to read some of Neill, a selection from what was once a best seller, Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Childrearing. Based on it, what is Neill’s fundamental philosophy of education? Happiness matters more than learning, particularly book learning. In traditional schools, students do not learn "the emotional factor, the power to subordinate thinking to feeling."
11. There are lots of gems in this selection, comments that provoke thought. One example: “Books are the least important apparatus in a school.” Pick out a few such judgments and come prepared to comment on them for the class. See above; also "Learning should come after play," and "The important freedom at Summerhill is the freedom to play."
12. As for the general policy statement, what is being left out? At the risk of repeating myself: skills and content.
13. Under what conditions would someone be dismissed from the school? Bullying or violence to others.
14. There is a history behind question #21 with regards to sex. Remind me to explain. For now, what can you read into Zoe’s answer to this question? ? Well, her answer is rather high level and low content. Could be complaints about inappropriate teacher-student contact, or student-student contact, or any number of other things. One wonders a bit when the gist of her response is "we've never had a pregnancy."
15. What is the difference between freedom and license? Summerhill defines freedom positively, in terms of individual choice; and license negatively, in terms of abridging others' freedoms. In what we last week called "liberal" terms.
16. With regards to our national commitment to democracy, in what way does our educational system undermine that commitment? Alternatively, how is Summerhill training for participatory democracy? "National commitment to democracy?" Hmm.
One can consider this question in terms of process -- the extent to which our education system provides students with opportunities to practice the kinds of skills required to be "good" citizens; or in terms of content -- the extent to which our education system provides students with a good understanding of the institutions, mechanics, and safety valves of our current system, along with how our system differs from other forms of democracy and how it has evolved, for better and for worse, since its inception. However one considers the question, I think it is largely fair to say that schools tend to teach "big picture" democracy (school wide mock election every 4 years; red-and-blue maps of the 50 states, etc) whereas Summerhill is practicing something much smaller-scale even than town hall meetings.
17. In addition to a conventional history, we also learn here of the recent court case attempting to shut down Summerhill. Under what conditions do you think a school should be closed by governmental authorities?
Certainly closure is warranted in the event of widespread and ongoing abuse, physical or sexual; or other circumstances that endanger the students. (To this end, I was very interested to read Summerhill's rationale for why the students weren't required to do kitchen duty or cleaning chores. Evidently, the hygeine risks are too high for free spirits to be trusted with such tedious tasks: telling.)
I also think it's fair to require a "school" to meet minimum standards related to learning, and to withold such things as credentials, certification, tax-exempt status etc. to institutions which fail to meet those standards. What precisely those standards are, and how they are measured, can and should vary according to societal norms. But in concept it's not just fair, but necessary, that they exist. If you call yourself a "school" you should principally be in the business of *education*, not self-actualization. Analogous laws in both the US and the UK require homeschoolers to provide some sort of education to their children: you can't just let them watch TV all day. Society has a sufficient interest in having an at least minimally literate, numerate and self-sufficient population that such minimal standards are defensible. (That said, I also believe that having a range of school models, and scope for parents/children to choose among models in ways that allow some mapping of model to child, is ideal.)
