Discuss: Unplugged Schools

Mr. Berg, I enjoyed your insights immenseIy, so much so I was inspired to re-read the Monke piece over again a half dozen more times. 

In my original comments on Monke’s piece I believe I made considerable commentary that went beyond my brief invocation of neo-Ludditism.  I believe you have gotten stuck on my invocation and ignored the rest of my commentary regarding the real need for technology in schools for certain types of kids, kids that even a Monke-esque unplugged school would exclude and alienate because of it’s bias against technology.  In his article, Monke never once considers the value of technology for kids who, even in previously text-based eras, are iconic wired. So, in light of my substantial comments, my charge of neo-Ludditism stands separate from Mr. Warren’s impassionated comparison. 

You bring up Waldorf, which is interesting, in as much as Monke only briefly mentions it; in like manner he barely mentions advocating some sort of aware or mindful use of technology in schooling, other than to perhaps suggest begrudgingly that tech cannot totally be avoided (presumably because of us bad mechanistic tech-types out there who will only get in his way).  My own experience with Waldorf schools, at least the more orthodox theosophic campuses, is that their eschewing of, and moral judgments against, technologies is anything but an open-minded approach.  I would agree with you that Waldorf should be investigated for it’s utility in an unplugged or alternative school model but that it also isn’t a panacea.

When reading the article again, I still get that Monke’s primary and substantial goal is to rid schools of all technology, period, and not to seek some sort of balance.  That’s not acceptable to me, as someone who knows and has lived experience in both a highly mechanized a-technological school and a minimally mechanized, technologically lush school environment.  That Monke wants to wisely consider the effect of tech on students as well as the use of tech by students doesn’t seem to counter act his highly judgmental language against all technology in schools.  When I see continual use of words like “abuse,” “mechanistic,” and an overall frame that is casting a decidely negative moral judgment on technology per se, I’m not inclined to believe a momentary disclaimer purporting to be supportive of a some sort of wise use of tech in schools.  The devil for me lies in his framing of the issue(s). 

Based on his words, Monke’s unplugged havens still feel, to me, like oppressive backward basements that will only hold human potential back rather than propell it to actualization.  And frankly, it is my experience that the current industrial-standards-based model of schooling is no better.  Unplugging them isn’t nearly the proper direction nor is it enough to ameliorate a flawed foundation for education.

Mr. Page,

You are right to call me on that, I was much more focused on Mr. Warren’s response and should not have addressed you in the same way, sorry.

I believe the crucial point to be made in any case is that technology needs to be considered, evaluated, used, and restricted within a framework that focuses on the states of mind that result. As you point out there are a lot of children who can benefit greatly from appropriate use of technology. When any method, philosophy, or technology becomes a panacea that is applied in a one-size-fits-all manner then we are bound to be putting someone in danger.

If the framing of the educational enterprise is mechanical and driven by symbol manipulation as Monke suggests then it will be difficult to avoid the same problems. The foundation needs to be the states of mind that the system produces as I explained in the blog post I referenced. Since we access optimal states of mind in a variety of ways then schooling that aims for optimal states of mind will necessarily have to provide a greater variety of options.

As an individual (and educator) who has become increasingly distressed by the disconnect that people have with the world around them, it was a joy to read an article that put my thoughts to paper so well! I have often commented with concern about the fact that it is becoming increasingly more simple to conduct business of almost any kind without human contact. It is disturbing to see the effects this and the maelstrom of media has had on the younger generations (i.e. studies have shown that nature helps fight ADHD). I hope to help change that by working with others in my school to bring such matters to the attention of our fellow teachers, and the information in your article will definitely help make the case. As my own school increases it’s technology building-wide and considers shifting to an overall technology-themed curriculum this information is more useful than ever! Thank you for adding your informative, intelligent, thoughtful remarks to the public dialogue about such issues.

I thought the article underlined the potential and importance for schools to give experience with (and access to) the natural world.  My third grade students talk about watching tv and playing video games for multiple hours every day.  We know that children, more and more, have lives that are plugged in.  This influences the way they develop on every level.  It makes sense to diversify their experiences, to give them a multitude of lenses from which to see the world. 

I don’t see technology as inherently evil.  I do see that the children I teach have limited opportunities (for the most part) to have open ended exploration of the natural world.  There are many reasons that this is the case.  We live in an urban part of the Bay Area.  Many of the neighborhoods we live in are prohibitively dangerous for students to go outside in.  Not all families value a connection with the natural world.  Not all families have outdoor space attached to where they live.  Children want to play with video games, on computers, and watch tv.  I’m sure there are many reasons I’m not thinking of. 

We know that generations of children are being raised on a diet that is technologically based.  Much of what is technologically based is closed ended.  It tells a person how to think, what to see, how to speak.  One example is the difference between watching a cartoon (closed ended) versus making up a puppet show (open ended).  I think that Monke’s article justifiably argues that access to and exploration of the natural world is an important antidote to the plugged in nature of much of our children’s free time. 

We go to the community garden once a week in my class.  It’s a start.  I’m curious to hear what other public school teachers in urban school settings are doing to give children access to the natural world.

1. They are not “our” schools. Who would attend them if they were not compulsory? Who would pay for them if they were free to choose? Just try “working in the system” to effect change, see what happens in “your” school.
2. Why assume that “school” is a given, a natural force that always must be? Most of the things I am reading here are what was going on before children were kidnapped into indoctrination: children in the world, interacting with people of all ages and in all situations. School put a stop to it. Tinker as you will with “curriculum”, molding of minds, etc., the form is the lesson. School trains (through Skinnerian behavioral training techniques) obedient incomplete fearful humans, herd animals, replacement cogs and consumers for the managed economy. By all means, please, read some actual history of government schooling.

If kids are buried in video/computer games instead of playing baseball, hockey and tag in their neighborhoods, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that they have absolutely no concern over the state of our environment. We sell fantasy as a drug- perhaps because nobody plays in empty cardboard boxes anymore and imagination muscles start to atrophy. The older I get the more I like the good old days when we had nothing to play with but some other kids and some sticks we found. Pro sports, movies, computer gaming, IM ing, cell phones, texting? I’ll take a good game of Hide and Seek on a summer evening any day.

Take heart, Mr. Murray, most kids at my children’s elementary school somehow manage to do both the no-tech and the hi-tech play.  Their imaginations are irrepressible.  Of course, at school, they’re not allowed to play tag, touch sticks or stones or manipulate the sand ("it’s for walking only”, an actual school rule).  The kids still have it more figured out than the fretful and fear-filled adults who lust to control their every move and thought.  Just today I came home to my kids and six others from the neighborhood piling old appliance boxes into a castle.  One kid had his iPod blaring Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture from the tiny speakers he plugged in to add a live soundtrack while they celebrated the finished construct, conducting the orchestra and belting out the melodic themes full voice.  Being unplugged can on occasion use a little plugged-in drama and still be a fine thing.

I really enjoyed reading this article. It took me back to an excerpt I read out of Derrick Jensen’s book “Endgame”.

http://endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/28%20-%20Romantic%20Nihilist.html

He was asked: “What book would you give to every child?”

Jensen answered: “I wouldn’t give them a book. Books are part of the problem: this strange belief that a tree has nothing to say until it is murdered, its flesh pulped, and then (human) people stain this flesh with words. I would take children outside and put them face to face with chipmunks, dragonflies, tadpoles, hummingbirds, stones, rivers, trees, crawdads.

“That said, if you’re going to force me to give them a book, it would be The Wind in the Willows, which I hope would remind them to go outside.”

Children simply need to spend more time outside.