Sage: It's Not Just an Herb

Wandering around the internet lately, I came up on this:  R.I.P Sage on the Stage.

The article, which is really just an enticement to click through to an interview, asks several rhetorical questions.  All of which I will now answer from the contrarian viewpoint.

1) But why is it important for students to own and direct their learning?
In many ways it is folly for students to direct their learning.  You've got 30+ kids in a class who are interested in 30+ different subjects, the vast majority of which do not over lap.  So immediately, you have a classroom management and lesson planning nightmare.  These interests are often random and fleeting.  They are frequently dead-ends in the long-term.  They involve knowledge and skill acquisition which require a slew of fundamental, and seemingly unrelated, work.  For example, if you cannot do arithmetic, you have no shot at doing mathematics or science properly.  If you cannot hold a saxophone there is no way on Earth you will ever figure out how to play "Tequila." 

2) Will students meet academic standards if teachers give them control of their learning? 
No.   Students lack the discipline and the knowledge to direct their own learning, particularly in the elementary years.  (If educated correctly early, they can and should have major input on their secondary school studies.)  Allowing students to control their own learning is the intellectual equivalent of allowing children to choose what they eat for every single meal.  Neither one is healthy and both will lead to disastrous consequences later in life. 

Academic standards are predicated on the wisdom of adults, who (theoretically at least) know what knowledge and subjects are of use later in life.  That's called curriculum.  They also know how to organize that knowledge so fundamental ideas/skills are learned first and more advanced ones later.  That's called scope & sequence.  They also know the resources and methodologies appropriate for each age group.  That's called pedagogy.  Children know none of these things. 

3) Why are teachers reluctant to let students learn independently?
Because good teachers are wise and know that not all learning can or should be done independently. Intellectually challenging material (particularly abstract subjects like music and math) is nearly impossible to learn correctly without a proper teacher.  The teacher has all of the knowledge mentioned in #2 above, and by using it appropriately, can guide the student through the cognitive thicket. 

Without a curriculum, a scope, a sequence, and pedagogy, students trying to learn on their own are lost in the tall grass.  Not only do they have to master the outer surface knowledge, but also have to recreate the inner structures from scratch.  This is like trying to learning how to fly an airborne plane while building it at the same time.  Again, unless you are a statistical outlier, a recipe for disaster.

4) What can teachers do to begin the process of letting go?
I would start by letting go of silly, pie-in-the-sky rubbish such as espoused by this article.  Then I would let go of all modern teaching theories taught in university education schools.  After that I would let go of every one who preached this nonsense as if it was the Gospel. 

After all that letting go, I would learn something about curriculum, scope, sequence.  For pedagogy, I would turn to those who teach people like pilots, or welders, or soldiers.  They are the true keepers of the lost art of teaching.

Humans as a species cannot make progress as a civilization if every generation has to reinvent the wheel.  By learning from masters, from teachers, we can stand on the shoulders of past giants and progress further.  After all, that's exactly how we got to this point.