By Tom Dodge, KERA 90.1 Commentator
http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/kera/local-kera-512015.mp3
Dallas, TX –
In his essay, "On the Education of Children," Montaigne wrote that "Cubs of bears and puppies readily discover their natural inclinations; but (we)...often take great pains, and consume a good part of our time in training up children to things, for which by their natural constitution, they are totally unfit." Our government's mandate that all children must learn the same things is an example of this.
Such a system discounts children's personal interests and abilities. Critics say that, left to their own preferences, children will study only sports, fashions, celebrities, and other trivialities. But not necessarily. What about the child who's interested only in microscopic organisms, computer animation, or black holes? If this child is encouraged to go as far as possible in these fields, to the temporary exclusion of everything else, would this mean the end of Western Civilization? Or would it simply mean that these would be a very knowledgeable kid on one of these subjects?
Our modern oracle, Charles Shultz, addressed this problem in one of his Peanuts comic strips. Sally, the little golden-tressed member of the Peanuts gang, is at work at her desk, dutifully and enthusiastically answering exam questions in her elementary school:
"Question number one: What is the capital of Cameroun? Answer: when I grow up, I am going to be a hair dresser, and hair dressers obviously don't have to know such things.
Question number two: What is the length of the Rio Grand River? Answer: When I grow up, I will also probably be a housewife, and could not care less about the length of the Rio Grande River.
Question number three: What is the name of the largest pyramid? Answer: When I grow up I will undoubtedly be a member of the smart set. We members of the smart set rarely discuss such things as pyramids. This is an easy test..."
Okay. We learn from this cartoon that Sally knows what she wants. She's going to be the Charles Schultz of hairdressers. So many people have probably complimented her on her beautiful hair that she knows becoming a hairdresser is her destiny. So what are the results of forcing Sally to focus on other subjects in which she has no interest or aptitude? Paul Bowles wrote in his autobiography, Without Stopping, that he soon accepted the fact that in school, "I would always be kept from doing what I enjoyed and forced to do that which I did not...Thus I became an expert in the practice of deceit."
Despite Sally's lack of interest in her classes, she is probably capable of succeeding in them. Many children, it's true, cannot. But all children, except for those with extreme learning disabilities, can learn in subjects in which they are interested. Michael J.A. Howe in his book, Fragments of Genius, described children who have no ability to succeed in school as it is now constructed yet have extraordinary skills in mathematics, music, or art. Others have skills in tables and calendars.
The Dallas Morning News columnist Steve Blow wrote of one of these, an employee of the Dallas Dart Train system. He works the telephone, answering calls regarding the train schedule with all its times, routes and changes. He memorized the entire schedule.
Most children have interests. Unlike Sally, however, they haven't learned they can think outside the mandate.
If you have opinions or rebuttals about this commentary, call (214) 740-9338 or email us.
More government issues and election coverage from KERA's Voter's Voice