“Start looking around you and you’ll see things that help you to get started.”
Shortly following this quote in the Episode 83 Follow-Up with Frithjof Bergmann, Bergmann launches into a passionate plea for an education revolution, reminiscent of the inspirational Ken Robinson TED talks. What I'd like to offer in support of Bergmann's hope is an image of a school that embodies the spirit of New Work. For any reader concerned with education (which I trust is in fact any reader of this blog), perhaps this brief portrait will serve as one those "things that help you to get started." Accept it as an invitation to elevate our culture's discourse on education and to illuminate what's possible in schools with the right vision, trust, and commitment. Though I do discuss a particular school and praise its virtues, please don't dismiss this as some cheap marketing ploy; I genuinely want to open eyes to an alternative way of seeing education.
It was hardly surprising to hear Bergmann exclaim, "oh yes, yes, yes, yes!" when asked if we needed a new system of education in order to build a reality grounded in New Work philosophy. Sadly, it was also hardly surprising when he offered this scathing description: “our system of education is a bowdlerization; people are ruined, demented, and experience horrible diseases at the age of 16 and 17...schools give Alzheimer’s to 14 year old children. That’s how wrong they are!” This may be hyperbolic, but Bergmann fairly points us to a situation that needs our attention. He goes on from here to call for a system that understands the paramount value of intimate, powerful relationships, "encounters" with personal mentors. This vision, of course, is antithetical to the standard set-up of education, the "banking method," deplored by the likes of Paolo Freire, whose brilliant book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, exposed the tragic reality of how students become "the oppressed," forced to identify themselves as inferior and to depend on a "boss" for any sense of self (and self-worth). Schools then (Friere, Robinson, and Bergmann all intersect here) are parasitic, feasting on students as prey and sucking the life out of them. Sapped of vitality, no wonder students conclude, as Bergmann suggests, "I'm not being given anything that is real food." Students in our culture are malnourished zombies, effectively dead, relegated to eating away their own existence engaged in meaningless tasks.
I'm fortunate to teach at a school that recognizes this disturbing trend (reality?) and actively works against it. I realize that my school, The Putney School (in Putney, Vermont), is not alone in implementing a progressive education model, but what's sad is that I only became aware of its existence two years ago when I decided to change teaching jobs. How was it that I could be in the teaching profession and not be conscious of Putney's environment as a possibility? How is it not in the public psyche? Take a look at the school's fundamental beliefs and the philosophy of progressive education overall, inspired by John Dewey, and you'll hear resounding echoes of Bergmann and New Work. You may also find yourself saying, "well of course, why wouldn't a school have this perspective?" Sadly, at the same time, incredulity and skepticism may creep in, making way for this more "reasonable" thought: "that's nice and all, but there's no way it's possible."
Stemming from a misguided distrust of adolescents, it's hard for people to believe that they're actually capable of the type of self-reliance that Bergmann sees as essential to a meaningful existence. Because we've become fixated on seeing adolescents in a grossly negative light, because we've categorized them in a narrow way and thus reduced them to needing our ever-watchful eyes, we persist in doubts about their capacities. Bergmann urges us toward an education that teaches students how to manufacture things, how to engage in community production, how to become autonomous but generous and empathetic. Putney's ethos and the resulting practical reality show that trusting students to realize Bergmann's hopes is not a lost cause; indeed, we're lost without it.
Here's what a Putney student might have the opportunity to do in a typical day (and this is a small sampling of the various activities open to students): wake up for AM barn to learn the value of physical labor and to remain connected to nature while also providing the community with necessary sustenance; attend sculpture/weaving/ animation class, emphasizing the value of the arts (and passion); attend community assembly; attend Existentialism; work a lunch shift, either preparing the food in the kitchen or making it readily available in the dining hall; pursue a tutorial (an independently designed course of study); play basketball OR do woods crew; work a dinner shift; attend an evening activity, perhaps black-smithing, jewelry making, or pottery; do homework; through it all, find mentors in peers, faculty, administration... basically anyone in the community, as there is little hierarchy. The idea is that we all explore our passions together, that we understand learning as a process, that we adopt the proverbial "learning for the sake of learning" mentality, that we challenge our vision by seeing things in new ways every day. In other words, it's an environment brimming with life, with change and ordered chaos, with meaningful activity.
Is it crazy? Absolutely. But so is everything that can't conveniently be classified as "normal" and thus forgotten. Again, I'm not marketing Putney. I'm inviting dialogue about what's possible in education. If I can become the catalyst for others "to get started," if I can serve as the inspiration for a new way of imagining school for even a single person, then I'm eager to take that chance.
-Lou Canelli
Image note: No, the Putney School is not nudist. The image was chosen by a saucy editor. This actually is students at Putney working in the field:
We have for many years underestimated and undervalued the vast potential of a child from the time they are born. As I once heard if you are a good listener and have a mind capable of some form of recall you can do well in school and beat the system but how does that prepare you for life. We have a multitude of our college grads today wondering why it is that they have done everything they were taught to do in the field of education and are at home with their families looking for some form of meaningful work probably not related to their field of study. Do we need change, without a doubt. While we do need to still continue to teach the basics we also need to, as already being somewhat implimented at Putney, have that concept be greatly expanded upon and have more innovative teachers step up and cry out for backing to get it accomplished. We need to prepare our youth to truely make a difference and be ready to make the world a better place to live and work in and to feel the sense of accomplishment that comes with that success. Anyway i very much enjoyed reading the article and look forward to more.
I just finished up a seminar (yesterday as a matter of fact) that centered around education, policy, and mental health. As part of our final we had to do a 20 min presentation on some topic that we found engaging or interesting that was not covered in the class. I decided to cover some of the research of Sugata Mitra who recently did a TED talk this year about the self-organization of learning.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3jYVe1RGaU#t=0
Anyone who is interested in the possibility of new directions in education should take a look at the talk, because the findings are pretty remarkable. Basically, Mitra has found that children can learn incredible things with no supervision or instruction. Poor rural children in the slums of India have taught themselves English, how to browse a computer, mathematical concepts like the Pythagorian Theorem, DNA replication and how it causes disease, and important questions like how much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if he could in fact chuck wood?…
So this approach to learning is not the same type of hands-on learning in the same sense of the Putney School. There’s no agrarian or arts and crafts aspect, but what is amazing is the central focus of education as an intrinsic endeavor by the students. Since there is no supervision all of the learning occurs through the internet and the social dynamism of the students themselves. So rather than having a lecturer or teacher pulling children through a mire of boredom and inattention in order to fill their empty minds with knowledge, children are the instigators and creators of their own motivations and desires for learning. Children tend to both do well on average during tests/assessments with a very high rate of retention (76% in one study in Gateshead, England over about 2 months; think about how much you would retain if you were tested on something you learned in class 2 months earlier, without any review) and students in slums tend to perform just as well as those students in more affluent areas with resources like teachers, English programs, etc. Mitra has also replicated his findings around the world (South Africa, India, Uruguay, UK, USA, Italy, etc.) finding the same results wherever he goes.
The great thing about this research is that it’s already being implemented practically. SOLEs (self-organized learning environments) have been implemented in large part in India, but have had smaller rag-tag success from independent interested parties all over the world. I would say also check out this particular site for more info on SOLEs.
http://solesandsomes.wikispaces.com/
I’m not entirely clear on how this will fit into New Work yet other than to start encouraging new generations to pursue insights and interests that pertain specifically to them. Rather than being force fed information that is necessary for them to grow up and go on to a nice four year university (i.e., necessary in order to excel at tests that are neither good assessments of their skills and aptitude nor useful for motivating students in any real or lasting way) they will find what motivates and interests themselves.
Fascinating link, Devon. Mitra is inspired by the same concerns as Freire, who also sought to liberate impoverished (financially then spiritually) youth, but in South America. Like Ken Robinson, Mitra points out the archaic impetus for our current education system, namely empire and industry and the need for functional workers. As Mitra says, the purpose was “producing identical people for a machine,” but now we’re producing these people (if we can even use this term) for a machine “that no longer exists.” Rather than continue to make spare parts for an outdated structure, he wishes to give students all over the world intellectual adventures that tap into their curiosity and wonder. (I often call my students explorers and their essays “explorations.”) It’s “not making learning happen but letting it happen.” This means trusting students enough to govern their own learning. (This absolutely happens at Putney.) He understands that our traditional information-based education is pointless in a world where information is everywhere; as he says, “knowledge is obsolete.” So why not let children teach themselves? Why so much intervention and planning and standards and quantifiable measures?
This brings up a fascinating (or terrifying) question: are teachers necessary? Of course this depends on what we claim is the purpose or value of a teacher. Meaningful learning (I think) happens best through strong relationships. When student and teacher can come together genuinely as human beings, an ideal education is nearby. While information-based education may be a stubborn vestige of the past, relationship-based education will (or should) always endure.
My concern with the SOLE method is that while it invites student autonomy and it’s student-centered/driven, it seems to come at the expense of building a meaningful community through education, one where people of all ages work together toward common goals, even as they’re pursuing individual interests and passions. I may be off here, however, as I don’t know the extent to which this type of collaboration is integrated into the approach, where everyone of every age is considered a learner. What is redeeming about SOLE is that it acknowledges the vast capacity for innovation and creativity in all youth (everywhere in the world, regardless of any man-made hierarchy) and strives to provide an environment in which that capacity is optimized. Where New Work would come in, and where Putney’s ethos fits, is in the translation of this self-centered (used positively) pursuit to the intentional benefit of others. A balance of individual and collective interest seems to be the ideal.
If I may reference (perhaps bizarrely) Joseph Campbell’s hero’s journey archetype, the hero’s quest isn’t complete until he/she uses self-discovery as a boon for the community. Laboring this archetype a bit more, perhaps the ideal education is when we are all set free on our own heroic journeys, but this ideal education is when we all also acknowledge the need to return to our communities and, through our newly discovered self, build stronger, more authentic relationships.
I would like to comment on Lou’s question of “are teachers necessary.” As a student at the Putney School myself, and also an admiring disciple of Master Lou, I feel that I can say teachers are not only necessary to a meaningful education, but also that teachers give meaning to education. Before going to the Putney School, I was a homeschooler and so I have strong autodidactic proclivities. Many a frustrated night during the school year, after being assigned a bunch of what I deemed “meaningless drivel,” I thought “damn it all, I’ll drop everything and just go off and read all the Kant and Baudelaire that I want – no need for all this academic hoop-jumping.” But one thing kept me at school: the teachers. And the teachers aren’t always the older ones with degrees who take attendance and assign homework. No, the teachers are the ones who make the learning real, who make it more than just in my head, who make the connections between myself and the world, between myself and others. It’s as Lou says, ideal education is to “build stronger, more authentic relationships.” Otherwise, what’s the point?
“authentic” as measured against what/who?
Keen question. And that seems to be where we run into a major issue in education: if the real value of it can’t be quantified or clearly measured, shouldn’t we then turn to things that we can tangibly rely on? There’s no way to test authenticity (and it’s hard to define), so how can we reasonably allow that quality to determine whether or not learning is happening?
On the level of identity formation, the same question (to be somewhat flippant here) leads to existential crisis.
Lou, this is an awesome post. What’s frustrating for me is that places like Putney are reserved for such an elite group of students. If only this type of education were available to more people…
Even this exchange is privilege talking to privilege, and I wish I had an answer to your frustration. It’s not that Putney has an elite group of students; I think it’s more that we provide “elite” opportunities. But having an “elite” environment (I apologize for the persistent quotes…I’m not quite sure how to define the term here, which does make my argument flimsy) does not mean there’s an elitist ethos. This type of education is possible for anyone, so the “if only” of your concern seems to be in our hands.
Devon in a previous comment noted that it’s happening for the traditionally labeled non-elite youth of the world, for instance, through one man (Mitra) willing it. I don’t mean to add to a dangerous mythos of a single individual as savior, but that type of influence can clearly come from anyone.
Most of my rhetoric in my initial post and now my responses can be dismissed as idealistic or naive, ignoring the practical realities of how the world works. I get that. But I also don’t see the point in surrendering to things as they are simply because that’s how they are. Please excuse my hope that things can be better.
This is a very well written and impassioned argument, Lou. I definitely admire where you are coming from and what you’re trying to accomplish (I should stress this point given that most of my thoughts below will come across as critical). As you’re inviting dialogue, I have a few points. I’ve taken what you said at face-value and not as some kind of fanciful posturing, so I’m answering in a decidedly honest way. Also, since most of the comments on your article have been uncritical, I feel it’ll be more illuminating for the discussion to take the opposite approach.
First, we’ve heard calls for “better” or “different” or “more progressive” or more “science-based” education for decades. It should be clear by now that such calls are essentially the same mantra in different guises. Educational gurus pontificate so glibly on what’s wrong with education and how to fix it, but the underlying problems are much less about educational philosophy and much more about structural impediments in society.
It reminds me of the situation in developmental economics where 1st world professors lecture African countries that if only their rulers and economists listened to their wisdom, they could transform their economies. This is very easy to say from the ivory tower, and these professors often gloss over the fact that self-perpetuating systems in war-torn countries benefit the rapacious people who would otherwise lose their grip on power if they instituted more democratic policies. This is not to mention the tremendous time and effort involved in building trust in important political and economic institutions, and creating the infrastructure necessary to become a competitive economy. In other words, there is a reason why obvious and simple solutions are hard to come by and why “skepticism creeps in” to provide more “reasonable” thoughts.
In the same way, I agree with a good deal of the spirit of what you said (though I’m pretty suspicious of a school that essentially cordons itself off from the world to implement its philosophy; it seems possible that many of these kids will have difficulty socializing into the real world and shedding their proto-communist, intellectual superiorities–this is particularly true in the case of your ‘Huntraclitus’ disciple, who deems much of what he learns in school ‘meaningless drivel’ and prefers to read Kant and Baudelaire at home).
But I have a hard time believing in the “if only people realized the error of their ways,” or the “if only more people instituted progressive cultures,” or “if only more people adopted learning for learning’s sake” philosophies. History is pretty full of the “if only we did this obvious thing” fad, which is really only an instance of offering easy solutions to complex problems. I really wish I could learn for learning’s sake–but then I would be sitting at home or in a cafe reading all day and not getting a degree to get a job to support a family to have a life in a difficult and uncertain world.
The best way to learn for learning’s sake is to make a boatload of so-called “f– you” money and then live as a flaneur in Europe where your money removes the constraints of daily life and sets you free to live and speak as you please (as they say, when you’re poor, you’re crazy; when you’re rich, you’re eccentric).
One commentator on your article posted that Putney is reserved for “an elite group of students.” This goes exactly to my point. Sure, it may be great for more students to experience this type of progressive education filled with mentors, communal work, and learning for learning’s sake in an idyllic enclave of Vermont, but like the economist lecturing third-world countries, the problems are that schools can’t actually create, fund, implement, and sustain that type of model. Why? Structurally, financially, politically, ideologically, it’s not going to happen for more than 1% of a privileged few. In other words, attacking education is often attacking the symptom of a much deeper problem–but it’s much easier to point to a good surface model and lament, “if only others saw things as we did…”
Moreover, in a modern world filled with hierarchies, intense competition, mercurial and demanding bosses, anxieties, pressures, duplicity, and crime, not to mention mostly non-agricultural work that is increasingly biased towards science and technology, do we really want kids growing up in some egalitarian proto-utopia where they learn a gamut of non-essential skills? I’m not sure how cleaning barns, weaving, chopping wood, or black-smithing prepares students for the real world, but I’ll be sure to call them if I ever need a quilt or a broadsword.
Finally, the diatribes by educational gurus in your article take on a vague, grandiose, and impractical tenor. Case in point:
“This vision, of course, is antithetical to the standard set-up of education, the ‘banking method,’ deplored by the likes of Paolo Freire, whose brilliant book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, exposed the tragic reality of how students become ‘the oppressed,’ forced to identify themselves as inferior and to depend on a ‘boss’ for any sense of self (and self-worth). Schools then (Friere, Robinson, and Bergmann all intersect here) are parasitic, feasting on students as prey and sucking the life out of them. Sapped of vitality, no wonder students conclude, as Bergmann suggests, ‘I’m not being given anything that is real food.’ Students in our culture are malnourished zombies, effectively dead, relegated to eating away their own existence engaged in meaningless tasks.”
With all due to respect to Friere, Robinson, and Bergmann, give me a f–ing break. These types of books / arguments smack of the vapid literary theories I confronted in graduate school. Students at Putney have the luxury of…well, being students at Putney. Students elsewhere need to hustle, compete, strategize, and sometimes game the system–like everyone else trying to make a living in the real world.
The problem with Putney is that life is not like Putney.
The article suggests you have a deeply held belief that a relatively isolated communal utopia where people help each other and sustain themselves in an egalitarian manner can be a model for a larger society. There’s a reason we raged a 50-year ideological war against that type of thinking.
This was a lot to process, but I will express gratitude for your skepticism. You’re right to note that the discussion only gets going once doubt enters the scene.
Obviously there are “structural impediments in society,” so anytime we’re talking about transforming education, we’re talking about changing the foundations of society and culture (which, yes, how the heck is that possible?). Bergmann’s idea of New Work, which I was responding to, understands this. It’s challenging to change a single part of society without addressing the whole. Putney understands this as well. We’re striving to be a microcosm of a “civilization worthy of its name.” It’s not utopian or communist or some other degraded ideological concept, and it’s grossly cynical to reduce it to something of the sort. It’s as shortsighted to do that as it is for me to sing solely its virtues.
I also didn’t intend to present Putney as an “obvious or simple solution.” We run into problems all the time, but we expect and embrace that as part of the process of building a better community. We’re not trying to purge conflict; we’re trying to make it so the conflict is productive and beneficial (though perhaps in a utilitarian sense in maximizing collective favor). And we’re also not building an ivory tower. Just because we happen to exist within an unfortunate hierarchy doesn’t mean we’re actively trying to perpetuate it. We don’t essentially shield ourselves from the world, and we aren’t creating hyper-intellectuals who can’t function within the current system. We teach them to see the current system clearly so that they’re in a better position to change it.
The learning doesn’t occur in the isolation of “for learning’s sake,” but that motivation is guided by the ambition of how it will serve the community, how it will help us better relate to each other and to ourselves. Sitting at home in a constant fit of mental masturbation…not the point. Becoming a flaneur accomplishes very little except fleeting selfish satisfaction. And we’re not aiming to be hedonists.
I realize I’m taking a defensive position here, one that seems unduly charged emotionally. What’s coming across is not frustration with your response but frustration with the all-too true image you’ve presented.
Nevertheless, as to the rest of what you say, I think I can address it by pointing to what you eventually conclude, that “the problem with Putney is that life is not like Putney.” Perhaps the problem with life is that life is not like Putney. At least Putney is doing what it can to change that reality, giving individuals the means to effect that change.
I love this. Thank you, Lou Canelli. My father was a philosophy student at Harvard in the late 1940’s and he developed friendships with a couple of underclassmen who were graduates of Putney. 30 years later, so smitten with these friends and their school, he pressed his daughter at the age of 14, to apply, which she did. (That would be me). His daughter (me) was a southern girl and was without an interpreter to help her comprehend the sensibilities of Putney School nor, New England. So she declined, and returned to her fluffy southern life. Cut to 25 years later and she has moved from The South to The North and has born a son named Ben, now age 14, who seeks a high school. By this time she had wised up to what it means to be a human being. “Go forth to Putney School” she said. But he would have none of it. Undeterred, she later utters, “Putney School claims to have a cycling team.” And thenceforth he would decide on his own to eschew Milton Academy’s full scholarship, and to begin his new life in Putney. And so it began. And so it will end. An amazing place. Amen.