Places of Learning vs. Schools

 Places of Learning vs. Schools

What Dewey theorized and observed in his lab-schools, modern science has proven to be true. Learning is a natural process; through experiences, the mind makes meaning of the event. Children, especially young ones, can easily be observed learning through play and other activities.  Curiosity leads to exploration, and exploration leads to new information and skills, this new information and these new skills get added to pre-existing schema and so on.  Learning is most motivating when it is meaningful, relevant, and personal.  Most schools function on some outdated notion that information can be pushed into the mind of a child.  Robinson uses a garden metaphor to demonstrate better a teacher’s role in student learning.

“Gardeners know that they don’t make plants grow. They don’t attach the roots, glue the leaves, and paint the petals.  Plants grow themselves.  The job of the gardener is to create the best condition for that to happen.  Good gardeners create the conditions for learning, and poor ones don’t.”

Schools and teachers in particular can effectively use this model with the right supports from administrators, a willingness to create learning experiences, and permission to let go of old ways of doing things. Of course assessment is assessment and it’s not going away anytime soon. One conclusion we can draw is that despite enormous resources, both financial and human, most standardized scores are not rising.  Even though teachers have been told to raise them and their own evaluations are tied to their students’ performances, the needle hasn’t moved far.  So how to move away from the old and into a new place where students can explore and learn and contribute their talents and strengths and still be accountable for learning what will be “on the test”?