I expected something different from Free to Learn. In this second part, Peter Gray introduces lots of new topics and research done on those topics, and he also recovered some 'old' topics that he had used in the first part and explained them in more detail. After reading and reflecting on the first five chapters of the book, I thought that in the following five chapters Peter Gray was going to be able to convince me of his idea, but it turned out that I disagreed with him even more than in the first part. The morI noticed that he gave examples on people who, either didn't go toe school or attended Sudbury Valley, and ended up going to great colleges, but he never said how they learned skills that aren't learned in many places other than a classroom. "Through play" was as far as his explanations on this subject ever went. e I read, the more I thought that Peter Gray's idea of education is very impacted by his political opinion, and I don't think Tf this a something bad, just as something that denied him a chance to look at what other types of education had to offer.
“Real life is an informal game. The rules are endlessly modifiable and you must do your part to create them. In the end, there are no winners or losers; we all wind up in the same place. Getting along with others is far more important than bu play the game, how much fun you have along the way, and how much joy you give to others.” I think this is very true. However, this doesn’t mean that formal (adult-led) games are bad for children on any way, in fact I think they are also useful for a child’s development, but useful in other ways. I think adult-led play is very useful for children to learn to follow certain rules, not only feel that they make them, and also play in teams that are not necessarily their first choices, so that way they learn adaptability and improve their social skills, as they will also have to play with kids who aren’t their closest friends. I think this is very important, as is informal play, so in order for kids to learn the correct skills and values during play, they must find a balance between both.
“There is every reason to believe that this principle, that evaluation facilitates the performance of those who are already skilled and inhibits that of learners, applies to students in school. Schools are presumably places for learning and practice, not for experts to show off.” In order for someone to be able to have a good job, they must have at least graduated from college. I highly doubt that in college they’re going to have students play around instead of having a proper, theoretical, lesson. In college, and in their future jobs, these kids will be put in situations that are not at all comfortable for them, and these situations will not necessarily include topics on which they have gained full confidence and knowledge of. Considering this, would it really be such a good idea not to closely evaluate students in school, and put them in uncomfortable situations, so they start getting used to it and develop skills to manage these situations the best way possible, rather than changing the whole school policy for students to always be in the most comfortable situations, and then, when they graduate, really suffer when they are closely evaluated by their teachers or bosses?
Linking back to the introduction, I am sure that Peter Gray is a passionate democrat, and this impacted his view on education. “...play is the most democratic of all activities.” This isn’t the first time that Peter Gray uses the term democratic to refer to something being good, or correct, he’s used democratic this way throughout the whole book. Starting from the way he talks about Hillary Clinton to how he views the school systems today, using Sudbury Valley School as an exemplar school, which chooses their teachers through voting in which students also participate in, and allows students to do whatever they want. And finally, how he talks positively about education in "westernized-nations", which is a fancy way of talking about a democratic country. I just wonder, does he consider regular schooling today to have a republican ideology? Because, according to some extra research I did, republicans promote giving a better education only to those who deserve it; which Peter Gray says are some of the flaws in regular schooling, and which he claims school constantly do nowadays. Reflecting, I thought: Is the Innovation Academy a democratic program? Not quite. At least not as democratic as Peter Gray claims schools should be. It does include a democratic sense, as students and teachers ‘run the show’ and everyone does ‘what they want’ (obviously under certain restrictions and school-related). However, it is a program that even though isn’t designed (as far as I know) to give more to those who ‘deserve it’ (try harder, take it more seriously) than it does those who always procrastinate, are off task, and don’t take advantage of what the program has to offer. That is why, even though it is an approximation to a ‘democratic’ educational system, the Innovation Academy follows its own ideology, which I think is a mixture of both free play and regular schooling.
Peter Gray's ideas throughout the book were always It is impossible to talk about the perfect education. What does perfect mean? Clearly, for Peter Gray the perfect school is Sudbury Valley, for others (including me) it isn't. For Peter Gray, the perfect education, is a democratic one. he talks about play being the best kind of education, and play being the "most democratic of all activities", talks badly about most aspects of what the ideal education would be following a republican mindset (according to my research), uses democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in one of his examples for a good education, and praises education in "westernized-nations". It all adds up. I'm not saying it is wrong to view education through politics, or that the way that democrats view education is wrong in any level, I just think that, by looking at education this way, he is not being able to look at the great aspects of regular schooling, he keeps on insisting with play.
“Real life is an informal game. The rules are endlessly modifiable and you must do your part to create them. In the end, there are no winners or losers; we all wind up in the same place. Getting along with others is far more important than bu play the game, how much fun you have along the way, and how much joy you give to others.” I think this is very true. However, this doesn’t mean that formal (adult-led) games are bad for children on any way, in fact I think they are also useful for a child’s development, but useful in other ways. I think adult-led play is very useful for children to learn to follow certain rules, not only feel that they make them, and also play in teams that are not necessarily their first choices, so that way they learn adaptability and improve their social skills, as they will also have to play with kids who aren’t their closest friends. I think this is very important, as is informal play, so in order for kids to learn the correct skills and values during play, they must find a balance between both.
“There is every reason to believe that this principle, that evaluation facilitates the performance of those who are already skilled and inhibits that of learners, applies to students in school. Schools are presumably places for learning and practice, not for experts to show off.” In order for someone to be able to have a good job, they must have at least graduated from college. I highly doubt that in college they’re going to have students play around instead of having a proper, theoretical, lesson. In college, and in their future jobs, these kids will be put in situations that are not at all comfortable for them, and these situations will not necessarily include topics on which they have gained full confidence and knowledge of. Considering this, would it really be such a good idea not to closely evaluate students in school, and put them in uncomfortable situations, so they start getting used to it and develop skills to manage these situations the best way possible, rather than changing the whole school policy for students to always be in the most comfortable situations, and then, when they graduate, really suffer when they are closely evaluated by their teachers or bosses?
Linking back to the introduction, I am sure that Peter Gray is a passionate democrat, and this impacted his view on education. “...play is the most democratic of all activities.” This isn’t the first time that Peter Gray uses the term democratic to refer to something being good, or correct, he’s used democratic this way throughout the whole book. Starting from the way he talks about Hillary Clinton to how he views the school systems today, using Sudbury Valley School as an exemplar school, which chooses their teachers through voting in which students also participate in, and allows students to do whatever they want. And finally, how he talks positively about education in "westernized-nations", which is a fancy way of talking about a democratic country. I just wonder, does he consider regular schooling today to have a republican ideology? Because, according to some extra research I did, republicans promote giving a better education only to those who deserve it; which Peter Gray says are some of the flaws in regular schooling, and which he claims school constantly do nowadays. Reflecting, I thought: Is the Innovation Academy a democratic program? Not quite. At least not as democratic as Peter Gray claims schools should be. It does include a democratic sense, as students and teachers ‘run the show’ and everyone does ‘what they want’ (obviously under certain restrictions and school-related). However, it is a program that even though isn’t designed (as far as I know) to give more to those who ‘deserve it’ (try harder, take it more seriously) than it does those who always procrastinate, are off task, and don’t take advantage of what the program has to offer. That is why, even though it is an approximation to a ‘democratic’ educational system, the Innovation Academy follows its own ideology, which I think is a mixture of both free play and regular schooling.
Peter Gray's ideas throughout the book were always It is impossible to talk about the perfect education. What does perfect mean? Clearly, for Peter Gray the perfect school is Sudbury Valley, for others (including me) it isn't. For Peter Gray, the perfect education, is a democratic one. he talks about play being the best kind of education, and play being the "most democratic of all activities", talks badly about most aspects of what the ideal education would be following a republican mindset (according to my research), uses democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in one of his examples for a good education, and praises education in "westernized-nations". It all adds up. I'm not saying it is wrong to view education through politics, or that the way that democrats view education is wrong in any level, I just think that, by looking at education this way, he is not being able to look at the great aspects of regular schooling, he keeps on insisting with play.