Re: power vs freedom in education

Betty.Zan who-is-at uni.edu
Fri, 26 Apr 1996 10:48:28 -0500 (CDT)

I apologize for how far behind I am in reading and replying to postings. This
must be at least a week old, but I had to respond.

Phil wrote:

>It *does* follow, though, that grown-ups -- or at least,
>in some sense that deserves further specification, the grown-ups' *world*
>-- must structure children's learning to some significant extent. Attempts
>to deny this fact -- epidemic among liberal American teachers imbued with
>certain kinds of constructivist educational philosophies -- lead to all
>sorts of weird hidden agendas and mixed messages, in which children are
>reduced to guessing what they're supposed to do, learning to pick up on
>indirect cues from the grown-ups, forever paranoid that they aren't doing
>it right, when the official ideology is that they are running the show,
>constructing knowledge themselves, expressing their spontaneous natural
>selves, and all sorts of other good things, all having originated in
>opposition to the soul-deadening drills of yore.

Maybe I'm not familiar with all of the brands of constructivist education out
there, but the brand that I am familiar with in no way resembles what Phil
describes, with children trying to guess teachers' hidden agendas and mixed
messages. However, I am familiar with the myth that constructivist education
is permissive, lacks structure, and neglects academic content. I think that
this myth originates in the mistaken attribution of romanticism to
constructivism. It is perceived as a maturational theory, which it is not.
Robin's posting says as much:

> I think we have an almost romantic tendency at times to glorify
>the freedom of the individual--not to mention the sweet spontaneity
>of the unfettered, happy child.

The constructivist teachers I know are very clear about their expectations for
children and their learning, including specific academic goals, and rationales
for how they will address these goals. Their classrooms have a very definite
structure. The difference (or one of the differences) is that the curriculum
is centered around children's interests, and it is the role of the teacher to
weave academic goals into whatever they do. So if the kids want to learn about
sharks, the teacher works literacy, math, science, social studies, etc., into
the unit on sharks.

I would not label a classroom where children are allowed to run free,
completely unfettered and undirected *constructivist*. I would call that
chaos.

Betty Zan
Regents' Center for Early Developmental Education
University of Northern Iowa