By Deborah Meier, Brenda Engel, and Beth Taylor.
Why is play important in the lives of children? What crucial aspects of learning are being neglected in the current near-elimination of recess time in public schools?
Playing for Keeps, co-authored by the well-known writer and educational leader Deborah Meier, and two colleagues with equally long experience in schools, explores these questions. Based on close observations on a public school playground, the book shows children at play in a relatively natural, unstructured environment. The reader is virtually there, seeing, listening in, able to appreciate the children’s curiosity, humor, intelligence, and inventiveness. Readers will recognize the children’s voices and ways of thinking, and perhaps be reminded of their own childhood, their own children, or the children they teach. The authors comment on the observations, adding to the reader’s own perceptions. This lively, engaging book makes a strong case for the importance of free exploration, wonder, imagination, and play to the learning and growth of children. It should contribute significantly to the understanding of all those concerned, professionally or personally, with the welfare of our school-age population.
Deborah Meier has spent almost five decades working in public education as a teacher, writer, and public advocate. She is currently a Senior Scholar in the faculty of the Steinhardt School of Education at New York University. Brenda Engel has taught elementary school art and was on the faculty of Lesley University in Cambridge, MA. Beth Taylor has taught in preschool through college, including in teacher training, program evaluation, early childhood education, and teaching at the Mission Hill School in Boston.
June 2010 / Paperback, $19.95, ISBN: 978-0-8077-5095-7
Your posting is not based in reality. There is no statistical evidence to support the idea that students are “learning” academically through “exploration, wonder, imagination, and play to the learning and growth of children”. The basic idea of education is to teach students! Have clear goals about what the students will learn, teach them those skills through direct and explicit instruction. “Don’t assume that somehow students will just discover things or unfold or learn in an “authentic way rather than through being taught directly what something means, what it is, what it does, and how to do it” (Kauffman, 2010). Flaws are always found in policies and programs, but to ignore the fact that there are students who do not have the basic skills in math and reading is malicious. If the following is true, (“on a public school playground, the book shows children at play in a relatively natural, unstructured environment”), why would you need teachers? Just hire playground supervisors!
I suggest you read, The Tragicomedy of Public Education by James M. Kauffman.
Thanks for your comments, Steve. You may have missed the point that the posting is a review of a book by Deborah Meier and others. We are suggesting it is worth a read, not that we believe schools should just let children play all day. Our position is that we need to look at the whole child’s development, not just standardized test scores. Play is one aspect of the problem that is worth study. It is clear that the academics-only model we have been pursuing in Kennewick (and across the nation) has not worked. I am interested in getting into Kauffman’s book. Sounds interesting coming from someone who is known primarily for his work in special education.
Wow! I missed the following on first reading: “to ignore the fact that there are students who do not have the basic skills in math and reading is malicious.” I think you are angry about something. You seem to be talking about me, not the review. Unfortunately, your anger is misplaced. My position has always been in favor of a strong reading and math programs, but not just narrowing the curriculum to those two subjects and placing kids in “doubles” of the same old failed methods. If they can’t read or do the required math we should be exploring other avenues to reach them. such as embedding the reading and math in subjects that interest the children (such as exploratory).
You take my comments too personally. “Truthiness is cute and appealing; truth is often harder to swallow” (Kaufman, 2008). So let us deal with facts and not suppose how the other person feels. Fact #1) Students who are below grade level generally do poorly in education. Fact #2) Standardized tests are a way of life for teachers and students. Fact #3) The 25 fastest growing professions have far greater than average literacy demands, while the 25 fastest declining professions have lower than average demands (Biancarosa, Snow 2006). Fact #4) Students in Kamiakin High School reading program grew, on the average, two (2) years in reading growth. 55% of those students grew 2 or more years in literacy. Fact #5) Your organization has yet to offer any viable alternative to the present system. Fact #6) I love a good debate!
This sounds more like badgering than debate.
There are many web communities out there that support the status-quo in public education; you might want to go find one of those. You may not be very happy here.
Just thought you would like more than one opinion. And no, I am not the status quo… far from it.
Steve, while what you claim are “facts” may be true, the cause effect relationships are far from understood. lo, you base success I suspect short term test score results, the validity of which are highly questioned by many experts in education.
Meier’s schools on the other had, have been shown to be highly successful on almost any measure of success one chooses, with a broad spectrum of students, poor and rich, low income and high, as well as those with earning disabilities and the supposedly gifted. Again, the cause of the success of her schools can be debated, but not the success itself.
My reading of the research on direct Instruction for teaching reading comes to a very different conclusion that yours for any sustained improvement in reading.