I'll shamelessly admit that so many of my blog entry inspirations this early in the game arise from other blogs. A few days ago I read "School is a competition where winners get nothing" and felt motivated to share these ideas on my own blog (more for future reference for myself, which is the singular purpose of this entire blog, actually).
What was particularly interesting to me is how Penelope states the obvious:
You already know that everyone learns differently. You already know that each kid has different interests, and you know that kids learn at different rates. So you know, intuitively, if you set up school to be a competition, it will not be close to a fair fight.
You won't have all the math kids competing against each other in math and all the artists competing against each other in art. You actually have the math kids competing in art and the art kids competing in math, because the idea of school is not only competitive, but also pushes the idea of well-roundedness.
1. Testing gives people a way to rank kids.
2. Report cards give parents a way to rank themselves based on how well their kids learn.
3. School measures IQ not only with testing, but by setting up discrete subject matter that requires basically one type of IQ.
So obviously true. Last night, when I explained this to Haley, she understood immediately. See, Haley has a friend who does VERY well in school. Her learning style is conducive to how information is presented in school. She has the natural personality to accept what's said as fact, doesn't have tons of questions about "why?" and is able to memorize and regurgitate those facts on a multiple choice survey.
And that makes her "gifted." That makes her "intelligent."
Haley has TONS of questions. And takes nothing as a 'given fact' just because some 'random' person tells her it's truth. She's a thinker.
Additionally, I believe, in addition to the various *known* learning styles (see below) there are subtleties and nuances that are not being accounted for. Such as complementary energy, intention, interpersonal interaction, and other influences that are difficult to articulate, much-less analyze.
Take for instance a dog. If you love the dog (and the dog *knows* you love him), he is more eager to please. And even when you're having a "bad day" and being impatient, the dog KNOWS you love him, and will happily tolerate you, and try even harder to please you...to make you feel better. The dog is more responsive, and feels like he's important to you.
On the contrary, if the dog senses animosity or resentment from you...or if the dog doesn't feel like you like him, he will be less enthusiastic about learning from you. Even a smart and motivated dog will sense the negative energy from it's trainer, and that trainer will be less likely to pull excellence out of that dog.
Of course children has this ability as well. The ability to sense the *motives* of the person who's offering the advice or teaching the "lesson." And the more sensitive the child to this energy, the less likely they are to wholeheartedly accept information as truth in their lives from "negative" people.
School teachers (while intentions may start out altruistic and genuine) are jaded and cynical. Especially when interacting with a child who may be from a family that coincides with their own beliefs. Or, they may begin to put of an emotional wall when interacting with "problem" children (i.e. children who ask 'why?'). Because, answering the "why?" isn't always easy. Because answering the "why?" requires the teacher to think. And they aren't rewarded for thinking...
Parents, on the other hand, (barring those rare parental misfits) care the MOST about their children. No one cares more. Therefore, the chances of your child performing better for you (even in a 'weaker' subject) are much greater. The energy is not weird. And the environment is not competitive for the sake of ranking students (and parents) based on arbitrary criteria that do not result in success, peace, or any other relevant "happiness indicator" in the world. So what's the point?
My children have talents that are not measured on the STAAR test. My children have attributes that go unappreciated in traditional school classrooms in this country. My children are bright, funny, caring, helpful, artistic, athletic, compassionate, honorable little people...and their life light shines bright.
In the early years (kindergarten, 1st grade, etc) the teachers tend to be nice and more understanding of the innate genius that each child possess. And traditional school may work well - and actually prove beneficial in allowing the proverbial socialization (especially for the oldest/only child). However, as children get older, and their uniqueness really takes center-stage (coupled with *many* social outlets via siblings and extracurriculars the traditional model may be less beneficial. Especially in the setting of test-overemphasis and focus on grades and memorization...traditional school can become very detrimental to many children.
Learning Styles:
- Visual: The occipital lobes at the back of the brain manage the visual sense. Both the occipital and parietal lobes manage spatial orientation.
- Aural: The temporal lobes handle aural content. The right temporal lobe is especially important for music.
- Verbal: The temporal and frontal lobes, especially two specialized areas called Brocas and Wernickeïkis areas (in the left hemisphere of these two lobes).
- Physical: The cerebellum and the motor cortex (at the back of the frontal lobe) handle much of our physical movement.
- Logical: The parietal lobes, especially the left side, drive our logical thinking.
- Social: The frontal and temporal lobes handle much of our social activities. The limbic system (not shown apart from the hippocampus) also influences both the social and solitary styles. The limbic system has a lot to do with emotions, moods and aggression.
- Solitary: The frontal and parietal lobes, and the limbic system, are also active with this style.
