As I was taking classes in gifted education one of the programs they encouraged was "Philosophy for Children" which helps students consider some of the bigger ideas out there in the world. At first I was very much in favor of this - and then I started using my noggin'. In this curriculum students read stories (elementary aged students) and then discuss the "big issues" within the story - it is a way of doing character development (of sorts) and also introducing them to the greater questions of life. I am all for that - my main issue is that often these types of program (similar to values clarification) expect the 7 year old to create their own moral system and universe. That seems to be asking a little much. Young children still need guidance - unfortunately many aren't getting it at home - that's why some people think the classroom should step in and help these students clarify their values.
I was thinking about this today because I ran across the book Little Big Minds in the bookstore. At first I thought that I would like this book - but then I actually looked at the contents. In this book they look at philosophical topics - like friendship and justice - and then introduce two philosophers points of view about that issue. On the surface that sounds okay - but remember these are 7 and 8 year olds! They include Albert Camus (The Stranger) and Paolo Friere (Pedagogy of the Oppressed - the title isn't even appropriate for children) and a discussion of children's rights as part of the curriculum. I think I'm against high school students reading Albert Camus' at times. As my husband, the philosohpy major said, "Anyone who is teaching Camus and Satre to 3rd graders needs to have their head examined". I have to agree.
I think these developers think that because kids ask these questions that means they are "philosophers". Well, their brains aren't really wired to approach these questions the same way that an adult would. They need really clear guidance - they like to know what is right and wrong (have you ever tried to fudge the rules with an 8 year old - ain't gonna happen). Although I understand the push for "critical thinking" and "higher order thinking skills" this needs to be developmentally appropriate. Additionally, students need to have a standard, a clear idea, of what they are comparing ideas and thoughts to - not just a "whatever you think" attitude.
So, I guess I am leaning more towards the classical education approach which focuses on learning facts and information until about 9 or 10 years old. Then they intentionally focus on critical thinking skills once kids hit about 10 or 11. It is more developmentally appropriate and a well rounded education should invite conversation about these topics - ONCE A FOUNDATION HAS BEEN LAID. Unfortunately many people either tend towards not laying a foundation and allowing a child to "figure it out" for themselves. Or, they never invite a child to think, discuss and consider why they believe what they have been taught as foundational truths.
There is a time for this and it is middle and high school. Unfortunately most middle schools waste this opportunity and are more like holding pens than educational institutions. We have such low expectations of students today. I really appreciate the fact that I was introduced to Lincoln Douglas debate - values debate - in middle school. It was the right challenge at the right time for this chica.
2 comments:
We read a Paolo Friere book in grad school and it was one of the most difficult books we had to read and we were grad students and good readers. We then had to write an essay on it, whew, most of us didn't even finish the book.
You can let kids "mess around" and explore things to see what they discover AND then you need to discuss and teach them using what they discovered. Most of early childhood is making hypothesis, testing it out and then rethinking the hypothesis. Kids don't use those terms and watch when they try something new how each attempt changes a bit until they accomplish their task, whether it's putting together a puzzle or trying to get/do something they are not supposed to get/do. Their ideas are not always correct, like ask first graders about gravity-why does a ball bounce?- you'll get some interesting answers. We had to do this in grad school for our science class, one child told me that gravity turns off and on that is how a ball bounces. The key is finding these misconceptions and then working to correct them. This can be done in the primary grades.
I am struggling right now with the kindergarten schedule our district is initiating. It is "bell to bell instruction" with no recess time or free choice time. We have to spend 60 minutes on reading (not all direct instruction, thank goodness!), 30 minutes of oral language/writing, 45 minutes of math, 20 minutes of specials (PE, music and library) and then 10 minutes of large muscle movement. Luckily my principal in allowing us to have a recess for the 10 minutest of large muscle movement however a certifide teacher has to be out there because otherwise it wouldn't count as instructional time. The district seems to be forgetting what is developmentally appropriate for five year olds. I am really afraid that Meghan will hate school since they will be taking away her two favorite things to do, color/draw and dress-up. Two teachers this year have been told to throw out the coloring/drawing sheets that come with our literacy adoption and only play reading games. It is very frustrating! There is more but I think I've writen enough for now. Thanks for letting me vent.
That is really frustrating. I am afraid that many students will learn that school is not interesting and won't learn much else with that type of system. I understand their concern - but you are right that it's not developmentally appropriate.
I agree with testing hypothesis and learning through experimentation. I guess that's one reason I struggle with introducing philosophers who are WAY over their heads at this stage. Anyway, I hope that you are able to find some peace with the program you will have to use!
Post a Comment