Seven Sins of Our System of Forced Education?

"School is prison" argues Peter Gray in his article 'Seven Sins of Our System of Forced Education'

I read an article this morning that forced me to think about the shortcomings of the compulsory education system. You can check out Peter Gray's article here

Gray claims that compulsory education is literally a prison and amounts to incarceration of children who have done nothing to deserve such treatment.

A couple of general things to note before I continue:

• My personal experience does not match the author of this article. Peter Gray is focusing on his own personal experiences with the public education system in the US, and is also an alleged expert in the psychology of education (he has been awarded a PhD). Whereas I attended both public and private schools in Australia and have no formal qualification in teaching (yet!). Those are some major differences!
• The rhetoric of the article is that of logic/quantitative measures - the focus is placed on literal meanings of words as opposed to figurative meanings, among other things. I find it hard not to be critical of articles that are written in such a blatantly authoritative manner - "I know what I'm talking about because I have a PhD and have worked in this industry for decades" - and make no (or very little) attempt to leave room for opinions which differ from their own. I think most people have experienced the mental 'recoil' from reading an article that is written with a perspective so different from their own. During the act of reading, it can be difficult for readers to separate their own views with the influential position of the focalised 'voice' of the author, and as a result the potential number of interpretations of what has been written are effectively limited (but I digress!)
• There are a whole lot of specifics built into any system, regardless of its imperative of homogeneity. For example, I had to stop myself from using the term "the school system" in this blog post because it is actually not a fixed concept: what it means to me as an Australian, a Westerner, an educated woman can be quite different to what it means to someone else of a different gender, country, cultural or political context.

So what did I think of the article? I had mixed feelings, and I wonder how much of that has to do with the fact that the author's worldview seems radically different to my own.

There are a couple of things that I can certainly agree with:

• the type of school system described by Gray is certainly not suitable for everyone (or indeed most people!) It is a one-size-fits-all system that one could argue reduces the process of learning to a system (or set of procedures) that allow society to efficiently 'administer' it. It is therefore inherently general, often treating individuals as if they are homogeneous.
• the notion that "fear prevents learning". I believe this to be true - in fact, I find it hard to believe that anyone can thrive in a negative environment, regardless of what it is that they're trying to achieve. On the other side of this, I have observed first-hand how playful learning environments can be very beneficial for promoting and facilitating learning.

On the other hand, there are a few things that I cannot agree with (or at least, not wholly):

• The suggestion made by Gray that the school system (as he sees it) forces children to privilege their own needs and success at the expense of others. This does not entirely match with my own experiences of school. Sure, in high school, quite a few of the kids in my grade were very competitive and went to great lengths to 'engineer' some kind of advantage for themselves. However, I witnessed (and also personally experienced) a few kids who were actually concerned about helping others who were struggling, or even those that were not, thereby creating a culture of cooperation. One specific example that I can think of is where one student became a 'proxy' maths teacher for others in the class (who were sadly at the mercy of a hopeless teacher in their final year of high school). This meant that particular student took the time to explain concepts to others in their class, worked through 'problems' together and encouraged others to contribute their own methods for learning the concepts more easily. Contrary to Gray's assumption, this scenario did not disadvantage those who were willing to help others: amazingly it assisted (and reinforced) their own learning. It is extremely difficult to teach others a concept without first having an adequate understanding of it. Also, the discourse of 'active learning' suggests that the more ways you can 'translate' a concept (written, speech, visual, collaboratively) the better your understanding of said concept. Take that, Gray! :)
• Gray's claim that 'compulsory education' and 'choice' are mutually exclusive. This is especially true when Gray claims that the word compulsory means that there is absolutely no choice in the matter. The fact that he later contradicts himself, admitting that there are alternatives to compulsory education (homeschooling etc), is not surprising. In contrast to his view, I believe that there is always an element of choice when it comes to educating individuals (whether that be the choice to 'homeschool' or enrol in a 'mainstream' school, the choice of school attended, the choice of extracurricular activities that facilitate similar or different types of learning). What I am getting at, is that when I think about education, I see a fair amount of choice involved (albeit limited in some ways).
• Gray emphasises the unfairness of grouping children based on their age. He also condemns preventing children from developing 'cooperation and nurturance' through sustained contact with younger children. The problem for me here is again one of excessive generalisation. Whilst I agree that some children benefit more from the influence of older and/or younger children, I also believe that kids can learn things that are just as valuable from their similarly-aged peers (who may be at similar stages of growth and development). I don't believe that children's development of 'nurturance and cooperation' are as inhibited by a school setting as Gray claims. What about children who choose to play with older or younger children at play times, or who experience school 'structures' that intentionally group together children of all different age groups? Failing that, what about the children who 'look out' for others of their own age group? Most people have witnessed bullying amongst their peers, and in some cases there is a child (or more than one) who is willing to step in to 'protect' that victimised child. Is that not nurturing?

I could go on and on and on, but I won't. The most important thing that this article provided me with was the chance to interrogate my own views associated with learning and to come to some conclusions about what I feel is most important when attempting to facilitate quality learning. No doubt I'll get a chance to try to put these ideas into action some day soon!