October 21, 2004
-
TOPIC: I FOUND IT!!!
Yes…there are really good schools in existance in this country. Schools that treat students as people, and use the world as their classroom. Schools that say “F-U” to grades and testing. Schools that care deeply about personal growth, and in depth learning, and a passion for learning.
I spent a while speaking w/ the founder, Andy Winter, who also founded the Shackelton Schools in Ma., which apparently have done quite well. Andy’s philospophy of education mirrors mine. He hated school. I hated school. Andy went on to create a school that uses every resource of the real world to teach students. His students spend time in Mexican villiages, have gone to Alabama to learn about the Civil Rights movement, have met Howard Zinn, author of “A People’s History of the United States,” have met John Kerry. I asked him how he gets to meet all these people. “We just ask them,” he said.
The school is a small private school, that has raised money to help any student who is passionate enough to attend, to be able to attend. The curriculum is based solely on relevance. We don’t teach the traditional things, like Shakespear, or math, unless they become relevant to the “expedition.” This term “expedition,” comes from the expeditionary learning model of schooling developed by Outward Bound, in which students spend a term covering a subject in depth. “We go an inch wide, and a mile deep, not a mile wide, and an inch deep,” was how the system was described to me by the Principal of an ELOB school I visited last week in Denver.
This is Andy’s take on the curriculum. “When I see a tree, I see ecology, history, economics. I don’t necessarily see math (although some people do). We use math when we need to use stats to do research which we then present to members of the community.” And, the problem with testing? “We need to feed kids more, and weigh kids less,” he said.
Earlier in the day, I also stumbled upon another alternative school. A small building had a sign called, “The Living School.” I was too curious to not go in. It turned out to be a small school for homeschoolers. About 12 kids of different ages. Doing all sorts of things. They gave me a book called, “The Happy Child,” by Steven Harrison, the founder of the school (have you heard of him lettersat3am ?) It was great to see both schools, and their tight knit cultures, and their focus on developing individual interests, rather than jamming a curriculum irrelevant to many things in the real world, down their throats.
Oh…and based on my afternoon in Boulder, I’ve decided I really like the city. I haven’t seen much of America, but I can sense already a lot of “pro’s” for this city. Outdoorsy. Many forms of alternative education. 2 universities, U of Colorado and another one, Narapaho I think it’s called, that teaches all different kinds of personal development philosophies. The adventure rabbi, www.adventurerabbi.com is from Boulder, so that’s good for me, being Jewish, but looking for a way to be cultural, which I don’t really do much of. It’s an environmentally concerned city, a liberal city politically, and socially i am sensing. They have a cool international hostel. It’s close to Denver, and close to many other beautiful outdoor places. Well…i’ll have to keep this city in mind.
Also, have a look at the big pictutre company, i think it’s www.bigpicturecompany.com they’re another innovative system of schooling. The dan systems do exist!!! Now, i just need to get myself connected.
That’s all for now.
-dan
Comments (3)
There are great schools out there. I even went to fantastic public alternative high school (no longer in existence) founded by Neil Postman (an NYU prof who’s stuff you should read). Here’s a quote from that original school proposal in 1969:
“Most school curricula are based on a set of assumptions which the experimental program rejects. For example, most school programs assume (1) that knowledge is best presented and comprehended when organized into “subjects,” (2) that there are “major” subjects and “minor” ones, (3) that subjects are things you “take,” and that once you have “had” them, you need not take them again, (4) that most subjects have a specific “content,” (5) that the content of these subjects is more or less stable, (6) that a major function of the teacher is to “transmit” this content (7), that the practical place to do this is in a room within a centrally located building, (8) that students learn best in 45-minute periods which are held five times a week, (9) that students are functioning well (i.e., learning) when they are listening to their teacher, reading their texts, doing their assignments, and otherwise “paying attention” to the content being transmitted, and (10) that all of this must go on as a preparation for life.
This memorandum is not the forum for a serious and thorough critique of these assumptions. Hopefully, it is sufficient to say that contemporary educational philosophy disputes most of them, in part or whole, and that few teachers would deny the merit of experimenting with programs based on an entirely different set of beliefs.
The following quotation from Walden expresses compactly the major beliefs which generate the form of the new program:
Students should not play life, or study it merely while the community supports them at this expensive game, but earnestly live it from beginning to end. How could youths better learn to live than by at once trying the experiment of living?
In other words, we are assuming (1) that learning takes places best not when conceived as a preparation for life but when it occurs in the context of actually living, (2) that each learner ultimately must organize his own learning in his own way, (3) that “problems” and personal interests rather than “subjects” are a more realistic structure by which to organize learning experiences, (4) that students are capable of directly and authentically participating in the intellectual and social life of their community, (5) that they should do so, and (6) that the community badly needs them.
This set of beliefs is sometimes referred to as the “judo” principle of education. Instead of trying to forestall, resist, or neutralize the natural curiosity, intelligence, energy, and idealism of youth, one uses it in a context which permits both them and their community to change. Thus, the experimental program reduces the reliance on classrooms and school buildings; it transforms the relevant problems of the community and the special interests of individual students into the students’ “curriculum”; it looks toward the creation of a sense of community in both The Program students and adults.”
I’ve seen great stuff, both public and private, which is what makes me angry. There’s proof out there that school needn’t be horrible. So there is no excuse.
Two great colleges you need to see:
St. John’s in Annapolis, Maryland (and Sante Fe, New Mexico)
College of the Atlantic on Mount Desert Island, Maine
That was a very interesting post and I’m glad that you finally found those schools. I want to say my school is in touch with the student body, but I’ll only say that it’s more in touch with the student body than other schools. The school tries to protect us even though we may not like it sometimes (banning alcohol). I’ve never gotten the run around. There are no hidden fees to going here. They maintain a relatively small student body (division II). They even have excellent business and health science colleges. The professors give home phone numbers and are always more than willing to meet with a student outside of class (but there are a couple A-holes here too). I think you should check out this little college in the middle of nowhere
(just look out for the crazy conservative atmosphere that seeps into the school environment sometimes).
~Will
Its great that you are finding all kinds of different schools . My Boss goes to that part of the USA every year to ski , he loves it