From a reader who is passionate about child’s play:
Let’s talk to Arne about Play Science? We have schools in Asia setting up Play Science Institutes. They know that they need to innovate. The teacher is the one who can identify and scaffold upon the innate talents of the child. No computer program can see, feel, connect and mentor that deeply. Data is not knowledge. Metaphoric thinking is developed through three dimensional play, something one cannot develop from a two dimensional screen. It has everything to do with hand-brain co-evolution and the neuroscience of tinkering, object play, or other three dimensional forms of play. Real world problem solving necessitates nuanced metaphorical thinking, not rigid, scripted programming.
This published today in Richmond Times Dispatch
And I think everyone here will like this one, as scripted schooling kills innovation.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/0124/Toddlers-to-tweens-relearning-how-to-play
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I spoke recently with an elementary school principal colleague in Australia. He had recently had around 30 plastic milk crates delivered to the school and left in the playground. The kids were given no directions, just left to their own devices and imaginations. Over the next few days he watched the gradual morphing into a train, a theatre, a castle … The possibilities have still not been exhausted. His next project will be to provide lengths of fabric.
Of course this kind of thing is possible in an Australian school because the kids all have a half an hour of free outside play every morning and another fifty minutes at lunch time after they have finished eating. None of this would work in one of the USA schools where recess has been reduced to fifteen minutes – if the kids are lucky – or eliminated altogether in the interests of maximizing instructional time.
My daughter’s school is a lot like this. I swear no one at that school ever throws away a box, toilet paper roll, milk jug or similar item. It all just ends up in the “recycling” area to let the kids make of it what they will. The stuff she’s brought home (not to mention the stuff that’s too big to bring home) boggles the mind. I really want to support public education, but so long as these kinds of experiences aren’t available at our local public school, it’s well worth the price of tuition at the progressive school she goes to.
Unfortunately, that’s exactly what the rheeformers want. It’s not that they don’t know what’s developmentally appropriate, it’s just that they only want good education available to their kids and and those like them (i.e., those who can afford it). “Those” kids can just make do with drill to kill, and, well, if it bores them into dropping out, well that’s just less competition for their little angels.
A special thanks for this one!!
Sent from my iPhone
Down with alignment
It belongs in the same bin as replication
Deb
Sent from my iPhone
I think people need to come to grips with the fact that talking about the essentials of quality education only tells the elites something they already know and only convinces them all the more that the plebes don’t deserve those things.
Beautiful, Dr. Ravitch. Based on the doctoral work of one of our Kindergarten teachers, we are formally incorporating play into our classrooms in our suburban Westchester district. We’re even using play as part of our APPR process. Teachers will measure growth in literacy, math, and socialization through kid-watching. Imagine that!
Diane, sorry for now having posted several comments critical of your posts – I honestly do enjoy and agree with many of them, so I’ll have to make the effort to post agreement in the near future.
However, I’m afraid you’re setting up a false dichotomy here regarding play and scripted programs. I’m now aware of any proposals out there seeking to ban play at the expense of scripted programs. I’m also not sure how research on play disproves the importance of scripted programs?
I think it’s also important to clarify and define “scripted programs” – most scripted programs tend to be direct instruction-based programs, which often contrast with more constructivist approaches. Sometimes folks are fine with programs being rooted in direct instruction, but find the scripts difficult to use, while some folks are against both the direct instruction and scripted components. So, if there’s going to be a conversation about scripted programs, it may be important to clarify what we’re talking about.
Are you kidding me? Have you been in a kindergarten class lately? When I went to check out our local elementary school, the first question out of my mouth when I saw the kindergarten class (after I managed to rein in my horror that 40+ kindergarteners were sitting quietly taking a spelling test) was where are the blocks? The principal’s answer was that they don’t have time for that because of all the material they need to cover.
Apparently you’re not familiar with the concept of opportunity cost?
Besides, research clearly shows that direct instruction isn’t how young children learn. They need direct relevant experience before they can absorb and integrate instructional material.
Dienne, I’ve spent a good amount of time in a variety of classroom levels over the years, and am also quite familiar with relevant research. There is actually a substantial body of research compiled over the past 40 years that children of all levels learn effectively with direct instruction (see Direct Instruction Reading by Carnine et al for a good intro text with plenty of citations), especially struggling learners. That being said, there is evidence that play-based and constructivist learning does work, but with specific kinds of learning tasks. I’m curious if you’re aware of what direct instruction is? You mention needing “direct relevant experience” – how do you suppose direct instruction doesn’t provide that? Also, what research/text links do you support for you assertions about direct instruction?
However, I do think we’d share a point of agreement – I do think there is room in curricula for play-based and constructivist learning, and there do seem to be times when those modalities might be more effective but are not used. Still, it has not been my experience that children are missing those opportunities due to direct instruction, but rather due to lecture-based whole group instruction.
You also mention that you went to “check out a local elementary school” – is your experience in classrooms based on a a visit or two, or extensive experience with curriculum & instruction? I’d be concerned if you were basing your critique of American public education based on a classroom visit or two. While you may not have seen “blocks” per se, it’s most certain that you didn’t experience the full range of instructional practices with a limited classroom experience.
Play could be one of the most, if not the most important aspects of education. Pestalozzi figured this our in 18th century Switzerland. Friedrich Froebel (father of Kindergarten) mentored with Pestalozzi and later developed his system of “gifts and occupations”, toys for learning the metaphorical thinking you discuss here. Maria Montessori borrowed many of Froebel’s techniques, although she heavily sanitized them of their philosophical basis. If we’re going to discuss play as intrinsic to learning, let’s humbly recognize that this was all figured out over 200 years ago, persisted throughout the 19th century only to be abandoned in the 20th because of the same profit-based motives that are destroying public education today.
Over in Scotland….
Promoting Children and Young People’s Right to Play in Scotland
http://www.playscotland.org/
Play Scotland plea to give Scots children legal right to play
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19626766