Response to Smith, Part III, Ch. 6 "Undermining Traditional Wisdom"

Smith begins this part of his book with a discussion of how the offical theory of learning was something that was consciously invented. By contrast, the traditional theory of learning is something organic and natural, that many of us would call common sense or conventional wisdom. He states: "Learning can be effortless, continual, permanent--and also pleasant--though it won't take place in the absense of comprehension, interest or confidence" (p. 43). This is probably something we have all experienced: learning something without explicitly trying, but just by picking it up because we were interested. I know, for example, that personally, the breadth of my vocabulary was acquired simply by reading pretty extensively, and reading glorious words used by the likes of Austen or Eliot or Atwood. Sure, I studied vocab for the GRE back in '96, but there are just a couple words from that endeavor that I learned for good ("loquatious" or "ascetic") rather than from good ol' books.

One concern I have with this section of Smith's work is the idealization of a time when children were laborers with no choice in intellectual activity or profession. He writes "if you wanted the child to become a farmer, or a farm laborer, you put the child on the land as soon as possible. If you wanted your child to fish for a living, you sent them to sea. If you wanted them to have religious vocations you sent them to a convent or monastery...." (44). This is not a learning of freedom, but a learning of innate boundaries and confines. You became a butcher because your father was a butcher and his father was before him. Does Smith actually think that those were better times? Don't we now believe that children should have the freedom of childhood play and a lack of responsibility and protection under the law from laboring to earn wages? While I save every month for my very young sons' possible futures as college students, they will have the freedom to forgo college (hopefully they won't call me on it, because of course I would prefer them to go on with a post-secondary education) where they may study what they please. And they certainly are not expected to become teacher/professors like their mom and dad. (Though I've noticed that professions do tend to run in families, as my sister-in-law has become a 3rd generation lawyer).

An issue that I experienced firsthand relates to the "Prussion Connection" section, where Smith expounds against the separation of children by age into grades, contrary to the one-room schoolhouse approach. It is true that separating by age can be unnatural. At the beginning of gr. 2, I was 6 years old, having not had my birthday yet, since it's Nov. 30. Because my school board's cut-off ages were based on the calendar year, January birthdays were the oldest in classrooms and December the youngest. So I was always almost the youngest in my classroom. Well, at the beginning of gr. 2 it became obvious to my teacher and principal that I already knew all the curriculum for the year. What to do with me? The principal suggested moving me up to gr. 3. My mother was unsure; I was already on the young side. Would this have negative effects on my social abilities? But she didn't want me to be bored, a bigger risk in her opinion. So, up I went to gr. 3 at the age of 6, where most of the other kids were 8. My smart teacher paired me up at a desk with the tiniest girl in the class, also very high functioning, and we became fast friends. In fact, I am still good friends with this girl, after all these years. (But, there were issues in high school when I was 12...)

Long story short, my parents made the right decision in moving me up a grade. And it just goes to show that putting a child in a group with children all the same age does not necessarily make for a good fit. How should we make our classes? By ability? But wouldn't that be a problem for streaming children into "gifted" or "average" or "learning difficulties" paths with the attached stigmas and/or privileges? I know that Montessori schools have children 3-5 together at the beginning, but then do they move to traditionally organized grades by age (e.g. Gr. 1is 6 year olds, gr. 2 is 7 year olds, etc)?