This guy clearly enunciates what I have long thought about math education. It shouldn't be about learning hand calculations; it should be about learning the larger concepts.

It's interesting to look at a culture as an outsider.

I've been watching several different documentary television shows in the past couple days which involve a glimpse into the life of British children.

I feel a very strong kinship with the UK. Watching the BBC helps me learn a lot about my own culture... and myself. I love the ethic of reasoning which the British have when they talk about things. I can talk to a Brit for hours about deep ideas. However, as an outsider, there are things one sees that the society is doing wrong. And typically in that case, the mindset of people is that the solution to their problems lies in the opposite direction of where it really does.

There's a reality tv series called "The world's strictest parents" which takes British teenagers who have fallen out with their parents and who are just biding their time until they can leave home, and places them for a week with families in other countries. The latest one had a couple of teens from different families staying together with a very Christian family near Orlando Florida.

It's interesting how these British television producers think that we in the USA are especially "strict" with our kids. That's the word which they would use to describe the authoritative approach that parents use in the USA.

I was in Germany as exchange student for my senior year of high school years ago... and I remember this same cultural thing we see in Britain, where many if not most kids get alienated from their parents in their teen years, and become very rebellious. My appraisal of this, would be that early in their children's lives, British parents and teachers are authoritarian in their approach to children. When parents are hard on kids when they're young, using corporal punishment and an authoritarian approach, that emotional bond with the child never can take root. They burn the social bridge with the child. The kids resolve bitterly in their hearts that they will find their own way in life, and their parents are not going to tell them what to do.

Ironically, it appears British parents and caregivers and teachers believe that the answer for raising better kids is to be stricter... when that's not true. There's a very good American series of books about parenting called the "Love and Logic". They teach the same kind of things to parents that I learned when I was working on my Early Childhood Education certification in Oregon, years ago. I wish British parents and teachers would learn about this ethic - this way of raising children. The two parenting styles that research says are not effective are

1. The Authoritarian style, where you tell kids "Do what I say, because I said so." These kind of parents might use corporal punishment.

2. The Laissez-faire style - where kids are given no structure, or guidance, and allowed to completely make all the mistakes they will make

3. The child guidance style which is preferred, is called by many names... but my teachers at the university called it "Authoritative." This is a very hands on approach to raising children. When a child is a toddler, he basically gets an adult hovering over him all the time. The parent is there to facilitate the child's activities... to help him explore the world, and to be there to teach and to nurture. The child is waited on hand and foot when he's very young. The adult sets limits and removes a young child from situations where he is not handling himself well. The adult clearly explains why it's ok to act in manner x but not in manner y. This is now the most common parenting style in the USA. In return for all this attention and help and love, the child offers her or his obedience and affection and admiration. In this way the adult remains the respected authority figure and role model well into the child's teen years.

It's fascinating how the producers of this television show seemed to believe that this firm but gentle parenting style had to do with the Florida family's Christian religion. It doesn't. It's an American style of child rearing. And the children buy into it, because of the love and nurture they receive from the parents. This kind of child guidance technique facilitates quite a meaningful emotional bond between the parent and the child.

British society would become so much more cordial, friendly, and happy overall... if they would switch over to this other parenting style.

The problem I think that's there, is that there are certain scientific models about children's minds and the way children learn in the USA that undergird this model of parenting when the child is very young which are unpalatable to Brits. The idea of the "developing mind" is the model that young US parents believe and it necessitates them spending so much time and energy with their kids when they're very young. It also is the root of the idea that young kids are not entirely responsible for their actions... and so there's warmth and forgiveness even when the small child does something bad.

I believe that British people see their own kids as being a lot smarter than the level of intelligence American parents would assign to their progeny. So there would have to be another parallel body of research which leads to slightly adjusted premises that would encourage UK parents and caregivers to change their child guidance style.

One can also look at this the other way around, however. I believe that having what I would consider to be a "tough childhood" might be one of major things that makes British people so very intelligent. Necessity is the mother of invention, and if you need to be resourceful, and if you are given a lot independence from an early age and allowed to make a lot of mistakes and learn from them... hmmm... it's quite possible that this wonderful sensible British character is forged in that crucible. No other anglophone country seems to have this character trait with people who so universally believe in reasoning together about things when they talk.

I think that the sheltered American childhood where kids are thought to be very dumb... kind of creates a self-fulfilling prophecy (my apologies to any American readers for my broad generalization), where teens grow up into adulthood not really not knowing how to reason with others well, or how to plan and execute projects as efficiently as folks would, in a place like the UK.

So, it's important that in thinking about strategies for raising children, we look around and take the best of what each society has to offer in their traditions and techniques.

Personally, I've clearly seen the very bad effects of corporal punishment on children. It saddens me that there isn't currently a budding body of research about this, amongst educators and child psychologists.

I've worked with small groups of kids in many different settings. And what I've seen is that regular spanking of small children can cause a couple different outcomes. The child can become hyperactive - in other words, the child becomes squirrely, because this behavior is a way to get the parent in a better mood, and avoid the slap for awhile.

I've also seen elementary school kids who become bullies of their peers in school, and the neighbor kids - because that's what they're learning from their unwitting parent. The kids are learning that you ought to impose morality on others using physical agression.

Sweden outlawed spanking or smacking of kids in 1979. The law is very well written, in that it doesn't provide for any punishment of perpetrators. However, if what the parent did to the child can be defined as assault, there are laws which come into effect there.

Here's a great explanation about the Swedish policy by Adrienne Haeuser

One problem which seems to be prevalent in Australian schools - violence. According to a Queensland schools website - 16,000 kids in the state were suspended at one point or another last year because of physical aggression.

Here's a news report from Adelaide - a city in South Australia:

I have been enrolled in a teacher education program at my local university this last few months, and for one of the projects, I was asked to research and present on another country. I decided to check out the education system of a country which has caught my interest recently - Australia.

I was really impressed with what I learned - that Australia has a constructivist pedagogy - students learn things in a hands-on way. And they take this all the way up through high school - so that vocational skills are really focused on a lot in their upper grades.

Australian teachers also seem to have a profound respect for children's intellect. They believe that children are reasonable people, and that they can achieve great things right now. It's very refreshing, and certainly parallels my view on children which I had thought was very unusual, until I saw that all of Australia seems to see things the same way.

More specifically, the pedagogy folks have in Australia is what they call "Outcomes Based Education." Australians would contrast that with what we have in the USA - they call our system "Standards based education." Tests are not as important to Australian educators as they are to usa educators. The main goal in the Australian education system is to prepare the kids for real life - whereas the main goal in the usa system is to make certain kids have a basic competency in academic areas like science, and math and social studies, and so forth.

Here are some films which I found particularly inspirational - of Australian schools and Australian kids. You can see the spark of intelligence in the kids which you usually don't see in American kids. I attribute that to the better pedagogy (teaching style) of Australian educators.

Does a fish know that the water around it is polluted? When there's a medium in which people live daily, it can be hard to see the forces which are affecting your life. This January I have just enrolled in my local university's education program... and one thing I'm seeing straight away is the very profound sexism which the women (even professors) in the program have towards men. When you talk with them or when they're lecturing, it's like you're looking through a glass wall; they're nice people - but they have a very strong stereotype about men in mind which governs their attitudes around them. I think this sexism directed at men is a problem generally in the Usa, but there isn't this rift between the genders in places like Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or Britain.

This sexism expresses itself as an aimless fear of males... for example, you can see that the woman will have a hard time looking at you in the eye, but will warmly address other women. And it also can be seen as an attitude where men are held to impossible standards. Basically these types of unreasonable people will move the goal posts, and so it doesn't matter how kindhearted or civil you are... they will always see you through the eyes of their stereotype.

Of course, the teaching profession in the Usa is primarily dominated by women. Women will teach what they know. No matter how much feminists will try to shout down those who are "talking about stereotypes" - what I see around me is that by and large women are seeking the life of an aesthete. They want to find a husband to share a house with, so that they can have a lot of time for themselves. The women then, as adults, have time to read, and to appreciate art, and to do all those things. They believe in selflessness and caring and sharing. And these are the values that they try to instill in kids in school. Unfortunately, this kind of thing does not prepare boys very well for their future lives as adults at all. Boys, by and large, are going to need to go out into the world when they grow up and be a part of the quid pro quo system of the economy. They are going to need to have the stamina to work 40 hour workweeks their entire life. There are, these days, very few older women who want to date younger men to be their sugar momma. We men don't have the luxury of being aesthetes.

As a boy, I was a devout student (and I use the religious reference on purpose). I believed in all the values that my teachers were trying to instill in us. I remember that middle school was a wonderful time for me, because all of a sudden, we were finally getting on with the task of being real students - something that our teachers had us only play at doing for the previous six years. As I return to the university, and immerse myself in this education program, and as I go out to do my field study at local schools, I reflect on that time of my childhood. I remember how I discovered, as a young adult, that the real world was a very different place. And I was ill equipped to deal with it.

What we need, is for more men to go into the teaching profession. I think that we need to have some effort on the part of community groups to get this happening. Young women have lots of support in this area - mothers and aunts and grandmothers encourage their young girls to consider this career. The only men who seem to enter early childhood or elementary school programs though, are folks who stumble in, after realising on their own that they have this ability to bond with kids.

In the middle school classroom the other day, I saw this same social effect I saw in my peers when I was that age. I saw that the boys were like ships embarking on a trip across the ocean without a keel or a rudder. They were all set to embark on their journey into manhood using the stereotypes of what masculinity is as a guide.

Back on the university campus later that day, I reflected on the fact that young adulthood is that time when reality comes to call, and these men realise that they can't act out in that way that they used to as teens - it just doesn't work in the real world. These men have a rebirth so to speak, as they embark on the lonely job of making a life for themselves.

This past week, in one class we've seen a couple of films on the history of schools in the Usa. The thing that strikes me as the best model of those we have seen in the films is the system pioneered by William Wirt in Gary, Indiana. Kids there learned by doing - and they were engaged in all manner of activities from swimming, to cooking, to doing the school newspaper, to mechanics, and all these other practical skills. Former students of that school system there who were interviewed had nothing but great things to say about the school. It became a model for educators from all over the world. Unfortunately, as is all too common in the Usa, there was an unreasoning pushback from conspiracy theorists who believed that the school was trying to "prepare cheap labour for factories" - there was a riot and that style of schooling was abandoned. Parents wanted their students to focus on book learning, instead. They all wanted their kids to go on to be doctors and lawyers, and such. These parents had absolutely no understanding of how our economy works. Consumers choose which things they will support with their income - intellectual elites don't make that call. There is no way to make a decent income as an artist, or a writer, or a musician. Consumers don't pay for those things. They go to the library to get books, and they download music for free off the internet. Consumers pay for household goods, and heating oil, and car repairs - so that's where the job opportunities are going to be.

This is an interesting npr article about how educated parents are much more likely to have autistic children than uneducated parents:

• Listen to the article at npr.org

The folks talking about the topic come to a conclusion which is a fairly standard misconception: "Other kids must have the illness and are just slipping through the cracks."

I remember at the university, the field that offended me the most was the field of psychology - and especially developmental psychology. There are some really serious flaws in the way that these people reason about how the mind works. The best way I can approach talking about this is to say that the mind is not static - it's dynamic. The mind is not a thing that can be studied like a rock. It can't be broken apart and it's nature understood by looking at its component parts. People are dynamic - they have wills, they have perspectives and worldviews. And they act within that world which they see around them.

The absolutely worst thing you can do to anybody - a child, a spouse, or even yourself - is to believe that the person "has a problem." A hindrance can exist, ineptitude can exist, a puzzle can exist - but to say you have "a problem" is to adopt the belief that you have a quality about your person that makes you unable to excel, or to succeed in your endeavors. And this is simply not true.

The worst kind of problem you can believe that you have - is a problem thinking - a problem with your mind. If you believe you can't think or reason well - that will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, so to speak. You need to have faith in your fundamental ability to think, in order to do it halfway decently, and to learn how to do it better. That's how the mind works. Think about this one: if a person were swimming across a lake, and were to suddenly doubt his or her ability to swim - what would happen? That person might drown. If you have no faith in your ability, you cannot pursue the task - and this kind of task is a very important undertaking - and in that case, one's immediate well being depends on keeping your head above water, and reaching the other shore. And so, I reason that placing a label on a child is one of the most abusive things adults can do to that child. Parents need to believe in their children. They need to see them as those who are changing and growing and coming into their own. Now, certainly there are special circumstances where a child has a serious developmental problem - cerebral palsy, for example... but those are very rare situations.

This is a very interesting interview with a New Zealand educator in a secondary school who is talking about a way in which he deals with bullies in the classroom. Basically, he gets a team together which involves two of the worst bullies, and two of the more popular kids who hadn't been doing anything about the problem before that point. Those four people are an "undercover" team which is instituted to resolve the problem of bullying in the classroom.

He's had a 100% success rate with 27 teams which he has set up like this, over the years.

The reason this is something that's on the news in New Zealand, is because New Zealanders don't have this belief that is prevalent in the Usa where it's thought that there are a group of bad and irredeemable people out there, who are genetically predisposed to bad behavior.

New Zealand has a much tamer frame of reference which says that people may have bad character, but that character can change over time.

• Listen to the interview (8 megabyte mp3 audio)

One of my favourite movies of all time is this 1968 British version of Oliver Twist. I watched my DVD of it again, last night, and then I was delighted to see that someone had posted the first half of it (the best part, in my opinion) on youtube.

I'd like to share it with you.

If you want to watch the entire first half of the film, touch on the title text of this post, or here. For part five, you'll have to go to youtube. I don't know why, but the person who uploaded the film disabled embedding for that one scene.

The opening credits are here:

I was reading a short children's novel today because this winter I am helping to direct a play which is based on the book. I haven't read a fiction novel for many years. Instead, I read a lot of articles on the internet about the latest scientific discoveries, and news from various parts of the world. The last novel I read a few years ago, to reminisce about my childhood, was EB White's trumpeter of the Swan... before that, the last one would have been Peter Pan in 1992. I was a voracious reader as a child, and my mother was very curious about why I didn't want to read when I became an adult and left the nest. I told her I wanted to just live life, and not read about it. In recent years, my reason would have been slightly different, but similar - I wanted to look at the world, and learn about it - not look through the funhouse mirror/lens of someone else's perspective on the world.

I was pleasantly surprised though, with how much I learned from reading this very simple story. It's called "the best christmas pageant ever" by Barbara Robinson. It's a very trite and simplistic story based around a traditional event which happens in churches all across the country on christmas night. The author is clearly a very face-value kind of person, and she writes from within that sort of perspective about the world. The fact that she used such a stock narrative, and a stock set of characters (some children who interact with eachother both at school and at church) gave me a lot of insight into this mindset that is so foreign to me - that of the person who just sees the world as being a self evident place.

Particularly fascinating, was a character where the author was able to show her own feelings towards the smarty pants kid in class. This rift I have written about between reasoners, and face-value people happens early - even in elementary school. In this story, there is a character named Alice who is misconstrued as being arrogant. And she becomes the one character in the book who the whole school makes fun of. No one else suffers that level of unanimous reaction from the kids on the playground.

I was volunteering at a school a couple of years ago... and it was so interesting to encounter this very effect the moment I walked into that fourth grade classroom. The first thing that one of the boys said to me was that his peer who was right next to us was "gay." The boy who was the brunt of this social attack was very good natured about it. He smiled when he heard his classmate say that. But what do you think it does to a person to have that constant battering from your classmates throughout your twelve years of school? Different smart kids would exhibit different effects from this kind of constant abuse during their young years. But unless they're really agile, socially, and know how to pick their friends wisely, they will suffer these kinds of social problems. It's bad for their social development.

A young male teenager I was working with this last spring on a different community theatre play also had the same kind of senseless teasing and indignation which had developed around him from the other teens. He was ready to quit the play at one point, because of it. I had to address the older teenage girls pointedly and tell them they were being sexist in how they talked about boys.

That's only one of several thoughts that came to me as I had the pleasure of diving into this woman's mindset for the morning. That mindset of the face-value kind of person who sees the world as being self evident, is one of these last pieces of the puzzle, and I found two or three big models about the social dynamics in the world around me, crystallise in my mind today as I read this book.

I also had some big epiphanies about the field of political science, the beginnings of both the christian religion and the buddhist religion, how women's perspective on men has shifted between the original publication date of the book (1972), and today, and I also had a thought about the nature of love.

Here's to reading, I suppose.