I just donated to this gofundme campaign.
I hope you will too.
David Gamberg is the enlightened superintendent of schools in Southold and Greenport, on the North Fork of Long Island.
Here is his vision: Play. Children learn happily when they have time to play.
I have visited his schools.
I ate vegetables that the children raised.
I enjoyed the musical performance.
At the center of learning in his schools are physical activity, music, the arts, gardening, and much more. Southold has a superb robotics team.
It also has one of the highest opt out rates in the state.
Congratulations, Dr. Gamberg, for setting a wonderful example for educators everywhere!
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I’m sure Dr. Gamberg is a great educator, and I hope Southold raises their funds, but 3 aspects of this project concern me. First, the notion that play demands a fanciful Disneyesque playground, itself guiding children’s imaginations. That sort of experience has its place, but why in a public school? And why Mother Goose, not Anansi? And if Nickelodeon were to offer a large donation, why not Dora, who is certainly a part of American kids’ shared culture., The slope of cultural reference is slippery. Second, the idea of play as an educator’s “method,” rather than an experience with its own inherent value–as distinct from student engagement in meaningful tasks with intrinsically rewarding objectives–is troubling and ill-specified. Most of all, the project implies that any educator would need to raise tens of thousands of dollars to bring engagement into his pedagogy or play into kids’ lives. That’s tragic.
LikeLike
Russell,
Your quibbles are unnecessary.
I celebrate any educator–especially a superintendent–who recognizes that developing healthy, happy kids matter more than test scores
LikeLike
So disagreement is now dismissed as “quibbles”? I think Russell brings up some valid points. I too am happy that Dr. Gamberg is bringing this play experience to his kids, but the idea that you need tens of thousand of dollars to create playspace to guide kids’ imaginations is alarming. Read Teacher Tom’s blog for what a playspace should be and how that can be accomplished for next to nothing. This piece leaves the impression that only rich kids can have this kid of play experience because of what has to go into it, and that’s simply not true. My kids’ progressive school makes do with an open field that the park district won’t let them modify. Somehow, those kids are able to play.
Dr. Gamberg’s heart is in the right place and he’s doing good things, but please let’s not make infallible heroes of anyone.
LikeLike
I concur, Russell.
LikeLike
Russell,
I appreciate your thoughts. Allow me to offer insight into my thinking about such a design element for the playground. It stems form a piece I read back in 1989, written by Joe Frost, a professor at The University of Texas. In part he articulated a way of seeing children’s playgrounds like this:
Proposes a range of guidelines geared to the child’s perspective –
Miniature scale – children can assert a sense of power & have a sense of dominance over things like toys, scaled models, dollhouses, etc.
Child scaled – just my size, built to the scale of the child, it says “you’re just right the way you are”
Heroic, colossal scale – In a place of huge scale
A sense of realness – children can see the difference between a toy and real object – would prefer something with real strength, weight, etc.
“Sense of Placeness” – through the creation of an outdoor room, generating this sense of enclosure or ‘corner places’ rather than being completely exposed – this can be done through play environment, landscape and planting
Open-ended elements, shapes and toys lend themselves to more imaginative play
Nature – “An increase in greenery of any kind will help to increase the probability of mystical thinking and enchanting experiences in our playscapes”.
Line Quality and Shape – more intrigue in a circle than a square, topsy-turvy, hanging, arched, curved
Engaging all the senses – further enrich memories
Framing views and layering – looking through things to other things
Novetly – some thing that no where else or no one else has
Creating mystery and obscurity
Brilliance through lighting, crystals, glitter metallic colours, mosaic tile, polished stone, mirrors, shells, gold, silver, copper, enamel, bright flowers
Juxtaposing opposites – providing contrasts within the space or environment
Richness and abundance – i.e. not scraping the bottom of the toy box. This can be introduced through ever-changing nature and vegetation, creating new experiences
Merging with other times and places – creating instant age, drawing inspiration from familiar places
“Not everything in a play yard needs to be functional. Add something whose sole appeal is in its “thing-ness”.
Places built by kids
The illusion of risk
Places that allow for day dream and reflection
Our playground has many elements that were of little to no cost. A beautiful stone amphitheater was built as a donation by a young man who came to this country not speaking any English. He wanted to give back to his school. Our school garden was created with no budget and five years later brings joy and wonder to countless children.
I see millions, if not billions of dollars spent on infrastructure and other purposes (i.e. test prep) which could be repurposed as a capital expense towards a play environment (not a reoccurring cost). This is not intended to substitute for smaller class sizes, or staff support that is needed in too many communities.
I recognize that kids need “opportunity” as much, if not more than any type of equipment (at whatever cost).
No, it does not necessarily mean a Mother Goose Shoe at every elementary school. It could be anything. It should also include many of the other elements listed in Frost’s guidelines.
LikeLike
In the 50’s we had a WPA supplied swing set, merry-go-round, baseball diamond, and a basketball hoop which got a lot of action. A group of we girls, however, spent most of our time playing “communist spy,” make-up application, house, school, tag, and red rover. By fifth grade we were raiding the lot next to the school, building shacks from discarded lumber. Shack building was quickly stamped out by the teachers for safety reasons and “communist spy” from fear of HUAC.
Do elementary kids still do these things?
:
LikeLike
West Coast,
When I was a child in the 40s and 50s, we hand made all our playthings–except for sports equipment. I longed for a leather baseball glove! Now when I go to my grandson’s birthday party, everything comes in a box. Pre-packaged with instructions.
LikeLike
I have to agree that Miller and Dienne make good points. Kids do not need a boot to spark imagination. Are they refining curriculum? Developing new pedagogy technique?
LikeLike
Thanks for this and all you do…As Garrison says, “All efforts made in support of children are worthwhile.”
LikeLike
In view of another discussion here, we should ask Dr. Gamberg how teacher accountability works at his school.
LikeLike
From what I can tell, Southold is a middle class (median income ~60,000), largely white community that values creating an outside environment that supports their belief in the value of play as a great way to learn. While low income folks are not a large part of the community, this is not an elite enclave either. Are we only allowed to celebrate communities that fit a politically correct agenda?
LikeLike
2old2teach, don’t you think poor black and Hispanic children would benefit from play, the arts, and physical education?
LikeLike
Of course! I was reacting to the sentiment that Southold’s efforts really didn’t deserve any praise because they were spending and raising money for something that plenty of poorer communities did without and who probably could have found a better use for the funds. This school district has decided to highlight learning through play, and they have dedicated resources toward their particular vision. I’m not sure where you got the idea that I thought poor children couldn’t benefit from a focus on play. In all my years subbing in elementary schools, recess was the hands down favorite activity followed by all the usual suspects.
LikeLike
From my own experience, I would agree that perfectly practice will make it perfect.
In this way, if all superintendents have the courage to promote play to learn like Dr. Gamberg, then Dr. Ravitch’s praise is the best way to do.
All overly critical critics are frivolously unnecessary.
Whatever method that students happily participate and joyfully learn should be motivated and praised for it is being done. Back2basic
LikeLike
Hear, hear! The strategy of “this doesn’t work so we need to do more of it and start earlier” isn’t a successful strategy for anything.
LikeLike
What “works” should not be defined by standardized test scores. Life is too complex to be reduced to meeting Pearson’s measure.
LikeLike
“What works” is one thing, and what that “WHAT” means is another.
For instance, in another thread here, the implication of that report is that WHAT works looks like our students making maximum income when they turn forty. And THAT’s what legitimates a K-6 teacher. Well, then, those rich Wells Fargo bankers and hedge fund managers, who on the whole act more like that fat worm in Star Wars, are examples of the high standard for educators to reach for today: Teach your students to get more money, no matter what they have to do to get it.
LikeLike