Student Culture
The Zen of Extreme Cycling (Amazing Video)
Published May 11, 2009 @ 07:04AM PT
What does this have to do with education?
Everything, in a number of ways. It changes the way I look at the kids who don't show much fire for anything but their skateboards, bicycles, computer games, and all the other hobbies that seem to light them up more than any quest for the perfect college application.
It's a different sort of learning, practice, discipline, meditation, and a host of other skills. Whether good or bad, I don't know. All I know is that it's beautiful and impressive. Enjoy.
.
.
(h/t to Decrepit Old Fool, who I'm glad to hear will exit the hospital to entertain us for more days on this earth.)
Web Round-up: Sedating Children, Defending Creationism, Separating Ethics from Sexuality
Published May 05, 2009 @ 07:50PM PT
Interesting reads beyond the mainstream round-ups:
The War for (Prescription) Drugs: "Eight million kids today have been diagnosed with mental disorders, and most receive some form of medication. Is this child abuse?" Idea for inner-city drug dealers: open a pharmacy, and suddenly you're legal, but still rolling in the dough.
Will the Courts Defend Young Astrology Believers Next? A California court ruled that a teacher's "statement calling creationism 'superstitious nonsense' did violate the First Amendment clause against establishing a religion." The teacher may have gone about it unwisely, but how is his statement wrong?
Is a "Virginity Fetish" Hurting Young Women? "It's time to teach our daughters that their ability to be good people depends on their being good people, not on whether or not they're sexually active." Careful, now: the author is not advocating a libertine pedagogy. She's calling for a moral discourse for girls that transcends "sexually active = immoral slut," "chastity = moral paragon." A good topic for the wall-flowers at the next local Purity Ball.
Spring has sprung! I hope it's as good for you as it is for me. Goodness knows it's been a rough winter for most of us.
Image by williac
Beyond Principals: Sudbury's Student Judicial Committee
Published April 29, 2009 @ 12:09PM PT
In previous installments I've talked about Sudbury schooling from the perspective of educational philosophy and policy. I've argued that the best learning occurs when students are given a controlling voice in their education.
Today I want to go one step further and say that not only is learning better when students are in charge, but discipline as well. The judicial system at Sudbury schools provides a vivid example of just how empowering schools can be.
While the exact steps vary, one thing is universal: the adults do not lay down the law; there is no principal to whom students are referred. Alleged rule violations are instead handled by groups in which students form the majority.
JC Clerk: Okay, our first case: Greg wrote up Barry for A3.1. This happened yesterday, in the Main Room, around 3pm. The brief description: "Barry called me a doofus. When I told Barry to stop, he asked, ‘What's the matter, doofus? Can't handle the truth, doofus?'" Is there any discussion on hearing this case? All in favor?
JC members: Aye.
The standard process goes something like this: when disagreements can't be handled informally, or when the violator is unknown, anyone can fill out a written complaint—a simple form asking for essential details like the time and place, the people involved, and a brief description of the incident.
The Judicial Committee (JC) clerks—usually students—file the complaint form and bring it before a committee whose meetings they chair. JC consists of a number of students of varying ages and one staff member. It's a lot like jury duty, in that when it's your turn to serve, you're obligated to do so; and when you're called to testify, the same holds true (though like the system on which it's patterned, you don't have to testify against yourself). JC is one of the few aspects of Sudbury schools where participation is not optional.
JC Clerk: Barry, do you agree with Greg's version of what happened?
Barry: Hmm...mostly. Okay, so I was in the Main Room, eating lunch, when Greg and Josh and Alex came over and sat near me. They were being all loud and stupid. I told them to pipe down, but Greg said, "I'll pipe you down." So then I said "doofus" kind of under my breath. Greg asked, "What did you say?" and, I don't know, I just got pissed. So I said...you know, what I said.
Once the JC votes to hear a case, it questions the complainant, the alleged violator, and witnesses. Weighing ‘he said' versus ‘she said,' members come up with an official version of what happened; they then either drop the case or vote to charge one or more people with violating a rule. Those charged enter a plea: ‘not guilty' means a trial before a new set of jurors, while ‘guilty' pleas result in a sentence voted on by the JC.
JC member #1: I think we should charge both Greg and Barry.
JC member #2: Why?
JC member #1: Well, Barry's obvious. But Greg was disrespectful when he said "I'll pipe you down." Come to think of it, Greg, Josh, and Alex were all being loud.
JC member #3: But they stopped being loud right away. So I don't think that's part of the case. It's about disrespect, and yeah, I agree: both Barry and Greg should be charged.
Staff can be ‘written up' as well as students: everyone is expected to abide by the democratically-passed rules. More fascinating still is seeing children of all ages engaged in the sometimes painstaking work of fact-finding and judging whether a given action amounts to rule-breaking—and if so, how it should be handled. The creativity of even the youngest in cutting through the clutter of what happened and what ought to be done is frequently inspiring.
JC Clerk: Okay, sentencing...
JC member #4: How many priors do they have?
JC Clerk: Barry only has one A3.1; Greg has four.
JC member #1: I move that Barry and Greg can't have verbal or physical contact with each other for the rest of the day and all of tomorrow, and that Greg has to do Barry's chore today.
JC Clerk: Is there any more discussion? All in favor say ‘aye.'
JC members: Aye.
JC Clerk: Motion carries, 4-0. Greg, do you understand and accept your sentence?
Greg: It's not fair! Why I do have to do his chore?
JC Clerk: Well, you have four priors. Do you want to appeal your sentence to School Meeting?
Greg: No.
Most of the rule violations that make it to JC are of the ‘everything I needed to know I learned in kindergarten' variety: leaving messes, name-calling, being too loud, running in the building. Common sentences include staying out of a room or away from a person, doing someone's cleaning chore, or paying a small fine. Sentencing often aims at having the guilty party make restitution, and reducing the probability of the incident being repeated. Occasionally an individual case will be serious enough, or someone's record long enough, to warrant referral to School Meeting for a more serious consequence, such as suspension.
But again, what has impressed me most over the past twelve years has been students' capacity for dispensing thoughtful, fair justice. They take this responsibility seriously, and they do an outstanding job. Rather than being given lectures and abstract exercises, these students grapple with things like ethics, problem-solving, and civics in context. With all the complaints you hear about the breakdown in order in many schools, I consider myself incredibly fortunate to work in a place where respect is the order of the day, ably enforced by the students themselves.
Image by sunface13
Oy: "Writing for Nonreaders in the Postprint Era"
Published April 24, 2009 @ 02:40AM PT
Let's take a quick laugh break with this disturbingly fun parody of an English/Language Arts syllabus by Web 2.0-in-education evangelists (like yours truly). Enjoy it while I'm trudging through some research for the next few posts (h/t to onegoodmove):
INTERNET-AGE
WRITING SYLLABUS AND
COURSE OVERVIEW.
BY ROBERT LANHAM
- - - -
ENG 371WR:
Writing for Nonreaders in the Postprint Era
M-W-F: 11:00 a.m.–12:15 p.m.
Instructor: Robert Lanham
Course Description
As print takes its place alongside smoke signals, cuneiform, and hollering, there has emerged a new literary age, one in which writers no longer need to feel encumbered by the paper cuts, reading, and excessive use of words traditionally associated with the writing trade. Writing for Nonreaders in the Postprint Era focuses on the creation of short-form prose that is not intended to be reproduced on pulp fibers.
Instant messaging. Twittering. Facebook updates. These 21st-century literary genres are defining a new "Lost Generation" of minimalists who would much rather watch Lost on their iPhones than toil over long-winded articles and short stories. Students will acquire the tools needed to make their tweets glimmer with a complete lack of forethought, their Facebook updates ring with self-importance, and their blog entries shimmer with literary pithiness. All without the restraints of writing in complete sentences. w00t! w00t! Throughout the course, a further paring down of the Hemingway/Stein school of minimalism will be emphasized, limiting the superfluous use of nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, conjunctions, gerunds, and other literary pitfalls.
Prerequisites
Students must have completed at least two of the following.
ENG: 232WR—Advanced Tweeting: The Elements of Droll
LIT: 223—Early-21st-Century Literature: 140 Characters or Less
ENG: 102—Staring Blankly at Handheld Devices While Others Are Talking
ENG: 301—Advanced Blog and Book Skimming
ENG: 231WR—Facebook Wall Alliteration and Assonance
LIT: 202—The Literary Merits of Lolcats
LIT: 209—Internet-Age Surrealistic Narcissism and Self-Absorption
Required Reading Materials... (read the rest, including a priceless weekly course overview)
10 Years after Columbine: What’s Been Learned, What Should Be Taught?
Published April 19, 2009 @ 08:04AM PT
An affluent suburb … 3:30 in the afternoon … 64 degrees and cloudy …
It did seem stranger than fiction in some sick way. Two teenagers, heavily armed, walked into a crowded high school and killed thirteen people before killing themselves. Of course, what Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold did to Columbine High School exactly one decade ago was not fiction and the truth behind it is more complex than the plot to any way Hollywood could have portrayed it.
That this happened ten years ago seems hard to believe, and the anniversary itself has received attention in the media (USA Today has done some quality in-depth reporting); however, I don’t expect more out of major media outlets on Monday beyond interviews with survivors, commentary from “experts” on bullying, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly blaming it all on “liberals,” and narcissistic recollections of people who remember what they were doing that day.
What may not be asked, to be quite frank, is if we have learned anything, and the legacy of these shootings seems to be that we haven't or might never will.
