The reason for all this structure is not that it benefits the learner. In reality, it benefits the teacher-as-manager and the administrators in the system. The structure makes it easier for one teacher to teach a one-size-fits-all curriculum to large numbers of same age students. None of the constraints of school are for the benefit of learning - they create a more manageable, homogeneous, efficient platform for teaching a predetermined bit of content.Chapter 3 discusses thinking about thinking. I found the section interesting when the authors talk about the rigidity of the scientific method: learning the steps, learning the definitions of the scientific method vocabulary words. Then they go on to say that "This is not science. Science is about wonder and risk and imagination, not checklists or vocabulary memorization." And chapter 3 ends with, "The deepest problem for us is not technology, nor teaching, nor school bureaucracies -- it's the limits of our own thinking." What are your thoughts on the idea that we (the adults) should get out of our comfort zones, lessen the rigidity of the educational system or how we teach, and give our kids the freedom to be creative, to tinker, to create? Do you feel comfortable doing this? What other thoughts do you have about chapters 2 and 3?
For next week, let's read chapter 4, "What Makes a Good Project?" and chapter 5, "Teaching." Happy reading!