The theme of this Monday's walk-and-talk is the importance of trust when there is an adult/child power imbalance. It's part of September's general theme of power dynamics.
Why do kids engage so deeply with life at a Sudbury-model school? Why the focus, the curiousity, the activity? This is possible because kids know that they won't be interrupted. They know that no adult will say "Shouldn't you be..." or "Wouldn't you rather...", whether out of good intentions or top-down rules. Quite the opposite: Kids know that any interfering adult will be written up for breaking a school rule about no disrupting.
The adult/child power imbalance is balanced in a Sudbury-model school. Kids trust that adults will be full of respect, and adults trust in kids' in-born drive to grow up.
After our conversation, you might find it easier to identify times when you distrust kids' choices. You'll be in good position to make simple changes in your behaviour that will build trust and help your child grow.
The walk-and-talk meets Monday at 7:00 in front of City Hall, and we begin walking at 7:15.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Power Transitions
The theme of this Monday's walk-and-talk is kids' process of transitioning into an empowering environment. It's part of September's general theme of power dynamics.
Kids who grow up in an unempowering environment tend to not know what to do with power when they get it. It might take a year or two for a teen to begin thriving in a Sudbury-model school. 5-year-olds, on the other hand, take to Sudbury-model schools like ducks to water.
Another observation is that the benefits of empowerment only really come out when there is full empowerment. If a swimmer is tied to shore by 10 chains, releasing 9 of them won't make a big difference. Schools don't transition to the Sudbury model gradually - they either start out with full empowerment or they say empowerment doesn't work.
These are interesting times in Kingston for several reasons:
-several mayor candidates wish to support youth issues, and want to do it well
-teacher candidates at Macarthur are starting their year, and must quickly choose how much to buy into the system as it is, and whether changing from the inside is even possible
-I've gotten several invitations to volunteer with kids, and wonder if my presence, without an empowering structure, would be helpful
Come on out and discuss how to effectively transition to an empowering Sudbury-model environment for kids.
The walk-and-talk meets Monday at 7:00 in front of City Hall, and we begin walking at 7:15.
Kids who grow up in an unempowering environment tend to not know what to do with power when they get it. It might take a year or two for a teen to begin thriving in a Sudbury-model school. 5-year-olds, on the other hand, take to Sudbury-model schools like ducks to water.
Another observation is that the benefits of empowerment only really come out when there is full empowerment. If a swimmer is tied to shore by 10 chains, releasing 9 of them won't make a big difference. Schools don't transition to the Sudbury model gradually - they either start out with full empowerment or they say empowerment doesn't work.
These are interesting times in Kingston for several reasons:
-several mayor candidates wish to support youth issues, and want to do it well
-teacher candidates at Macarthur are starting their year, and must quickly choose how much to buy into the system as it is, and whether changing from the inside is even possible
-I've gotten several invitations to volunteer with kids, and wonder if my presence, without an empowering structure, would be helpful
Come on out and discuss how to effectively transition to an empowering Sudbury-model environment for kids.
The walk-and-talk meets Monday at 7:00 in front of City Hall, and we begin walking at 7:15.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Power and Good Intentions
The theme of this Monday's walk-and-talk is the effect of an adult's power when they intervene with kids, from a place of good intentions. It's part of September's general theme of power dynamics.
Among the adults I tend to meet, there is general agreement that the purpose of child-rearing is to help children become effective adults. As such, when these adults interact with kids, it's from a generous place - when they intervene, it's with good intentions.
This intervention is a delicate matter. As I mentioned in our September newsletter, since there is such an adult/child power imbalance, whatever kids are doing is greatly influenced when an adult gets involved. Kids are quick to dumb themselves down or shut themselves down (they become "childish") when an adult gets involved. It's easy to hear: Kids' full-voiced engagement becomes meek.
A common reason for intervening in kids' play is to correct a kid's manners. Another common reason is because the adult has a suggestion for modifying what the kids are doing.
We'll tell stories about the effects of these interventions. When is it worth the disruption? What are some strategies to balance the adult/child power dynamic? How can adults enjoy being around kids without taking them out of the deep engagement that kids are experts at creating?
When well-intentioned disruptions can be replaced by power-balancing strategies, you will be able to witness this deep engagement with life that kids have instinctively. You'll become someone who "sees it" when they walk into a Sudbury-model school, and you'll want to help grow a school that supports kids' in-born drive to grow up.
The walk-and-talk meets Monday at 7:00 in front of City Hall, and we begin walking at 7:15.
Among the adults I tend to meet, there is general agreement that the purpose of child-rearing is to help children become effective adults. As such, when these adults interact with kids, it's from a generous place - when they intervene, it's with good intentions.
This intervention is a delicate matter. As I mentioned in our September newsletter, since there is such an adult/child power imbalance, whatever kids are doing is greatly influenced when an adult gets involved. Kids are quick to dumb themselves down or shut themselves down (they become "childish") when an adult gets involved. It's easy to hear: Kids' full-voiced engagement becomes meek.
A common reason for intervening in kids' play is to correct a kid's manners. Another common reason is because the adult has a suggestion for modifying what the kids are doing.
We'll tell stories about the effects of these interventions. When is it worth the disruption? What are some strategies to balance the adult/child power dynamic? How can adults enjoy being around kids without taking them out of the deep engagement that kids are experts at creating?
When well-intentioned disruptions can be replaced by power-balancing strategies, you will be able to witness this deep engagement with life that kids have instinctively. You'll become someone who "sees it" when they walk into a Sudbury-model school, and you'll want to help grow a school that supports kids' in-born drive to grow up.
The walk-and-talk meets Monday at 7:00 in front of City Hall, and we begin walking at 7:15.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Power and Expectations
The theme of this Monday's walk-and-talk is the effect of adult-child power imbalances, and in particular their effect on expectations. This is part of September's larger theme, an investigation of power dynamics at a Sudbury-model school.
Historically, power imbalances have had a large effect on expectations. For example, a common belief among white people, when people of colour had no power, was that people of colour were inferior, to the point where they were better off as slaves, being told where to be and what to do.
As another example, a common belief among men, when women had no power, was that women were inferior, to the point where they were better of staying in the kitchen, being told where to be and what to do.
There was a time when even liberal-minded white people believed that getting off the farm would only work "for some negroes", and there was a time when even liberal-minded men believed that getting out of the kitchen would only work "for some women".
Due to power imbalances, people with power had very low expectations about the abilities of people without power.
The parallel with children need hardly be drawn. The question is, is the parallel true? Is it true that children in general are vastly better off out of the classroom, no longer being told where to be and what to do?
Naturally, as a school founder, I believe that the Sudbury model has demonstrated this to be true. My expectation for kids is high. What's interesting for me is how other people's expectations remain low, even after seeing a successful school. It parallels the common belief among white people back in the day that "sure, Joe Negro is okay, but he's an exception." Expectations can remain low by using outdated measurements, like judging empowered women by how many kids they raise and how good their quiche is.
Women and people of colour were restricted by a culture of low expectations. Children will find in a Sudbury-model school a place where their potential is matched by our expectations.
The walk-and-talk meets Monday at 7:00 in front of City Hall, and we begin walking at 7:15.
Historically, power imbalances have had a large effect on expectations. For example, a common belief among white people, when people of colour had no power, was that people of colour were inferior, to the point where they were better off as slaves, being told where to be and what to do.
As another example, a common belief among men, when women had no power, was that women were inferior, to the point where they were better of staying in the kitchen, being told where to be and what to do.
There was a time when even liberal-minded white people believed that getting off the farm would only work "for some negroes", and there was a time when even liberal-minded men believed that getting out of the kitchen would only work "for some women".
Due to power imbalances, people with power had very low expectations about the abilities of people without power.
The parallel with children need hardly be drawn. The question is, is the parallel true? Is it true that children in general are vastly better off out of the classroom, no longer being told where to be and what to do?
Naturally, as a school founder, I believe that the Sudbury model has demonstrated this to be true. My expectation for kids is high. What's interesting for me is how other people's expectations remain low, even after seeing a successful school. It parallels the common belief among white people back in the day that "sure, Joe Negro is okay, but he's an exception." Expectations can remain low by using outdated measurements, like judging empowered women by how many kids they raise and how good their quiche is.
Women and people of colour were restricted by a culture of low expectations. Children will find in a Sudbury-model school a place where their potential is matched by our expectations.
The walk-and-talk meets Monday at 7:00 in front of City Hall, and we begin walking at 7:15.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
