In my idyllic school I would apply Neill’s idea of logical punishment. (Mr. Esquith touched on this to a degree in his own book Teach Like Your Hair’s on Fire). Too many times punishments in school settings have little to do with the “crime”. I’ve been in too many classrooms where teachers punished an entire class for one person. (One middle school PE teacher held us back from our next class for an hour because one anonymous student snickered during a Sex Ed. lesson and wouldn’t fess up. When the students complained she told us she hoped we’d “jump” whoever it was and suggested a secluded location on campus for us to do it!) I think "Neill’s" practice of making some students run up and down ladders they borrowed without asking is not practical for a public school (where would the students get a ladder?) but I agree with the idea. If a student misbehaved during a classroom activity I would combine Mr. Esquith’s idea about removing them as an active participant but allow them to continue watching the experiment. For other transgressions the punishment would likewise have some connection to the offense; calling someone a derogatory name for example would require the offender to study the etymology of the word, its historical context, the current meaning, and write a short essay about it which they would present to the class. A short discussion would follow. Like Neill I would try to keep a moralist mentality from becoming the focus of this intellectual lesson. If students are going to use defamatory words they should know the meaning of the word. Perhaps by studying the historical context for racist or sexist words they will learn why these forms of speech are divisive, cruel, and hateful. On the flip side studying general profanity would also afford a historical and cultural glimpse into literature from Shakespeare and Chaucer to Ferlinghetti and Sharon Olds. Why we use words, when we use them, and what they mean in context is as important as knowing when and what not to use. The idea of punishment is to teach a lesson; the more a student can learn without feeling unfairly browbeaten the better. I may not agree with A. S. Neill on most of his philosophies but we concur on three points: the devastating inappropriateness of corporal punishment in school, the sometimes monotonous and joyless learning imposed by some “traditional” curriculums that do not teach anything beyond the textbook or the standardized test and do not take much time to explain difficult concepts therein to children who still do not understand, and children’s innate ability to perceive and mirror the unhappiness of their home lives. As a teacher I want to foster intellectual growth, I will not do that with corporate punishment. Fear and violence is not conducive to learning. Students have enough stress from home and the outside world without worrying if their teacher will smack them with a ruler. I want to be a teacher who can talk to my students when they fall behind or act out and help them realize why they aren’t succeeding for themselves so they can develop strategies to help themselves.
I found Summerhill to be a very entertaining book. A.S. Neill’s methods are definitely radical, but some of them actually seem to work. I’m sure that many people who have read this book thought the man was crazy, but there are times when radical theories are just what we need in order to change things for the better. The criterion of Summerhill is “happiness, sincerity, balance, and sociability.” Freudian theories play a large role in this book, and although I love psychology, I have never had very much faith in Freud. I think some of his theories make sense, but there is not enough evidence to back up his beliefs. Neill’s use of Freudian techniques seemed to work well at Summerhill, but I don’t think it would not be a very realistic approach to teaching children in schools today. The book was published in 1960 and many of the ideas mentioned are still very fresh, but the book is a bit dated in regards to the boundaries we are able to cross in our schools. Neill doesn’t like the idea of authority, He believes children should “pursue their own interests.” This idea is fine to some degree, but in this day and age if a teacher let his or her students do whatever they want, they could be fired or even face a lawsuit. On a more positive note, I do admire that Neill says Summerhill teaches “tolerance by exemplifying tolerance.” The fact that Summerhill students were told the truth and were treated with kindness is what made it a special school. I feel it is important to mention that even though Neill was eccentric, he was a responsible man and he sincerely cared about children. He constantly emphasized the use of common sense and guidance when giving children freedom. I think it is very important for children to become independent and A. S. Neill was able to accomplish this, and although he takes the notion of “free children” over the top, I have to respect what he did in Summerhill
I listed some of my favorite quotes from the book below.
“The bestowal of freedom is the bestowal of love.”
“The prude is the libertine without the courage to face his naked soul.”
In my idyllic school I would apply Neill’s idea of logical punishment. (Mr. Esquith touched on this to a degree in his own book Teach Like Your Hair’s on Fire). Too many times punishments in school settings have little to do with the “crime”. I’ve been in too many classrooms where teachers punished an entire class for one person. (One middle school PE teacher held us back from our next class for an hour because one anonymous student snickered during a Sex Ed. lesson and wouldn’t fess up. When the students complained she told us she hoped we’d “jump” whoever it was and suggested a secluded location on campus for us to do it!) I think "Neill’s" practice of making some students run up and down ladders they borrowed without asking is not practical for a public school (where would the students get a ladder?) but I agree with the idea. If a student misbehaved during a classroom activity I would combine Mr. Esquith’s idea about removing them as an active participant but allow them to continue watching the experiment. For other transgressions the punishment would likewise have some connection to the offense; calling someone a derogatory name for example would require the offender to study the etymology of the word, its historical context, the current meaning, and write a short essay about it which they would present to the class. A short discussion would follow. Like Neill I would try to keep a moralist mentality from becoming the focus of this intellectual lesson. If students are going to use defamatory words they should know the meaning of the word. Perhaps by studying the historical context for racist or sexist words they will learn why these forms of speech are divisive, cruel, and hateful. On the flip side studying general profanity would also afford a historical and cultural glimpse into literature from Shakespeare and Chaucer to Ferlinghetti and Sharon Olds. Why we use words, when we use them, and what they mean in context is as important as knowing when and what not to use. The idea of punishment is to teach a lesson; the more a student can learn without feeling unfairly browbeaten the better.
ReplyDeleteI may not agree with A. S. Neill on most of his philosophies but we concur on three points: the devastating inappropriateness of corporal punishment in school, the sometimes monotonous and joyless learning imposed by some “traditional” curriculums that do not teach anything beyond the textbook or the standardized test and do not take much time to explain difficult concepts therein to children who still do not understand, and children’s innate ability to perceive and mirror the unhappiness of their home lives. As a teacher I want to foster intellectual growth, I will not do that with corporate punishment. Fear and violence is not conducive to learning. Students have enough stress from home and the outside world without worrying if their teacher will smack them with a ruler. I want to be a teacher who can talk to my students when they fall behind or act out and help them realize why they aren’t succeeding for themselves so they can develop strategies to help themselves.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found Summerhill to be a very entertaining book. A.S. Neill’s methods are definitely radical, but some of them actually seem to work. I’m sure that many people who have read this book thought the man was crazy, but there are times when radical theories are just what we need in order to change things for the better. The criterion of Summerhill is “happiness, sincerity, balance, and sociability.” Freudian theories play a large role in this book, and although I love psychology, I have never had very much faith in Freud. I think some of his theories make sense, but there is not enough evidence to back up his beliefs. Neill’s use of Freudian techniques seemed to work well at Summerhill, but I don’t think it would not be a very realistic approach to teaching children in schools today.
ReplyDeleteThe book was published in 1960 and many of the ideas mentioned are still very fresh, but the book is a bit dated in regards to the boundaries we are able to cross in our schools. Neill doesn’t like the idea of authority, He believes children should “pursue their own interests.” This idea is fine to some degree, but in this day and age if a teacher let his or her students do whatever they want, they could be fired or even face a lawsuit. On a more positive note, I do admire that Neill says Summerhill teaches “tolerance by exemplifying tolerance.” The fact that Summerhill students were told the truth and were treated with kindness is what made it a special school. I feel it is important to mention that even though Neill was eccentric, he was a responsible man and he sincerely cared about children. He constantly emphasized the use of common sense and guidance when giving children freedom. I think it is very important for children to become independent and A. S. Neill was able to accomplish this, and although he takes the notion of “free children” over the top, I have to respect what he did in Summerhill
I listed some of my favorite quotes from the book below.
“The bestowal of freedom is the bestowal of love.”
“The prude is the libertine without the courage to face his naked soul.”