Flat Thinking in a Three-Dimensional World
Or Rather
Three-Dimensional Thinking in a Flat World
by
Linda
Schrock Taylor
by Linda Schrock Taylor
My
son faced so many frustrations during his three and a half years
in public schooling, many of which caused permanent changes – in
attitude, in Faith, in perception, in trust, in…subtle ways that
we can only address when they unexpectedly appear; in ways that
we have no power to change.
The
issue that affected him most deeply was the school's negative response
to his inventive and creative intelligence. His first grade teacher
was wonderful about applauding and encouraging him to use his skills.
In the other grades his innate intelligence was mostly ignored,
discounted, or actively discouraged. The principal and I met on
several occasions as I complained about David's
experiences in that public school. Too often my concerns were
'solved' by the principal again encouraging David to "Just be patient.
When you are in third grade, you can join Odyssey of the Mind."
At least it was something towards which he could look forward
since he still wasn't permitted to check out any chapter books from
the library. (The principal admitted that the standardized tests
showed David to be reading at an 11th grade level in
2nd grade, but the school rule held – no child
would be allowed to choose more advanced books until third grade.)
Third
grade arrived, along with broader library privileges and auditions
for OM. OM – Odyssey of the Mind – holds organized competitions
during which school teams, supposedly chosen because of strong academic
and problem-solving abilities, meet to display their solutions to
problems they were given in advance. In addition they solve problems
that are not revealed until the day of the competition. We all knew
that David would be excellent at such intellectual, inventive sport,
and at working within time constraints, so we patiently waited.
David
explained the audition: The children were put into small teams.
Each team was given a small stack of papers – squares that had been
cut from construction paper. The teams were instructed to build
the highest tower possible. His team members put the thin pieces
of paper on top of each other, making a tower about 1/8 inch
high. They stared at it in confusion, unable to think of another
way to stack the flat sheets. David began folding the pieces of
paper into shapes, bending corners to make 'legs' and soon had a
tall structure. When I picked him up following the auditions, he
felt positive about his chances but shocked at the flat-thinking
of his schoolmates.
David
failed to win a spot on an OM team, while the flat-tower
thinkers survived the cuts. When I requested feedback regarding
the votes against David, I was told that he was not chosen because
"He was not a team player." "But, Mom..." I had no way to console
a very intelligent child who lost out in a competition supposedly
organized to reward creativity and innovation when it was very probable
that he has lost out because he was creative and innovative!
I suspect that his creative solution to the problem posed was just
too embarrassing to the other participants, especially those on
his own team.
Since
he was never sure which teachers had voted against him, David never
again trusted adults at that school. Even though we pulled him out
of there a month or two later, he never again auditioned for OM;
not even at the Christian school. He had learned to protect himself
against adult opinions. He has never lost that cynical and often
negative expectation of what others may do. He gives little credence
to the ability of most others to accurately judge skills and efforts.
It is sometimes difficult for us, as parents, to advise him. Although
it looks as though he is just being bull-headed, in actually it
is his defense mechanism that developed under the dumbed-down, all-children-should-have-equal-talents
philosophy that controls too much that passes for pedagogy in too
many of today's schools.
Of
course I will always believe that the teachers were angry with me
for challenging poor curricular choices and ineffective teaching
methods. I will always, and probably rightfully, suspect that they
took their disapproval of me out on my child. After noticing that
students with delayed or mediocre academic and/or thought-processing
skills had made the teams, my theory has even more validity.
David's
distrust of adults in that school was repeatedly reinforced. One
day he arrived home upset and explained that he was "in trouble."
When I asked what he had done wrong, he repeated the explanation
that he had been given, "You are not supposed to trade." (Huh??)
Right! He had taken his Pogs (toy pieces resembling the old milk
bottle tops) to school then at recess he and another boy sat on
a bench and "traded Pogs" since David had doubles of one color;
the other boy had doubles of another. David's Pogs had been confiscated
by the recess aide (who was also the librarian who would not let
him check out chapter books) and the aide had informed him that
she would keep the Pogs "until you tell your mother what you have
done." I instructed him to go to her the next day, report that the
deed had been accomplished – that he had indeed informed me of what
had occurred – and to then collect his belongings.
He
delivered my message, but arrived home minus-Pogs. When he told
the aide that I had been made aware of his "offense" she had said,
"You can't have them unless your mother comes in for parent-teacher
conferences." I phoned the principal and demanded three explanations:
why trading was an offense; why an aide changed the conditions
for the return of the items – conditions that she, herself
had set; why an aide was given such power over my child. I was directed
to the school handbook where it was noted that no trading was allowed.
It was explained that sometimes children trade away their belongings
and that is upsetting to some parents, so no children would
be permitted to be involved in such activities (mentally cripple
and punish all equally).
I
expressed my concerns that such a policy would prevent children
from gaining life experiences that would prepare them to trade cars,
sell a home... I believed that I already knew the underlying reason
for such a school rule: if people understand and use their right
to trade, exchanges will be done under the radar of the tax
collectors. The State certainly does not want individual bartering
to continue. If the State cannot stop American adults from exchanging
goods and services "under the table" then the State's focus must
switch to brainwashing the next generations into believing
that they have no right to strike deals with consenting individuals,
groups or companies.
I
informed the principal that I would be at the school the next day
to collect my son's Pogs, and that the woman had better release
them to me without any difficulties. Instead, the next morning the
principal personally delivered them to me at the building where
I taught.
Mustn't
have any open challenges to school rules, now should we? I began
looking at other schooling options.
 April
11, 2005
Linda
Schrock Taylor [send
her mail] is an educational
consultant, homeschooling mom, and public school special ed teacher.
She is available for presentations, inservices, and workshops.
Copyright
© 2005 LewRockwell.com
Linda
Schrock Taylor Archives
|
