Marginalium

Book review of the Educated Mind: notes on doing education differently:

We might sum these up by asking what’s at the very center of schooling. For a socializer, the answer is “society”. For an academicist, the answer is “content”. And for a developmentalist, the answer is “the child” … of those three jobs, which should we give to schools? … Egan wants you to know they’re all crap. None of them, by themselves, can give us the kinds of schools we want.

Academics (content) makes school brutal. Development (the child) won’t be entirely robust to the meanness of other kids and wider society. Socialisation works best, but doesn’t capture the complexity or trajectory of the society they’ll be thrust into.

Trying to aim for the three means sacrificing in one area to support another—historically they were ideas that supplanted one another, put together they sabotage each other.

Egan instead suggests we try schooling based on the kinds of things kids use to understand the world:

1. Somatic: mimesis, emotions, humour, and the senses to kick things off.
2. Mythic: stories, metaphors, binaries, and jokes to step things up.
3. Romantic: extremes, gossip, heroes, and idealism to sharpen.
4. Philosophic: simple questions, general schemas, and dialectics to move to a more analytic place.
5. Ironic: ambiguity, skepticism, balance.

“Educational development, I am suggesting, is a process whose focus on interest and intellectual engagement begins with a myth-like construction of the world, then ‘romantically’ establishes the boundaries and extent of reality, and then ‘philosophically’ maps the major features of the world with organizing grids.”

And then add to that the early somatic learning of small children, and the later meta-understanding that allows these kinds of understanding to co-exist without destroying each other.