I was flown out to University of California at Berkeley to speak on youth obesity and public health last week. I not only spoke there, but also led a great discussion at Solano Coalition for Better Health with an eclectic, passionate group that included a PE teacher, child care professionals, public health professionals, resource and referral agency professionals, and physicians.
The goal was to not only talk about how youth obesity prevention related to public health, but to discuss possible solutions to the problem. You can watch the video below, but the gist of what I told people is the following:
1. We missed the point for so long on solving this “childhood obesity” problem. It is not about telling, or “encouraging” kids to be more active. This is about environmental change. And that’s what makes it difficult. Instead of spending money on commercials, we need to be spending it on:
-providing play spaces via grassroots efforts and policy change (organizations like kaboom, schools, and local government)
-preserving natural space through policy (government, community, and corporate stakeholders
-training adults and adolescents to be play leaders (my job), including parents. For adolescents, this also supports teen fitness by making them role models
-providing time for families to be together, and supporting active parenting (corporate entities and small businesses)
2. Active Play professionals MUST stop viewing skill development and freedom to play as mutually exclusive. In this day and age, with the kids we are serving NOW, this is not an option past early childhood. For the next generation, it may be. But not now. Kids now need both freedom to explore and guidance. The FUNction Method is designed to do that.
Of course I expanded on these ideas in the video from my talk at UC Berkeley. If you want to know more, or find ways to get involved at a grassroots or professional level, please do the following:
Like “Move Theory” on Facebook, and help spread the word by sharing this blog and the Move Theory page.
Follow @drkmbrown on Twitter, and help me spread the word by retweeting.
Contact me at drkwamebrown@movetheory.com
So many times, we see someone who is considered an “expert” in an area, and we have this subconscious image that they have always been “this”. Well, the truth is, none of us have started out as what we are. So, I wish to use this forum to discuss my own struggles, triumphs, and learning process a little bit. Because those things, in addition to my own personal story and progress, is what made me who I am. It is not only my professional and personal exploration, but my mistakes and successes together that have made me the expert that many consider me to be in the field of childhood obesity prevention and physical development. I heard someone say recently that an expert is a student first. My life as a professional is living proof of that. I have spent years learning and listening, and now it is time to speak. I never thought I would say this, but I enjoy finally being entrepreneurial with freedom of expression and decision. Notice I didn’t say in business “for my self” or “on my own”. Neither of those are true. Keep reading…
The Ego
The first thing I had to learn to put away when working with children is ego. It is one of the first things I talk about with coaches and teachers now. I remember when I got my first couple of solid groups of kids in South Florida. Many times, at the beginning, they had no desire to do what I was asking them to do. You see, I wasn’t just working with talented competitive athletes. I was working with children and adolescent who had a range of skill and motivation. They were each an individual in their own right. But my “solution” early on was to “re-explain” to them what “they needed to do” for them, and to “teach them to respect their teacher”. Now, I wasn’t mean, and I rarely yelled (once when children were being disrespectful and ignoring another coach, and once when a boy called a girl a “whore”). 99% of the time, I was friendly with kids and we had great rapport.
But I realized pretty early that I had failed to ask the most important question: What were they interested in? Had I respected their wants and needs? It all goes back to that “sponge” issue I wrote about a couple of weeks ago.
The reality is: I hadn’t. I was too concerned about “applying my expertise”.
I was either assuming that they shared my goals for them, or that they were there to exercise and get into shape. I had assumed, wrongly, that all I had to do was “inspire” them and “teach” them. What we often egregiously misunderstand about many children is that the “rah-rah” stuff is not motivating for them. For one, they don’t necessarily care about what you care about. Two, this may actually turn them off, because we are quite obviously trying to “make” them do what we want them to do. Your approach may or may not jibe with what they want.
So, I started listening to kids. I would let a couple of kids each session pick two activities that were their special thing. We all had to participate. This worked. I was including them in decisions, instead of barking orders. You see, whether you do it with a smile or not, barking orders is barking orders.
The Justaposition of Ideas
So, how do we reconcile the three following facts
1. Kids need to be involved in shaping their own play experience
2. There are skills that they need to learn
3. Some semblance of order must be maintained
We solve this first, by using the Move Theory to recognize that several truths can exist in one space and time. All of the above are necessary and true. Too many programs and approaches have tried to fight or ignore this. Too many lack the skills and background to combine them. This is where I can deliver valuable help, having mentored and been responsible for the education and skill improvement of thousands in the fields of physical education, youth coaching, and youth fitness.
I travel the United States (and I am open to traveling abroad) to share my knowledge of child development and Active Play, and how we can fix the problems with current approaches. You see, I am pretty unique (not better than everyone, but unique). Many have done some of the following, but few have done all of the following:
1. Worked as a bona fide developmental scientist and contributed original research in neural development
2. Worked in a supervisory role in government.
3. Engaged extensively in Active Play with young people from infancy through adolescence
4. Worked as a private freelancer
5. Conducted workshops and presentations on neural development, child development and Active Play for thousands of people throughout the United States.
6. Been raised in a family of premier educators and child development scholars.
I have been looking at the problems of education and child development all my life. I don’t just look to give speeches. I love to workshop with people, truly listen to questions, and answer challenges. This is what Move Theory is all about: listening and sharing, creating open lines of communication to solve problems. And I love it! Each time I teach, I learn. Each time I learn, I teach. And so the circle continues. I hope that people continue to book me for workshops and presentations, but I must say that I appreciate already the incredibly rich experiences I have had so far.
To bring me in for understanding and help in creating Active Play environments, contact: info@ecoutezspeakers.com
I have spent 20 years intensely studying movement disciplines, child development, neural system development, organizational planning, and societal shifts to form the approach I take to this problem. This has resulted in the approach I take now. The approach of Move Theory and Move Create is to “Use No Way As the Way”, adapted from Bruce Lee’s Jeet Kune Do. Instead of just creating a rigid program, and telling you to buy it or leave it, I listen to what your specific needs are and either help them tweak my programs for their needs, or plug into their organization itself and help them come up with viable, sustainable solutions.
With Move Youth, I take the same approach when working with young people. I talk to them, get to know what their wants and needs are. With that, I help them to create their own movement experience. We remain in constant communication and flux. I remind them that I am there for them. They are not here to glorify me, but their own experience. Thus far, I have worked individually and in groups with over a thousand young football, lacrosse, basketball, soccer, and tennis players. I have helped shape the movements of young hip hop and ballet dancers. I have been blessed to have had the opportunity and skills to change the lives of so many sedentary children, helping them learn to love movement, to find enjoyment in it. It is often this that I am most grateful for.
Do your kids need help? Do you coach kids and do you want to improve your skills? Then contact me at drkwamebrown@movetheory.com.
The Product
Need something tangible, that you can buy? As we say in my culture – I got you! The FUNction program, finally coming to the market in the next few months, does just that After years of trying different approaches, listening to kids, bringing counselors in over winter and spring breaks as interns, and researching other programs, FUNction Coachable Moments has solved this conundrum. The idea is to work the basic movement skills into games. FUNction Coachable Moments is about asking questions, guiding, and probing, rather than barking and prodding. This program will not be fancy. It will not have video (most of what I have delivered has been for government agencies, so video rights are hard to come by). What FUNction will have is all the tools you need to shape an Active Play program for kids and do it with very little equipment expense.
Take Action Below to stay up to date on Move Theory offerings, events, and information. This isn’t “self” promotion. This is “mission” promotion. This is, “let’s fix these problems for kids” promotion. This is, “let me lead this charge for you” promotion.
Sign up for the Move Theory Newsletter
Like Move Theory on Facebook
Follow @drkmbrown on Twitter
I am warning you, this will be long! To fully explain Move Theory, I must tell the story of my long personal journey in movement. That will be the purpose of this article.
Rough Start and Idle
As a child, I wasn’t such a great mover. I played outside, but as my friends became more athletic and played on sports teams, I realized that I didn’t feel as coordinated as them. I didn’t really feel that I was as big or strong as any of them. So I retreated to books. Everyone said I was so smart, so I figured that must be what I was meant to be good at. By the time I was in middle school, my efforts at sports produced more laughs than anything else. I became more and more sedentary.
This became more and more of a problem for me (in my mind) as I grew, and as I became more interested in girls. I felt like all of the other boys were more athletic, and strong. I went out for the basketball team in the 10th grade, but I was too small and weak – and scared – to make the team. I was also intimidated by a lot of the other boys at school, both because some of them actively intimidated me, and because of how I felt about myself. This slowly ate away at me, until I decided to start “exercising”. I began to do pushups and situps, and squats, because these were the only exercises I knew. I knew I wanted to feel like I could take care of myself, so I began to copy martial arts moves from TV and tapes. This really wasn’t working, because not only did I still not feel like I could “take” anybody, I also wasn’t inspired enough to stay consistent with it. Further, I still felt uncoordinated and self-conscious when I played basketball and football with friends.
The First Seeds
It wasn’t until I entered college that things began to change. I had three friends and one teacher that changed things forever. One friend happened to be a gong fu instructor. He formed a club on campus and began to teach. This was my first true exploration of movement and a sense of my body. To this day, I am grateful that gong fu and its exploration of animal imitations and meaningful, fluid movement and breath came into my life. Another classmate was an excellent athlete and fellow molecular biology major who I began to work out with along with my freshman year roommate. My best friend and I had both been small in high school, and we challenged each other to lift more and get bigger – not really the motivation I would choose now, but I was 19, so what are you gonna do! Now I had others with whom I was connected to in my desire for progress. Additionally, an exercise science professor took me under his wing and taught me technique, how to design a workout, and how to take charge of my nutrition. Can you see in this the first clues for Move Theory?
By my junior year in college, I could jump out of the gym, and was incredibly fast. Furthermore, I found out I had a great jump shot on the basketball court! As I continued to get stronger and faster and better versed in the martial arts (especially the teachings of Bruce Lee), I became more and more interested in the connection between mind and body.
When I arrived at Georgetown University as a very green, idealistic graduate student in 1996, I already knew that I wanted to explore this mind-body connection further. But I also knew that this was not just an intellectual pursuit. This also had to be a physical and spiritual pursuit. I began to study everything I could get my hands on about movement. I studied Latin dance. I became a personal trainer, specializing in rehabilitation of injuries and functional fitness. As I worked with adults in the fitness environment, I began to discover that so many adults, even those who had strong muscles and could run for miles, seemed to have no connection to their bodies. These individuals could not perform simple movements like squatting, rotating, pushing, pulling, without being heavily coached. As I talked to these injured people and learned their histories, it became apparent to me that either specific, specialized movements had either been taught to them for one purpose, a particular sport, or that movement had not been a meaningful part of their lives at all.
Without Struggle, There is No Progress…
I began to get frustrated with this. How could this be? How could I solve it? I had some success with my clients, but I longed for a better solution. I began to think about prevention. I realized that the only way to prevent this…well, was to prevent it! Around this time (2000), I made a fitness presentation at an apartment complex. A gentleman asked me if I could work with his son, who was an offensive lineman on a local high school football team. When I began to work with this young man in his team’s weight room, I realized what was going on. The coaches were so concerned about how much weight could be hoisted on a bar, these young men couldn’t even move their bodies through an effective range of motion. Technique was terrible. I realized something needed to be done about this, but I had to finish my Ph.D. dissertation first.
In doing my dissertation work on motor development and spinal injury in young animals, I had to do tons and tons of background research on the development of movement in children. I began to discover the research on play and movement. This opened up whole new worlds for me with regard to my understanding of how movement developed in children. I began to realize that for movement to develop properly, there must be exploration and guidance. I played with this idea in my head as I finished my dissertation work and prepared to transition to Miami Project to Cure Paralysis for my postdoctoral work. When I hit Miami, I spent the first few months getting my feet wet in the research and rehabilitative techniques I would use to assist the efforts to “cure” spinal cord injury. After a few months, I realized that I missed the fitness world. I secured a position at Shula’s Athletic Club as a Personal Trainer. Once there, I discovered an obesity prevention program for kids that was about to be cut. I offered to take it over.
The Revelation
Once I took over the youth fitness program at Shula’s, I realized that everything the kids had been doing involved either balancing on a board or doing adult type weightlifting. I began to review more youth fitness programs and realized that none of them really followed principles of involving children in a way that they explored variety in movement. Further, almost no one had background in child development or neural development! They were all personal trainers, volunteer coaches who had played sports, or former standout athletes. I knew I had to change things. I also knew that I had made a huge mistake. Unlike my graduate work, which won the Maengwyn-Davies award for Excellence at Georgetown University, my postdoctoral research wasn’t going to make much of a contribution. And my heart was in working with children.
As I took this program at Shula’s over, I discovered kids who had little control and connection with their movement. I also discovered many who didn’t think much of themselves as athletes. I said “Enough”! I also met Brian Grasso, who was talking about “guided discovery” – our first phone conversation lasted over an hour! I helped him found the International Youth Conditioning Association and began to create the first wave of training materials for fitness specialists who want to work with children. The IYCA has now certified thousands of Youth Fitness Specialists all around the world.
I began to intensely explore every form of movement I could: yoga, Pilates, athletic training, ballet, Olympic lifting, ancient martial arts techniques, etc. in order to have a more complete view of movement to share with the kids I worked with. I didn’t just read about these techniques. I experienced them as an athlete. I delved into them intensely. I spent some time working under Cris Carter, the famous NFL player, at his facility, learning under the people there. I lost nearly 20 pounds (of muscle) with my intense physical and intellectual study of movement. At this point (around 2004), I had a lot to teach kids, and knew all kinds of great teaching techniques that could help them improve their movement. But what kids really want to do is play. I knew this from my dissertation work. I began to think about the combination of ideas. This was the first seed for the Move Theory. I knew that kids needed to learn to move their bodies efficiently and effectively, but also that they needed (not wanted) to have fun and play. Further, I knew they needed to “own” their movement exploration. So I began to literally combine movement “training” with games they were familiar with. It worked! My programs grew. I was asked to take over training for all the competitive tennis kids at Shula’s Athletic Club. Parents began to bring me their children. Like any good teacher, the children taught me as much as I taught them.
The Work Continues
Wanting to come back to Washington, DC., I accepted a job with Fairfax County Park Authority. People thought I was nuts to accept such low pay with a Ph.D. What they didn’t understand is that I knew that true expertise arises from immersion and doing, in addition to academic knowledge. I immediately began to advocate for more Active Play opportunities for kids, informing the Board of Supervisors in a meeting that what they improperly termed the “obesity problem” was truly an issue of connection and love for movement that it was our job to foster. I toiled away in local government for the next five years, working long hours running fitness programs and operations for one fitness center, and then transferring to the county’s largest center. I worked with many children and adolescents, from all walks of life and backgrounds. I created the FUNction Program (coming to market this summer) and trained hundreds of counselors and teachers in my method of combining game play with movement discovery. I learned a tremendous amount about facility operation, facility design, program delivery, customer service, and financial management. I became certified in two of my beloved movement forms, Pilates and yoga, and then a third, Zumba.
I continued to work with the IYCA, developing content and advising youth fitness professionals all over the world. I also began to work with Exuberant Animal as I realized how important the teachings and writings of Frank Forencich are. It is this relationship that has proven incredibly beneficial in my further exploration of how movement relates to the development of a human being.
Eventually, I was tapped to run a federal project called Head Start Body Start, a wonderful program that enhances play spaces and programming for children at Head Start centers around the country. While there, I learned a tremendous amount about how to run a large project ($12 million) and about the inner workings of large organizations. However, I and others began to realize that my best use is not as an administrator in an office environment, but as an advocate, a scholar, and a designer of Active Play environments. I further realized that I am not a “boss”, but a teacher and developer of skills. I am best at creating beautiful programs and experiences. I am best at connecting with others and accomplishing a mission through collaboration.
So, here I am. Here is Move Theory. Move Theory is here to help us all understand that children are complete human beings, with Mind, Body, and Spirit. They need us to have a 3 dimensional view of them if we are to effectively educate them. They need us to know that there is no such thing as a lazy child, but there is a such thing as an uninspired child. They need us to understand that it is in our connection to others that true progress is made.
I hope you all “tune in” for the rest of the miniseries (LOL), as I explain what Move Theory really is, and what I plan to accomplish. Here is a hint, and I deliver this statement with a necessary one measure each of hubris and humility because this is not just me but a small band of incredible individuals aligned in synergy…
Be ready for the world to change.
I recently read one of the most poorly thought out articles I have ever seen on education. I would have responded to this person’s post, but he never approves my comments because he is only interested in his own view. That’s not how we get down here at Move Theory, so I will give you his here, it is called “Separation of School and State”.
A while ago, I wrote on the dangers of ideology in education. This is one such example. When a thinker buys into an ideology hook, line, and sinker – he or she becomes immediately stupid. The post referenced above has gems like the following:
“Only parents can be responsible for the education of their children…”
“More importantly, we should rebuild in our culture the idea and practice that fathers bear the primary responsibility of managing the child’s education. That education should occur principally in the home.”
Really? Why the FATHER? Are men better equipped to teach history, English, science and math? Furthermore, when is the father supposed to do all of this? After work every day? When is he supposed to build all this subject expertise beyond his current profession? Or are both parents supposed to quit working to educate the child? If so, where do they get money for food? This cannot and will not work. It is both impractical and chauvinist. There are many aspects to our economy, including the GDP and the housing market, that depend, by and large, on dual income households.
This represents the same kind of fantasy world thinking that leads people to believe that communism, capitalism, or socialism will solve all of our ills. This Utopian view prevents them from having to do the difficult, real world work of solving incredibly complex problems and working in concert with others (that may even have different views). They have the level of ego that says “If everyone would think exactly like me, the world would be perfect”. The thing is – it’s not true.
And speaking of this adherence to blanket ideologies like “free market values”, here is another doozy:
“A free market, unfettered by government regulation and meddling politicians, would allow our society to experiment and find the best education solutions for our children.”
This sounds really good. Except it isn’t true. In the aggregate, secular private schools and charter schools do no better than public schools. Look no further than Diane Ravitch’s book “The Death and Life of the Great American School System” for a comprehensive view of this issue, with evidence to back it up (something the writer in question here lacks). The only schools that routinely do better are Catholic Schools. Why? They have extensive parental involvement and a system that everyone there has chosen because they believe in it. Everyone is not Catholic – but the good news is, this is also true, by the way, of successful public schools and charter schools that boast the aforementioned characteristics.
So let’s talk about what’s actually true, culled from the available evidence, my own 15 year history with children and families, and discussions with many across political spectra and professional backgrounds:
1. Teaching skills are important.
2. Teacher subject knowledge is important.
3. Parental involvement is paramount.
4. We should be looking at what successful schools have and do.
5. We should be replicating some of what these schools do, with input from the community.
6. Education must be a partnership between schools, families, and communities.
7. Education must involve physical movement and robust, natural food.
Enough with this “blow it all up and let’s start over” drivel. We live in a time where we need real solutions, informed by evidence and thought. Not reactionary, immature, pie-in-the-sky diatribes. Our solutions will not be easy. That ship has sailed. Who wants to join Move Theory in coming up with real, collaborative, thoughtful solutions to our issues? Move Theory listens to all sides of an issue, looks at the available evidence, and considers solutions from root causes.
People often ask me, when I talk about play based fitness program, or discuss the FUNction Program, whether I have any quantitative data on changes in BMI or on Fitnessgram to “prove” that these types of programs work. I am a trained researcher. Well trained, in fact, at Georgetown University Medical Center. I know how to design experiments and write grants. So, why wouldn’t I design a study to show whether my program works to reduce BMI or increase how fast or far a child runs?
I usually say it more politely than this, but…
I simply don’t care – because it doesn’t matter
And I will tell you why right here and right now, because I am sick of this obsession with measurement:
The childhood obesity epidemic is quite obviously caused by a number of factors, very little of which has to do with how much a child weighs or how far they can run right now. If those were the true causes – children can see that they are fat, or can’t run very far – they would change it immediately. The root cause is a lack of a relationship with movement, the lack of an association with movement as fun. And how does one measure that? Wideness of smile? Should we get rulers?
Furthermore, does anyone think that the changes in the short period of time surrounding the period of most studies that can be approved (and funded) in a school or after school setting are certain to be indicative of lasting change? What we are changing is a relationship, and we are looking for proof that a one night stand happened. The two do not match up.
I could get a child to do 1000 jumping jacks a day and eat vegetables, and they will for sure lose weight. But does this create the love for movement? Does this improve motor ability? Does this improve self-efficacy? People talk a lot about self esteem, but self esteem is fleeting because it is relative to others and to perception. In other words, we could design programs that got incredibly impressive numbers, but it still wouldn’t change a community. These programs still wouldn’t change most children’s lives
In designing programs for communities and organizations, I am far more concerned that a child
1. Has fun
2. Feels like they have some level of influence over what happens in their day
3. Gains skill – and more importantly the feeling that they have skill and can accomplish things
4. Finds a connection to something that they love
5. Finds a connection to the outdoors
6. Finds a deeper connection to others
That’s why FUNction – coming to market this summer – is not a fitness program. Kids sweat, run, jump, throw, and catch, but FUNction is about much more than that. So, the rest of you can show me your numbers, and I will show you adults in 7-13 years that have a true relationship with movement, and see themselves as competent movers.
Then, Kwame, why do we need anyone with any expertise to design programs?
Good question. Because through my intensive study and my long history of forming relationships with kids, not because it was my job, but because I truly value them – I get them. The good news – there are more like me. I hope to bring you their stories through guest blogs and postings in the near future.
But for now – let’s look for less numbers and more smiles and skills. If you don’t know how to do that, contact Move Theory and I will help you. drkwamebrown@movetheory.com
Rene Descartes said “I think therefore I am”. This was a completely idiotic statement. His whole schtick was believing that the “mind” is really what mattered, and the body was some sort of necessary inconvenience. And this philosophy was handed down through the generations until we got statements like “Children are Sponges” The educational system according to Spongebob Squarepants?
…AS IF!
The fact is – children are NOT sponges! They are thinking human beings. They process information. They are not “empty slates”. The sooner we all truly realize this, not only intellectually, but in practice – the better. You can’t just tell children things, in a classroom or on a sports field, and expect them to just “absorb”.
Furthermore – we cannot forget the physical development of the child. This is not just for the sake of their health as a quality of life add on. That is important too. The other reason is that they will be less likely to reach their full intellectual potential without physical development achieved through Active Play. Furthermore – humans can’t reach their full potential without Active Play.
Children need Active Play, Problem Solving Play, Pretend Play, Social Play to get better at processing information. If Descartes had experienced those things, he would have known that. They actually need to be included in the active part of forming the questions within the prescribed content. Their natural inquisitiveness must be cultivated and maintained. A great educational system will inspire children to ask their own questions. Yes, children may ask questions that are not informed, or that show a misunderstanding of the material – GOOD! This is a chance to explore further, not a horrible event.
Both in the classroom and on the field of play, children must be raised in a culture that asks them leading questions, that doesn’t just “tell them what to do”. What would you have done differently? What do you think would have gotten a different result? Do you have any questions for me? This dialogue can lead to more questions, and further understanding with guidance.
It is high time that we stopped listening to dead philosophers that were damaged goods themselves, and don’t even live here in our present world! Join me in giving Rene Descartes the rest he so sorely needs. After all, we’ve been running him around for a while, and he wasn’t in very good shape…
First, Let’s use Move Theory to Define “Environment”
I talked about the issue of defining environment and what the environment asks children to do when I was with Head Start Body Start. You can listen to the interview here. I want to flesh this idea out a little more with this post. There is a lot of talk about the “environment” we raise kids in – but what does that even mean? The first thing to understand is that the environment means more than “nature” or “what kind of neighborhood we live in”. Further, the environment is both external and internal. I will explain below.
The Child’s External Environment
The external environment consists of the buildings, space, and the people around us that affect our daily living. This includes how buildings are built, the materials they are constructed with. This includes the spaces around us, how they are designed, and how accessible they are to us. How “connected” are the spaces we use to our needs, our modes of transportation, and our home? The external environment also means people. The way they interact with each other, the way they interact with children. These things are important parts of a child’s environment. Of further importance is the decisions people make regarding children. These decisions shape a child’s environment.
The Child’s Internal Environment
This one is a little complex and not obvious to many. But it is important. So many think of children as sponges. They are not. They are their own people, with their own personalities, and their own “internal dialogue”. The internal environment of a child is the interaction between their own “spirit”, how they process what is and what happens around them, and their internal dialogue about it.
Let’s Ask the Question Again
What does a child’s environment ask him or her to do? Well, let’s take a couple of examples for a closer look.
A Neighborhood with access to wide open spaces, safe areas for walking, and adults who believe in allowing Active Play for children…
…asks children to run, jump, somersault, throw, catch, climb, and much more! It asks them to enjoy nature. The external environment tells them to interact with others. Chances are, with all this experience doing stuff, and the feeling that there is support and guidance – the internal environment will tell the children in this neighborhood to explore, grow, move and learn!
A Neighborhood that is overcrowded, with no wide open spaces, and overworked adults who are focused on survival and don’t see time for or value of play…
…asks children to sit, to work, to stay out of the way. The environment does not ask these children to run, but to be still, confined to a space, and find some way to entertain themselves. Confined spaces alone don’t have this effect. That’s why we can’t just talk about the layout of the neighborhood. Children have, throughout history, found lots of play in some pretty poorly constructed environments. It is the human part of the external environment that is usually the final nail in the coffin of Active Play. Chances are, with the experience of sitting around, and with many angry or uninvolved adults around – the external environment will tell the children in this neighborhood that they are not valued. The internal environment will transform to one of desolation.
Take a look around today. What Does Your Environment Ask Children to Do? Does it ask children to engage naturally in Active Play? Move Theory creates Active Play environments!
Here is a recording of a conversation between me and Todd Kozinka, an IYCA Youth Fitness Specialist of “Youth In Fitness” and Planet Hoops fame, on a wide range of topics in play, physical education, and childhood obesity.
In it, I explain some of the history behind Move Theory, and what my approach is with children. Enjoy, and share! Let’s continue to work toward solutions together.
I just spent the weekend having an experience of a lifetime. In Leavenworth, Washington, at the foot of the Cascade Mountains, a bunch of trainers, physical therapists, coaches, and scientists, and a couple of gentlemen who mostly live off the land got together to experience and discuss the importance of play.
We dropped, we jumped, we ran we moved, we ducked we twisted we bent, we did partner resistance activities, body awareness activities, etc. And that was just one session. People laughed, worked hard, smiled, laughed some more. People also gave talks on play (I gave a talk on neural development and play). By the end, there were many in tears because of the richness of the experience. Some had never experienced anything like this.
This experience left me both happy and sad. Happy because this is possible. Sad because so many have made it impossible. We rarely get/give time for play anymore in our culture. We hoard, we scratch to get “ahead” – and for what? To make sure we can have a big house? Then what?
We talked a lot about activity dependent neural development. This is something that every neuroscientist, psychologist, and psychiatrist is familiar with. This term speaks to the need for the nervous system to have experience to develop properly. We also know that a variety of experiences precipitates a more robust development of the nervous system. Any mammal needs a balance of experiential variety and rest to develop properly. These are facts, not opinions.
Now ask yourself, are you developing properly? Are your children? Do you want to solve the problems of youth inactivity and the problems in our educational system? Infuse play and exploration. Problem solved. Want to know how to do this? Talk to me.
We need to start thinking about the richness of life’s experiences, and begin to achieve some balance. We must respect the land, we must respect the value of the human body and health. We are starting a movement to do just that. Do you want to help?
Go to the following websites and see how you think you can contribute.
These sites also have their own list of links. Look at every single one. What’s your role? Tell me here. Maybe we can help each other. My role, long term, is to work in a multi-disciplinary fashion to set policies that are conducive to play and balance. For the sake of our nervous systems.
Well (to quote Ronald Reagan!), the FUNction Program, simply put, is a program that uses game play coupled with “teachable moments” to guide kids toward learning effective motor skills. In English: We have a lot of fun using games and obstacle courses and they end up fit and competent by accident.
The reason I created this program (originally to help out RecPAC in Fairfax County) was because I know that kids need 2 things when it comes to fitness:
1) Time to play
2) Guided discovery to help them learn motor skills that will serve them not just in a sports environment, but also in everyday life.
Everyone should be able to move their bodies effectively. It is easiest to learn how to squat, bend, push, pull, and rotate during childhood. Furthermore, it is easiest in the long view (as we talked about in my post on play) to learn these skills from within, instead of having every bit of form and function dictated to you.
I have now opened up this class to adults and kids alike i nthe form of our FUNction Fitnes Group at Oak Marr RECenter in Oakton, VA. The other part of this version of the program is to promote community based fitness. EVERYONE should be at the park playing. I remember playing basketball against teens and adults alike when I was a “tween”.
So, for those of you in Northern Virginia, I hope you check us out.
A lot has been discussed in the past few years about our kids and our fear for their safety. I say our kids here in the way that I always mean it – all kids belong to the “village” as well as the parents.
Helicopter parents, neglect cases, “bad” neighborhoods…
Where do we stand with what we are comfortable letting our kids experience?
I work with kids on a daily basis, and some are surprised to hear that I think it’s no big deal when a child falls down and gets a bruise during one of my classes. “So, you have no regard for their safety?”, people have asked me, both jokingly and seriously.
To which I respond…
“Yes, I have regard for their safety, but I have also as great a regard for their resilience and their management of their own fear.”
How logical is it to protect children from every conceivable threat, react in a volatile manner when they get the slightest insult or bruise, then thrust them in a world like the one we live in?
It seems more logical to expose them to manageable risks, like the risks of slight injury they experience during play. Play is not only fun, but truly the best opportunity to learn management of stress. It also represents the safest way to learn resilience in the face of adversity. Without these skills, a human is at their most vulnerable.
Thus, it is my opinion that those schools that have outlawed running, dodgeball, and tag, unwittingly make kids less safe. Let me know what you think.
I have done extensive work in the fitness field, and one of the things that I find the most striking is that there seems to be a misunderstanding of what the word “fitness” actually means – Go figure!
Let’s explore the first 2 definitions of the word fitness, as the third definition has more to do with reproduction.
fit·ness -
1. The state or condition of being fit; suitability or appropriateness.
2. Good health or physical condition, especially as the result of exercise and proper nutrition.
Let’s talk about the words “suitability” or “appropriateness”, and the word “human”, because that’s what we are.
Is it “suitable” or “appropriate” for a child to try to build goo-gobs of muscle? Does this really make them “fit” for the environment that they live in?
Is it “suitable” to have so much muscle mass that one can barely reach for an object, or grab something from one’s pocket ? Read more on this phenomenon in an essay by my good friend Frank Forencich
Isn’t fitness about existing effectively in one’s natural environment?
Let’s talk about what fitness is with regard to the second definition, “good health and physical condition”:
Is it efficient movement patterns?
Is it the efficiency of the cardiovascular system?
Is it muscular strength and endurance?
Is it a properly functioning immune system? digestive system?
Is it speed?
Is it balance?
Is it flexibility?
Look at the above. Are you tempted to pick all of them? Me too! WE have concentrated on the things that say “how much” and “how far” for so long. I wonder why…my guess is that those types of things speak to the ego. The ego always wants to measure.
In effect then, what fitness has meant for children all these years has merely been an extension of our adult egos.
What are some of your ideas for getting us all thinking about the original meaning of the word fitness. How do we begin to live this more expanded, more effective it would seem, definition?
I often hear educators, trainers, parents, and coaches talk about “teaching” children the right way, the correct technique. Don’t get it twisted here, certainly there are things we learn with each generation, we need not reinvent the wheel. But if we viewed things more dynamically (the way they actually exist) instead of as if things are rigid; we may realize that a little more freedom must be afforded to the learner in order to achieve understanding, which is more lasting than doing.
We instill (earlier with each generation it would seem) a fear of failure so intense that children are afraid to try anything new. We basically treat them the same way we treat people in government management: Make a mistake and you’re toast.
Much as it does with the government manager, it renders the child for all intent and purpose unable to find innovative solutions, unable to express the natural creativity that has been such a hallmark of all the good things about humanity.
We only seem to allow mistakes from those we deem early on to be supremely talented or special. They can do no wrong. Everyone else should just do exactly as they are told. Well, what that serves to do, truly, is to narrow our possibilities. We miss things we could have had because we pidgeon-hole everyone early.
That’s why now that I have been a scientist and a supervisor in parks and recreation, I love sharing with people that I was originally going to become an actor. You see, my parents allowed me to make mistakes. Now that I work across the fields of child development, physical education, youth sports, and parks / recreation, I have a deeper understanding having seen the world around me from many different angles.
If my parents and teachers and friends had not supported this, there would be no way I could have had the (sometimes innovative, sometimes inane) ideas that I have now. I have been allowed mistakes. My fear is that I couldn’t really exist now as a teenager. There is so much pressure and competition now that everyone “coaches” children to do things exactly the right way. And that is so wrong.
As always, what do you think?
Sometimes we educators forget that we can be fallible. My how when we have “tons of experience” doing something, or even worse, if we have been a subject of adulation…Or how when we have rationalized our own behavior to make ourselves feel better about our choices….
We give incredibly, pathologically bad advice.
One extreme such case recently, is when one of the teenagers I work with, a budding opera singer, told me that her voice coach recommended she take Zanex, because “all singers should”. The “coach’s” logic was that since singers are “all” emotional, that Zanex would calm them down.
So, let’s review: Recommend a potentially addictive pharmaceutical meant to mask severe emotional symptoms so that they might be calm for a performance on stage.
Never mind that it is essential that performers be able tap INTO emotion when on stage (I know this because I used to act). Never mind that she is not a physician.
This is a teenager that is looking to you for advice. Looking to you for guidance. And you teach her your own hangups. Rationalize this with your own ego. Get a grip!
Luckily, this is a pretty well grounded young lady. She laughed at the instructor. I only have one problem: Her mother didn’t rip the lady a new one. She has probably given this advice to more impressionable girls.
So, what I ask is the following:
If you are an educator:
Have you developed the essential ability to put your own ego aside when teaching? Have you gotten to the place where the wel-being of children is more important than exalting your own self?
If you are a parent or guardian:
Are you standing up for your kids? Or are you “letting things go” to avoid “drama”?
In my view, there is only one question to answer as an educator or parent: How is this helping the child?
It would help to read the following article before reading this post, but I will try to summarize below.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/features/article1689463.ece
The title of the article: “Is PE a waste of time?”, by Barbara Lantin of the Sunday Times. Yet another provocative title. I guess that’s useful, but the problem is that most do not read through articles like this. I do. So, I am going to first communicate that this title is not supported at ALL by the contents.
The gist here is the author and others grossly misinterpreting some longitudinal research done in the EarlyBird Diabetes Study in England. The purpose of the study was to look at potential causal factors in the development of Type II (obese) diabetes. They studied overall activity levels of kids, and observed that no matter the activity level offered kids, they chose their own activity level (opting out or in) and effort level. The researchers concluded from this that activity level must be genetically predetermined by some “activitystat” gene.
Nice hypothesis, but there is one major problem with this conclusion:
Genes are old. The problems with rampant childhood obesity are relatively new. Therefore, we must consider…Gene expression itself is heavily determined / influenced by environment. I am certain that such a genetically influenced trend like an “activitystat” exists. To attribute it as the sole cause of many kids getting little to no exercise at all is a fallacy. They make some really strong conclusions on their website (while fighting for what is reportedly an unlikely funding renewal):
http://www.earlybirddiabetes.org/findings.php
Unfortunately, they make definitive statements like:
“Children’s activity not determined by environmental opportunity Green spaces and sports centres do not influence the physical activity of children Like most things biological, a child’s activity level seems to be ‘set’ by the brain, and therefore strongly defended against change”
What they are missing: No matter what exists in the environment – children don’t have cars. If the parent does not bring, the child does not go! Anyone who works with children every day would know this. So to look just at the presence of green spaces and centres “around” where the child lives is an insufficient parameter. The author fails in the article “Is PE a waste of time” and the researchers fail in the findings section of their own website to recognize the interaction of availability of play spaces in the neighborhood with the will of the parent, despite saying right above…
“Obese children – parents unaware and unconcerned. Today’s parents are oblivious of their children’s weight. Parents are key partners in the drive to halt obesity, but will have little impact unless educated to recognise the problem”
So, let me get this straight: You are making the conclusion that low activity is genetically predetermined and highly resistant to change, but recognize parental education as a major factor? How can both be true? C’mon SON!!!
Now, I will turn my attention to the title “Is PE a waste of time”. Clearly not, if well designed, by their own admission, because also in the findings section of the EarlyBird website is the following:
Children who keep active are no lighter, but they are metabolically healthier: The UK and US Governments advise at least 60 minutes moderate physical activity every day. Only 42% of the EarlyBird boys and 11% of the girls met this guideline consistently over the three-year period from 5-8yr. Importantly (because governments use BMI as their outcome measure), there were no differences in the trend for BMI over the four time points in either sex, but the more active children became metabolically healthier. The study questions the utility of BMI as the outcome measure of physical activity programmes in children and also whether the bar for girls should be lowered (girls systematically record less physical activity than boys). (Metcalf BS – Arch Dis Child 2008).
Look at the last statement above – BMI has been consistently used as a parameter for years in studies on childhood obesity / inactivity. This is why the article and many others are missing the point. This is not about weight. It is about the habits that CREATE the higher weight in some kids, but adversely AFFECT ALL CHILDREN.
In conclusion:
Despite my bashing this study, it provides some really valuable information. Pretty well designed and executed (it seems), the EarlyBird study helps us delve deeper in to the causal factors in childhood obesity/inactivity. My quarrel is with the conclusions made by some of the researchers, and with the result that this will have in creating a certain appearance to the layperson. As an aside, I never use the term layperson in an insulting way. I know very little about solar panel engineering, so I am a layperson. It has nothing to do with intelligence level, just amount and intensity of study
Is PE a waste of time? If you only care about what children weigh when left to their own devices, yes. But yet again, I feel compelled to say as I often have – obesity is the sneeze. Physical play, when done with children’s needs (and yes, wants) in mind, treats the disease of inactivity and lack of physical enjoyment. PE that concentrates on caloric expenditure and measuring BMI treats the symptom. This placates politicians and statisticians, but does very little for children.
Children need thoughtful play time and play spaces dedicated to and designed for their natural proclivities. They also need time playing with adults. Furthermore, adults need to be proactive in providing healthy foods to support the play.
As we close National Parks and Recreation month, this is a special time for me. I am ending most of my formal involvement with one of the best parks and recreation organizations in the United States, Fairfax County Park Authority. I have been privileged to work in this organization and in this field for the past 5 years. Many thought I was crazy to give up a career as a scientist to do this.
In fact, one misguided mentor lambasted me for it, saying that they could not believe I was leaving an important field like spinal cord injury to go “play with kids”. I couldn’t believe that a neuroscientist had such a gross misunderstanding of neuroscience. From a neuroscientist’s point of view, I cannot imagine what could be more important, what could trump, making sure that children had adequate play spaces, opportunities, and relationships.
I remember what one of my greatest mentors, Dr. Benjamin Walker, said to me while I was still in graduate school: “You are a trained problem solver. Pick the problem that means the most to you and solve it.” Maybe all those dreadlocks allowed him to collect such wisdom!
Back to Parks and Recreation. In the RECenters of Fairfax County Park Authority, children have access to water, trees, gyms, play spaces, qualified play personnel, and a safe place to go. We chose to be revenue based facilities in order to lessen the tax burden and help support some of our programs like camps for underprivileged children and adapted aquatics. The communities surrounding our facilities have been wonderful supporters of our programs. Some of our programs are a little more expensive than I would like, but we have a range of options to serve a wide range of people. Plus, it costs over 2.5 million a year just to run the facility in which I work presently.
Which brings me to some questions:
Can you imagine a world without recreation?
Can you imagine a world without natural spaces (the main purpose of our agency is to preserve these spaces)?
Can you imagine a world without play?
This brings me to another question:
Where do you spend your money?
We are in many ways, spoiled, childish capitalists. We discuss the mess of childhood obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and poor nutrition, but refuse to make the leap of understanding that it is where we spend our money that got us here. Collecting things does not enrich a life. Experiences enrich a life.
Parks and Recreation organizations provide experiences that enrich lives. We ensure that there are unspoiled trails, parks, and wildlife. We ensure that there are qualified professionals to provide play opportunities for your children. Too often I see parks and recreation professionals underpaid, overworked, and abused by patrons. It’s still all worth it when someone tells you that you changed their life.
My message today: Support your local community center, recreation center, park, or program. In this climate, with all we are dealing with, what could be more important than standing as a community and saying: “We will support play. We will support the preservation of natural spaces. We will support the hub of our community”? What could be a more important problem to solve?
I was grateful earlier this week to serve on a panel that produced a lively, productive discussion on youth obesity in the African-American community. Now, those of you that know me personally, or have heard me speak, know that I hate the title “youth obesity”. If we are to solve the issue, we must focus on the virus, not the sneeze. However, I also fully understand that the purpose of the title was to get people into the room.
The panel was made up of a diverse group of individuals from a variety of professions, with the common thread that we all cared about the issue of youth inactivity and malnutrition. I will list all below, along with their websites, so that you can all learn about what they are doing. My next post will be about some issues and solutions for empowerment that came out of this discussion, but for now, I want to concentrate on the people.
Chris Draft (Redskins)
http://www.chrisdraftfamilyfoundation.org/
Mr. Draft has written a children’s book called “Do You Want To Play Catch?” that is all about teamwork, communication, and what he describes as the real reason he ended up in the NFL: playing as a child
Dr. Rhonique Harris
Dr. Harris is a pediatrician who works tirelessly in the African-American community to improve health, nutritional access, and cultural opportunities.
Jenne Johns, M.P.H.
Ms. Johns runs an organization called SHIRE. They say it better than I can:
SHIRE engages with communities, government agencies, corporations, foundations and other institutions by: a) convening diverse individuals to take collective action; b) informing public policy decision makers on strategies to eliminate health disparities; c) raising awareness of policy implications for communities of color; d) serving as a trusted source of information; and e) providing technical assistance and consulting to allied organizations. Communities, government agencies, corporations, and foundations look to SHIRE as an effective and trusted resource to identify inequities, propose solutions, and galvanize grassroots groups to address access to health care and quality of care issues among the underserved, particularly communities of color.
Ellie Krieger (Food Network)
http://www.healthylivingwithellie.com/online-program/customized-plan.aspx
http://www.foodnetwork.com/healthy-appetite-with-ellie-krieger/index.html
Ms. Krieger’s show, Healthy Appetite, addresses strategies for eating healthy in a way that doesn’t compromise taste, and is convenient. Win-Win! As a side note, her husband, Thom Schuchaskie, has a wonderful program in New York City that teaches kids about nature through experience and movement. What a family!
Audrey Rowe
Ms. Rowe is Deputy Administrator for Special Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, USDA. That’s a mouthful, I know. But basically, Ms. Rowe is one of those responsible for ensuring good nutrition in our schools. WE had a great conversation about practicality and consistency of message in nutrition. Some want to blame the federal government for everything, and think that no one in the government is doing anything about the problem. I can attest to the fact that Ms. Rowe is passionate, knowledgeable, and is working hard to solve the nutrition problem for our kids.
Debra Langford (VP Inclusion and Business Diversity, NBC / Universal)
Ms. Langford served as moderator for this event, and did a wonderful job of letting the experts talk, but focusing the discussion in meaningful directions. We were grateful for this, and it really helped the discussion turn into a productive one.
I was sent an article today, by not one but 4 separate colleagues who thought that I should comment on it. So I will. But this will not be what they (or I) may have expected me to write at first impulse. This will not be a condemnation of anyone specific, nor a fiery diatribe. I have done enough of that in my life, and certainly do enough of it at home (apologies to my wife).
This will be a discussion of solutions – moving forward and using this provocative article to deepen our well of understanding on the subject of physical activity as it relates to early childhood development. So here goes. I recommend that you read the source article for yourself, before reading my comments, so that you can be informed as well.
The article, written in the New York Times, discusses the plethora of new programs that seem, at least on the surface, to be sports training programs for babies. Yes, babies. That can’t even walk yet, but we are playing soccer and baseball! This may seem crazy to you, and it may be. But I would rather talk about how we got here, and what we can do to fix it.
How we got here
I have said this before, but I also don’t assume that everyone reads this blog regularly, so here goes: We made it so that parents are literally judged by the “product” that their child becomes, as if the parent was a worker on an assembly line making kid widgets. Then we systematically concentrated wealth in this country, thus making it so that there is at least a perception of limited “success slots” in this society.
During this time we also heard scientists and psychologists say (often in dangerous sound bite snippets) that children should have early experience. What this experience should be like was never sufficiently communicated. Now look at all of that against the landscape of parent targeted marketing, purporting guarantees that if “x” program is followed, children will be successful. They will be little “geniuses”, they will be “superbabies”, these programs say.
Now everyone and their mother, and their mother’s government agency, and their mother’s nonprofit (self included) is saying that we have this huge child inactivity problem, an obesity epidemic! Stir this in the pot with all of the above…Voila!
What would you do?
Flash forward, and now you have this climate of parents who demand programs that get their kids trained early. “There is no time! We have to start now! You said so!” Wait! I just used the word demand, didn’t I? What’s the first rule of economics? That’s right – supply and demand.
So we have this demand from parents and we live in a capitalistic society – welllll…here comes the supply!
Backtrack for a second, and let’s sum it all up. We got here through some pretty egregious misinformation and incomplete stories, combined with some ingrained culture, combined with opportunism. This is why you have parents enrolling their children in programs that teach their babies competitive sports during infancy and toddler years. Some of these programs say that it’s really not that, they just play games. I certainly hope not, because that would be wrong, now wouldn’t it? And these games are still definitely all adult led and structured, which is a problem if that’s a child’s only play experience. And that certainly shouldn’t even be the largest chunk of the play experience during the infancy or toddler stages.
But let’s talk about solutions. Let’s talk about what the landscape should look like for parents and these most precious beings.
Solutions
We must make the case for play, now more than ever, and possibly now or never. Play in the true sense of the word allows children to explore, to be with their friends on their terms, with gentle and understanding adult guidance.
Children need to encounter things when they are developmentally appropriate. To know what that means, we must put people directly in touch with simple tools that are immediately useful. NASPE and Head Start Body Start have some really easy to use tools to elucidate just what physical play should look like in early childhood. Both have collected and evaluated research and opinions of experts in early childhood from all over the country. Let us help you filter the noise.
Children need opportunities to create. Adults often don’t realize how stifling encouragement can be. We think encouragement and direction are always positive. In the long term, for a child, these things can be the kiss of death to creativity and they can actually kill enjoyment when misapplied. Because when I get praise and encouragement for doing one thing, my impulse is to do…one thing!
Even biomechanically for a child, if they are always being “taught” how to move, it stifles the development of skill. They need to explore the different ways that their body works with their individual take on life. I am glad that Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer hit the ball differently! They have different spirits.
But how do we make that case? People have been talking about this for decades. Yes, but they haven’t been talking about it in the right ways. We have to market the idea that children need room to explore and grow. You can’t do that or spread that idea if the very name of your program is contradictory to that idea. We do nothing but confuse everyone if we call something one thing and our intention is for it to be another. We need memes. We need to always say what we mean. And then we need to make it viral.
To do this we need help from the right kind of celebrities, the right professionals, and the right programs.
I wrote this in order to continue a dialogue. Please let me know what you think!
PLEASE share your comments, retweet, re-facebook, etc.
Mary Gordon and Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl. Remember those names. With a Mary Gordon’s program, called Roots of Empathy, and the research done by Dr. Schonert-Reichl and others, there may be a breakthrough on the important issue of bullying / aggressive behavior in children. I have written about the topic of bullying. These women are doing the actual “in the trenches” work to solve it with the “Roots of Empathy” program in Canada. Dr. Schonert-Reichl has been nice enough to begin corresponding with me about this study and further work they are doing. I hope that the dialogue grows and continues.
I have no other purpose for this post but to share some bullet point results from her research and link you back to her work, and the program itself.
They bring a baby and a parent into school to interact with the children!
What They Found:
They found that, in short, this approach is effective in improving all universally accepted factors in the behaviors that contribute to bullying. Furthermore, they found that bullying itself (or aggressive behavior period) decreased significantly.
Read more by clicking on the “Roots of Empathy” link above.
PLEASE share your comments, retweet, re-facebook, etc.
P.S. I love babiiiiieeeeesss!
My good friend Frank Forencich, founder of Exuberant Animal, commenting on “Solution #1: Bring PE back”, said it so well:
As it stands, they PE teachers live at the bottom of the academic pecking order.
This has got to change.
I could not agree more, my friend! To address just that, here are my thoughts on how we might gain more respect for PE teachers:
1) Make the case for play. Yes, PE teachers must assert themselves, but others must assert themselves on behalf of PE teachers as well. Those of us that are trained in the design, evaluation, and interpretation of research must help make the case. Parents that know and appreciate good PE teachers must fight to honor those teachers.
2) Administrators who are aware that we have a youth inactivity issue in the United States must support the PE teachers, and give them time + resources with which to do their jobs.
3) Well known figures that have had great PE teachers or good PE experiences must talk about those experiences. But these celebrities must be chosen well. Not your standard “fitness guru”, but people who have lived positive lives and are from a variety of genres/disciplines.
4) We must then hold up PE teachers as local celebrities themselves.
5) PE teachers must continue to assimilate better skills to deserve all of the above. This process will include changing how PE teachers are educated, but that’s for my next post…
What’s your list?
I will be reposting this again and again over the next few weeks.
Please share it – retweet, facebook it, Stumble it, Rate It, etc.
I am going to submit some thoughts here that are, in my opinion, the main causes of our supposed inability to “fix” education.
These thoughts are what I think the Big Huge Barriers are – certainly there are more, and I would hope that all of you would reply with your own thoughts as well.
To illustrate some of my points below, if you have time – go to the following two links. Both are wonderful blog spots, written by individuals who truly care about reforming education. Read the comment sections of both. There is a veritable “cornucopia” of ideas ranging from the incomplete, to insane and nonsensical. If you don’t have time, my Big Huge Barriers below will attempt to distill some of our issues.
Knitting With Pencils – “A Failure of Imagination”
DeKalb County (Atlanta) School Watch – “It’s time now to bring parent revolution here”
Big Huge Barriers:
1. Adherence to an Ideological Perspective: This covers annoying Christmas standards like “If we just kick the government out of education”, “Charter Schools are Better”, “Unions are Bad”. All are available on a compilation from Time Life Records, sung by the Chipmunks. You can listen to them over and over again while you open your presents. It won’t solve any problems, but you’ll feel better! The fact is, there are problems inherent and contributions to the issues we experience in education from every direction. Also contained here is the assumption that if we take one scapegoat out, we will solve our problems. All organizations are made up of individuals, who either collectively make good decisions or bad decisions.
2. Lack of Cultural Value: Look at our society. We pride ourselves on being capitalistic, where the money follows the most value. Telling, then, is the fact that among other highly educated/skilled professionals, teachers are among the lowest paid. I find it interesting, if not disheartening that we pay far more to those who specialize in Auto Tune, or in moving money from one account to another, than to those who guide our most precious resource. And make no mistake – as I have said many times, WE have made this decision – together.
3. Lack of Freedom for Teachers: Teachers are given so many mandates and requirements, that they find it difficult to be creative within their profession. If they don’t feel like they are being given the time to be creative, how can the kids get this feeling? Those who have found ways to be creative, end up staying awake very late at night, taking time away from their own family life.
4. Lack of Parent Involvement: But listen here – we all share the blame for this! The two statements “Work two jobs to pull yourself up by the bootstraps” AND “Attend PTA meetings, spend more time with your kids” – cannot exist in the same space at the same time. This is what I am now coining as the “Heisenberg Principle of Parenting”. To achieve widespread parent involvement, several things must happen – parent will, societal restructuring, and parent support. I will address this in a separate post later.
5. Routine Ignorance of the Process of Child Development: We try to roll child development into a series of statements that really are meant to fit our convenience – not the reality of best practices in child development. Children develop best when given the ability to explore, have regular opportunities for physical movement throughout the day, and have their unique perspectives and abilities taken into account. Does this sound like how the majority of our schools work, private or otherwise? This comes from a chosen ignorance of much of the data on child development. But some of the things we must do to achieve best practices will take money because it involves restructuring even the way classrooms are built, and the way schools are administrated. So we continue to flounder in an “undoable” structure, because we can’t fathom spending that much money. But how much does the alternative cost?
6. The Assumption that Test Scores are the Best Measure: They are not. We continually fixate on short term results, despite widespread knowledge that child development is in no way linear. Furthermore, the mandates that cause everything to hinge on test scores has been disastrous in that is has changed the very process of education. This may be the most damaging thing. If the government is to be involved in education (and I think it should), the role should be to identify and communicate best practices, then evaluate process. When we make everything about test scores – best practice literally becomes teaching the test. This is actually the most logical, effective choice in that situation. But it does not give us people who come out of school practicing the American ingenuity that we so value. In fact there is research to show that when children are given more exploratory opportunities vs. being taught how to do things, they exhibit more resilience with equal or better results. And make no mistake – it is resilience that is at the root of ingenuity. The fragile always pick the safest, least creative option.
So, after all that, what do you think?
In a recent post titled “Solving Education: Big Huge Barriers” we talked about several issues holding education reform back. The first was blind adherence to ideology.
As an example here, I will use the issue of private vs. public education.
It is all the rage now to say “Hey, let’s just do away with government in schools, and go private with vouchers. It will cost less and students do way better in private schools”
Not so fast…
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
Volume 17, Issue 3, pages 373–392, Summer 1998
•This study found little to no difference in student achievement for private vs. public schools
•They did find better graduation and college attendance rates for students attending Catholic schools
•The analysis also found a higher overall projected cost in a voucher system vs. the current public school system
So, send your kids to Catholic School, right? Wrong. Who are these kids? You guessed it, usually more affluent. Furthermore, Catholic Schools often report more parent involvement.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
March 20, 1996, Volume 18, Issue 1, Pages 1-18
This is yet another study that found:
•No difference in student performance across the board in private vs. public schools, once controlled for preexisting differences between students (socioeconomic status, demographics, etc). In other words, student x will, across the board, do just as well in public school vs. private school.
•A clear improvement in student performance in magnet vs. public schools.
•Catholic schools again performed better than the others.
So, yeah, it seems that when I am able to select out which students I want, or pick from an indoctrinated population, the students perform better.
Don’t believe those stupid scientists? What do they know? Well here: Listen to scientists and parents and teachers.
A more important factor is parent involvement! This confers upon the child the mind “set” to value education. So let’s try to figure out how to achieve that. Notice, I didn’t say “blame parents more”. I said let’s figure out a strategy to get them involved.
I am not saying that it is bad to go to private school. I am not saying either that there aren’t ineffective public schools. What I am saying is that we have to change the conversation to one where we are looking at the evidence and trying to figure out what to fix, not which scapegoat to use or which ideology to “believe” in. Those are solutions that make us feel safe, but don’t really solve anything.
My friend Josh asked me for solutions to some of the barriers I identified. Here is my solution to this one:
Study the Problem before you open your mouth (or wallet) to support a solution that, in reality, may not even work.
I interviewed Joe E. System, and he gave me the following quotes:
“Education’s only purpose is to get you cash”
“I will tell you what the answers are, and you give ‘em back when I tell you”
“We are preparing children to be either docile factory workers or smart people”
“When things are not working, we should do more of the same and raise the stakes, and then if that doesn’t work, blame people.”
“Children are nothing until we mold them.”
Now, Joe E. System is obviously a fictional person, but before I discuss some possible solutions, and logistics: here’s a real person talking about our edu-culture issues, Sir Ken Robinson:
Yes, I agree! And this is certainly not an indictment of teachers – its much bigger than that. And I don’t just include public schools. Private and Charter Schools also suffer from the named issues.
Now what the heck do we do about it?
Warning! Radical Thoughts Below!
1) Make rational, educated, thoughtful, interesting people into celebrities – not just those who talk loudly and make tons of money. Encouragingly, blogging, CNN, and even MTV (life with Jinks) are doing some of this.
2) Don’t abolish standardized testing: Instead use it as what it is supposed to be – just one indicator of progress among many. This way, we don’t change the whole culture to fit “standardization”, but still retain the benefit of measurement.
3) Don’t just bring play back into school – make school into play. Playfully consider subject matter as well as physicality. Engage children in the divergent thinking that Ken Robinson speaks of, so that their creativity “muscles” don’t atrophy.
4) Do more work in groups – more discussions, more collaborative projects – and then test their ability to retain subject knowledge and exhibit critical thought. This way children not only learn to think for themselves, but increase their self efficacy.
5) Respect the fact that the world has changed, and kids are overstimulated. Recess and physical education + well trained physical educators / play facilitators will be incredibly important going forward.
Now, who else wants to play with me?
Can you think of some more ways to change our education – culture relationship?
I am taking a break today from the ongoing education reform discussion to comment on a blog post by a colleague (and hopefully new friend) Dr. Anna Floyd.
Her post, entitled “When Work Becomes Play… and Play Becomes Work” addresses the definition of play, and what sets it apart from work. You should read the whole post, as well as the great minds of play that she links to; but the basic idea is that play is
1. Initiated voluntarily
2. “incompletely functional” meaning not having a direct outcome goal
I think these distinctions are important, because we talk about more play in education and work. This desire / intuitive need /evidence for the value of more play in our lives, and especially in the lives of our children, begs the following question:
Can work be play?
The answer is, based on our acceptance of the above definition, an unequivocal no, especially if you work for someone or are a child under the control of others. Nor can we, in most situations due to the goals required of the task, make work into play. But that’s not the end of the story.
Work and School can be Play-FULL (purposeful misspelling)
Work and school can approach play, if not become it.
Playful Work ≈ Play
Latitude, Play, and Divergent thinking are intimately related.
The state of our world today necessitates divergent thinking.
What do I mean by this? I mean that we can give more latitude in work and school, and allow for more initiative among those not in “power”.
Furthermore, speaking of power, we can cease to rub it in others’ faces when we have a supposed dominion over them. We can listen to their ideas, and guide them instead of forcing and dominating them.
For children, that certainly means backing away from the lectures and commands, and moving toward experience and guided discovery. Great teaching means guiding children, but involving them also in the process of guiding and evaluating themselves.
Variety + Repetition + Latitude + Self-Efficacy = Brain Power
MATH
PHYSICAL EDUCATION
Sometimes, being home sick can be an advantage. I got to watch 2 episodes of “I Used to Be Fat” on MTV. For all the garbage like “Jersey Shore”, MTV puts out some pretty deep stuff sometimes.
This is a show where they take an obese teenager that wants to lose weight and provide them with a coach and support. I watched the first two episodes, with Gabriella (Episode 1) and Marci (Episode 2)
Now, I have my problems with this approach – bringing a personal trainer in, working out full time with the kid. The fact is, most families cannot afford such an intervention. I should know – I used to do it for a living. So, that makes it a non-sustainable approach. But if the show can give inspiration, then it’s a good thing.
What struck me most about the show was the behavior of the parents.
Gaby’s Mom…was controlling through her verbal attacks on Gaby, which seemed (maybe due to editing) to be constant. Her one telling statement: “I want her to be perfect” Wow. I once had a mom tell me about her daughter that since she had been fit all her life, that her fat daughter was a curse. Gaby’s mom, despite being verbally controlling and barking commands, was not very supportive, constantly buying sugary snacks for her other kids, and exhorting Gaby not to eat them. Really? Instant Conflict, Just Add Water!
Marci’s Mom…was permissive, and enabling to her daughter. Her daughter cries, her daughter gets. What a mean thing to do to a child! Mom says at one point “I always thought you got more out of people with kindness”. She interpreted her own permissiveness as kindness. But I ask you – if the result is your child growing up to be completely inept at navigating the world, is it really kindness?
Now, I am not a parent, but I had great parents. And I have worked with hundreds of children and families over the past decade plus. If you’ve been reading this blog for a while, you know that I believe the village raises the child, with the parents being primarily responsible. The evidence for that is so overwhelming that it’s just about an open and shut case.
Below I am going to share my list of important things that we as the village must include in raising our children. I hope that after reading it, you will share your own and/or reorder mine.
Rules For Raising Healthy Vibrant Village Children
1. Empathy. This tops my list, because children have legitimate emotional responses to things. We do ourselves no favors by glossing over these emotions or telling children to “stop having them”. Just think about how you feel when someone invalidates your emotions. No, children do not have the perspective of an adult.
2. Consistency. Children have no idea what to do or how to behave when they keep getting mixed signals. Ever receive mixed signals from someone you’re dating? No fun, is it? Be firm with your rules. This may seem to fly in the face of the above for some people, but it does not. Everything that helps your child develop into a strong life navigator is love. Even rules.
3. Leading by Example. Are you playful and active? Do you read consistently? Do you control your emotions? Do you eat well? Do you show respect? When I work with children, I call them “ma’am” or “sir”. Respect, like love, can never be one sided. Honor Thy Mother and Father? Honor Thy Child as well.
4. Play. This is incredibly important. Children learn best through play, movement, and manipulation of things. Don’t rob them of this chance by your fearful need to control. You are on this earth to be a guide, not an overlord.
5. Listen to Others. Yes, you know your child. But there may be other people in similar situations, or people who have studied your particular type of situation and know something about it. Listen, but don’t become a disciple. Make your own decisions, hopefully based upon the above four.
Those are mine, what do you have?
I have been saying for some time that the so called “smoking gun” of vaccines causing autism has been hugely overblown. While there is a plethora of studies showing that there is NO link between autism and vaccines, there were the following 4 issues working in favor of this idea catching on like wildfire. Keep reading for more:
1) One study, done by Andrew Wakefield
Well, this study had an “n”, or sample size, of 12 children. Any trained scientist knows that it is impossible to make a causal conclusion from such a small study. Furthermore, the study has now been debunked. Several of the children had been diagnosed with developmental disorders before getting their vaccines. While his results showing GI problems in children with autism have been replicated, his linkages to vaccines have not.
2) Several parent groups and celebrities making interesting conclusions
I find it curious that people would hear Jenny McCarthy’s opinion on the subject and take her at face value! While she was a well liked Playboy model, and pretty witty person – her only qualification is being the mother of one boy who happens to have autism. Her and other parents have said “Well, it was after the vaccines that my child started showing signs”. Are you sure? The average age of onset of symptoms for Autism Spectrum Disorders is age 3-4, not birth. Furthermore, if the average age of onset is 3-4, then some will show at 2 and some may show at 5-6 years old. These parents are not trained scientists, so they don’t know this and can easily be misled.
3) General mistrust of “government” and “big business” feeding conspiracy theories, but a seeming inability to consider the possibility of one individual being corrupt.
4) The furor over vaccines in and of itself obfuscating other possible connections
You know, there are another two potential factors that have risen almost in parallel with Autism Spectrum Disorders:
A) Older women having children, which drive up the likelihood of developmental anomalies. Well, acknowledgment of this factor would involve seeming like someone was “blaming” mothers – never politically popular.
B) More understanding among physicians about how to diagnose these issues. This would involve saying something positive about western medicine and the field of medicine – another political no-no, because now you’re part of the hated “establishment”, even if you’ve already spoken out about other problems you see in the medical field.
There are a number of possible factors contributing to a child having / being diagnosed with an Autism Spectrum Disorder. A possible link of vaccines would be by far the least of these factors. So let’s stop focusing the majority of our attention on it.
This brings up a larger issue with solving issues that affect children – the desire of us adults to pick easy, sensational solutions, instead of considering nuance and synergy between factors. It affects medicine, education, and pretty much everything else that decides the path of child development.
In Big Huge Barriers I outlined 6 barriers to the improvement of our educational system (and by proxy the knowledge and abilities of our young graduates). The third was the lack of freedom that teachers have. In that post I said the following (but please don’t think I’m original because many have said this:
Teachers are given so many mandates and requirements, that they find it difficult to be creative within their profession. If they don’t feel like they are being given the time to be creative, how can the kids get this feeling? Those who have found ways to be creative, end up staying awake very late at night, taking time away from their own family life.
People in general probably need more on the job autonomy. It is especially true of teachers, who have been routinely taken away from tried and true teaching techniques by standards from legislation like NCLB. Teachers need to be given the freedom to make on the spot decisions to explore ideas further with children, to alter techniques / tactics based on effectiveness, and to some extent to decide content.
National Standards, the veracity and necessity of which are being hotly debated, are certain to do one thing – restrict teachers’ interactions with students. The reason is that the net has to be cast to wide in either direction. If standards are made to be too accommodating, they lose their “teeth”. If they are made to be too high, they overwhelm with content, therefore making it especially difficult to form the skill sets needed to learn and process information more effectively in the future.
So, in effect, much like many corporations, we sacrifice long term growth and prosperity for short term prosperity.
But, what is the answer?
No, I don’t believe this autonomy should be limitless. But I believe that education should be shaped by either individual teachers or committees of teachers, not administrative specialists – and certainly not politicians.
Here is my plan to afford more autonomy for teachers:
1. Stop creating environments in which everything is about test performance. Make test performance part of an equation.
2. If you want to issue mandates, make sure schools are given a longer trajectory and adequate funding to make changes a reality first, instead of making it punishment based.
3. Agree on content standards, and leave implementation up to the classroom teacher/team.
4. Allow young teachers more time and varied experience in an apprentice mode. That way, once a teacher steps into the classroom in front of children, you have a fully realized professional that can make curriculum level decisions based on observations in the classroom.
5. Teacher autonomy must extend to student autonomy. Teachers should act more as guides than as didactic dictators. This actually frees teachers up more to give individual attention which, besides collaboration, is one of the hallmarks of effective education.
Please feel free to share your ideas, or to agree or disagree.
An article titled “Why Chinese Mothers are Superior” was printed in the Wall Street Journal recently
Ok, I didn’t really want to comment on this article, but I guess I must. let me say a couple of things before I go on:
1. Just because someone is a passionate, skilled, humorous writer doesn’t mean they are right. Conviction is not a reliable determinant of correctness.
2. Results, results, results…Yes, but what results are we looking for?
3. If we don’t stop assuming that the assembly line productivity of society is the most important measure of society, we are headed toward a possibly unrecoverable downward spiral.
4. Because something “works” in the construct of one culture, doesn’t mean it “works” in the construct of another culture.
Amy Chua, it can be surmised from the tone of the article, is very proud of herself. And why not? She is successful by our current definition. She is an excellent writer and accomplished professional. Her daughters are smiling (well kind of half smiling) in the picture and are by all accounts (given by Ms. Chua) well adjusted and successful.
So, why am I concerned? Because our parenting style determines what kind of society we have.
In this article, Ms. Chua outlines her parenting technique, which can best be described as harsh, strict, and manipulative. Quotes like this sound great:
Chinese believe that the best way to protect their children is by preparing them for the future, letting them see what they’re capable of, and arming them with skills, work habits and inner confidence that no one can ever take away.
Here are some telling quotes:
For example, if a child comes home with an A-minus on a test, a Western parent will most likely praise the child. The Chinese mother will gasp in horror and ask what went wrong.
That’s why the solution to substandard performance is always to excoriate, punish and shame the child.
Ms. Chua also, at the beginning of the article, expresses with great pride that her children get no choice over anything. No school plays, they must play piano and violin (even if they like neither of these instruments).
And in the Chinese culture, it is widely reported that there is no time for play.
Ms. Chua also recounts with great pride the age old technique of meeting anything less than perfection with anger and holding parental affection hostage for success.
My concern is that deprivation of play and choice results potentially in a lack of maturity or divergent thinking. Both of these qualities are sorely needed in our society.
China is a closed society, with lots of government control over it’s citizens. The United States (despite what some would have you believe) is not. The exercising of extreme control over every aspect of a child’s life can produce a great, efficient worker, but not leaders and innovators.
Will Ms. Chua’s daughters become leaders or innovators? This remains to be seen, as there are many influences over the development of kids, not just parents. Furthermore, Ms. Chua may not have been totally truthful with us about the totality of her parenting style. We only have what was written in the article. Her husband seems to feel differently, so her kids may have had some balance.
But the reproduction of this parenting style en masse, I believe, will produce a nation full of infantilized, highly productive workers. How do we know this? Because that is what the current system of education mixed with too common helicopter parenting is beginning to produce now.
The question is – do we want that?
I, for one, believe that we can raise children to be productive individuals that also develop meaningful relationships and interact well with each other. Individuals that collaborate and innovate.
We cannot get there by producing highly trained parrots through punishment and the withholding of love.
There is something in between “laissez-faire” and Gestapo. Parents can help children find intrinsic motivation. Outward motivation only works as long as someone else is controlling you.
What does everyone else think?
Alright, we’re almost done! On to Number 4 of my Big Huge Barriers to success in education. I talked about the lack of parent involvement. Many people have discussed this, but it often involves mostly exhortation of parents to “get more involved”. That’s a lot like a football coach telling a 12 year old receiver to “get there” on a pass pattern.
Sure! How?
Well, here I am going to do just that. But first, here’s a message from our sponsor – the children (thanks, builderbob58, for sharing this on You Tube).
Now that you have heard the commercial from our sponsors, I welcome you back to regularly scheduled programming.
Let’s talk about how we can get parents more involved. I will outline a basic skeleton of a plan below, and hopefully, you all will add to that skeleton.
1. Make it mandatory for all parents to spend 1 day per month at their child’s school volunteering in the classroom. But first, this needs the proper support. Lack of support for mandates is a sure road to failure. Parents will need to be apprised of some basic conduct guidelines, and receive some training on basic techniques they can use to help without being overbearing. Second, bosses/workplaces will need to cooperate. As much as I hate interfering in private business, this will have to be legislated. Otherwise, every single business in America becomes the exception that cannot possibly live for 8 hours a month without this certain individual. As a compromise, this may have to come down to once per quarter for part time employees, but that’s still something.
2. Every school should host play nights, where the families play both physical and academic games together. Doom Dome, Jeopardy, etc. Don’t tell me it can’t be done – I have done it. And I’m going over to a school to play some games next Wednesday night (my cousin’s school!). Play must be an integral part of not only the child’s life, but the family’s life as well. Sometimes families need a spark from the rest of the village to start the fire in their own lives.
3. Support should be given to parents who are illiterate, or lack skills. There is no better way to help society and kids at the same time than to educate and improve skill sets of parents. Just ask Head Start and Harlem Children’s Zone. Both of these programs require heavy parent involvement. Both programs operate in low income environments.
What do you have to add to this list? Do you agree? Disagree? Share what you know and what you think.
Part I – Pros vs. Cons
Yes, for those of you from the original hip hop generation – this was a play on that famous Salt N Pepa song “Let’s Talk About Sex”.
Why? Because it seems that these days, talking about testing and NCLB is just as emotionally charged a topic as sex! But, as is my usual modus operandi, I’m gonna talk about it anyway. Why? Because we have to solve this for the children.
My purpose here is not to throw out testing entirely, but to curb it and make it more effective.
My purpose here is not to villify those who believe in our current paradigm of high stakes, multiple choice, superficial standardized testing, but to change minds and create an accord.
My purpose is to look at the aforementioned combination of words: high stakes + superficial / multiple choice + standardized = we have a problem.
My purpose here is not to transform our schools into environments where there is no evaluation, no grading – I think evaluation is necessary for teaching. But I think that evaluation needs to measure the progress along a line toward the actual desired product – students who can process information, take initiative, and innovate.
Before we truly solve this problem, we absolutely have to look at the reasons and the “pro” side of standardized testing. The reason – these are issues that we cannot escape and therefore must acknowledge in order to come up with solutions that actually work. I sincerely doubt that all of those who fought for and then approved NCLB and the move toward excessive standardized testing are stupid. I think it’s more likely that they were uninformed, unimaginative and had really complicated issues to solve. Any two of those three ingredients spell a recipe for disaster. So, let’s dig a little deeper….
What Made Us Think “Yes to Standardized Testing”?
1. Kids are competing for spots at colleges / universities from wildly different school systems, such that grades alone can’t be a fair separator.
2. We live in a culture that values superficial, number based measurement – i.e., if person “x” has more money, they must be better than person “y”.
3. We didn’t want to continue rewarding bad schools that produced bad results.
4. Testing companies can make a lot of money and therefore put a lot of money toward lobbying.
5. We wanted to find a way to measure across the board what kids were learning, without taking up too much instructional time.
6. Stuff that’s easy to measure is easy to measure.
7. It was an effort to measure the achievement gap between different socioethnoeconomic groups.
8. It confers the ability to create systematic reporting – resulting in clear information about how kids are doing (on standardized tests).
What Makes Us Think “No to NCLB Type Standardized Testing”?
1. Multiple Choice tests do a poor job of testing the processing skills, creativity, and reasoning of a young student.
2. When standardized tests are made the most important of measures, the natural reaction is to “teach to the test”. This does not result in independent thinkers, but instead in well trained “regurgitators”. This phenomenon is found repeatedly in “incentivization” paradigms.
3. The realization that that to think the following is wrong: “Since other successful countries engage in large scale standardized testing, then this must be why they do better”. This thinking completely ignores the factors of higher comparative teacher pay and greater selectivity in teacher training programs, placing all of the importance on standardized testing.
4. The evidence against high stakes standardized multiple choice testing looms large.
5. States have purportedly taken the strategy of adjusting their standards to “curve” the test scores.
What I want to do is bring the two sides closer together. There is a much happier middle ground between “NO TESTING” and “WE NEED MORE TESTING”. The true issue is not whether to do standardized testing – but how the tests are constructed, how often they are done, what importance they are given in evaluating schools, and how important they are in funding major influencers in a child’s education like teacher salaries.
In my next post, “Let’s Talk About Tests…Part II”, I will discuss some possible solutions I think could work. For now, let’s hear your thoughts…
Part II – Time for Solutions
In Part I, I spent all my time indicting our current system of testing, investigating the pros and cons, and discussing the pitfalls. Alright, enough bellyaching about what’s wrong. And let’s put to bed the idea of whether to test or not. We have to – at least until we figure out what works beyond any doubt. We have two questions to answer, which follow below.
Question 1: What do we fix?
I believe that we have to fix both the design of standardized tests. Furthermore, we are either going to have to be incredibly thoughtful and nuanced about standardization in and of itself – or leave the standardization to districts. But, as I mentioned in Part I, this presents an increased, almost insurmountable difficulty in evaluating candidates for universities. Unless we make a move to have all colleges and universities assigned to a district, this is a huge problem. So, it is basically impossible not to standardize. Alas, our only choice is to be thoughtful and innovative – something we haven’t been too good at thus far in education.
Then, we must change the ways in which tests are used. They should absolutely not be used as an excuse to strip funding from schools that are being looked at purely from a short term economic view. I will discuss my thoughts on how to fix this below.
Question 2: How do we fix it?
I will take this topic by topic, beginning with the testing itself, then addressing the uses of testing.
Testing Design
Step 1: Read this document – http://www.fairtest.org/files/better_ways_to_evaluate_schools-_fact_sheet.pdf
I think that Fair Test has some good ideas about better ways to test kids.
For one, they advocate something I have been saying for some time – test the work process itself. There is little value in looking at right or wrong answers on a multiple choice tests and using this as the prime evaluative for educational technique/engagement. There is tremendous value in looking at evidence of the thought process by which we arrive at an answer.
Additionally, we can spend more time observing class time itself. Are the kids engaged in the learning process? What is the teacher doing to make this happen? There are all sorts of rubrics for evaluating things like this. You will see some research published from my project Head Start Body Start in the next couple of years that uses testing like this in the context of physical play in early childhood. We have rubrics that measure the presence/absence of accepted teacher behavior, and simultaneously look at the correlation to physical activity levels. The same sort of strategy, with some modifications, can be used in the academic environment – which has far more parallels than one might think at first glance.
These are just a couple of ideas. There are more out there. I think Fair Test (test reformers), Alfie Kohn (standardized testing opponent), and for balance Richard Phelps (a standardized testing advocate) are a good start to form and test your own ideas.
Step 2: Change the conversation
On a whim, I did a Google search for “better ways to test kids” – the first four links that came up in the search were for ways to “boost test scores”! To solve this problem, we cannot continue to make the increase in scores on poorly designed tests that tell us little into the most visible conversation. We have to all work together to increase the visibility profile of the practical reform conversation. I am certain of this because it is quite obvious that what we are doing isn’t working.
Uses of Testing
Step 1: Stop High Stakes Testing
Even with a reform in test design and efficacy, we still must stop the high stakes testing. It is not a fruitful long term strategy to just defund schools that don’t perform on standardized tests. This continues to result in 1) The children who need the most help having the help routed away from them to kids who are just below average 2) Schools that need MORE funding (especially for teacher salaries and community involvement programs) having their funding stripped at a crucial time, and 3) Thus, a further separation of the classes. This is not good for society or economy, which are inextricably intertwined.
Step 2: Become more comprehensive in school evaluation
We must incorporate many things into our evaluation of schools, including test scores, observations, the contextual features of the surrounding community, access to continuing education, teacher salaries relative to cost of living, and some others I probably haven’t thought of – but maybe you will.
I look forward to what is hopefully a lively discussion to follow – but that’s all I have to say for now. What say you?
From Roots to Branches…
I originally got into youth sports and youth fitness, not because I was interested in fitness, but because I had studied a great deal about neural development and I had a plethora of fitness / sports related skills. It was the easiest way for me to positively affect children’s self-efficacy and developmental path.
I am now transitioning more into the larger child development / education world while keeping physical play at the forefront of my efforts. I thought it might be interesting to share some parallels that I have observed between the problems we see in youth sports and the problems we see in education, from the perspective of nervous system development. In fact, my two biggest talents (according to former teachers and some sophisticated testing that I have had to go through) are synthesizing knowledge from divergent sources and recognizing patterns. I am happy to use those talents in the service of children, so here goes…
What are these parallels you allude to, Dr. Brown?
The youth sports environment has rapidly become obsessed with measurement – much like the physical education environment and the classroom.
Physical Education: The overriding measure of success here is: How many push-ups and pull-ups can you do? How far can you push this slider on a sit and reach box? As opposed to teaching a child to explore doing a pushup efficiently to avoid injury and increase performance over time, the process becomes about the “cash flow”. Can we make sure that you learn to move your body efficiently and through a full range of motion? Not when we just care about how many movements you can do. Sure, endurance is important – but this is best addressed through an extension of play, which also does a much better job of developing all the other skills we need.
The Classroom: Obviously, with NCLB and other changes to the overall psyche – often from people who have little knowledge or training in how to teach or about brain development – we have become obsessed with standardized test scores. See my two posts on this, Let’s Talk About Tests Part I and Part II – not just for my thoughts but for the thoughts of others and some valuable links.
Youth Sports: The obsessions with Vertical Leap Gains! and 40 Yard Dash Time! are rampant. As if these are the most important characteristics of success. And there is an even greater, more damaging obsession with another type of measurement – the highest score.
The almost certain likelihood is, when we make everything about THE TEST during a developmental process – we restrict and clip that process. The brain prunes more and we lose connections. We don’t get better, we just seem better. Furthermore, to attribute gains during development simply to performance on a test of one parameter, especially when not being considered as part of a comparison study, is simply invalid.
Now, let’s discuss the reason we see these parallels in all three environments. What is the central characteristic of all three? You guessed it! They all arise from and exist within the context of our culture. Our whole culture is obsessed with numbers. I have the most ___. I have the biggest ___. We are a superpower, greater than____
We must shift our focus from “how much” to “how well” and “for what”. Then we can finally release ourselves from the shackles of the number prison. This will be a necessary part of solutions to the Big Hairy Problems like “Educational Reform” and “Youth Obesity”
A Message to All Children
Dear Child
I am so happy you are here
I am so grateful to be your ancestor and wise
Readied for the sole purpose of being your guide
Dear Child
There is no need to replicate me
You are solely here to be what you are
And this is wonderful enough for me
Dear Child
There are many paths to foot
But if you need to break a branch or two for you
Don’t hesitate to forge the next walk to foot
Dear Child
Your light shines so bright
Be it far from me to dim it or shade it
But do allow me to help you learn to use it to illuminate
Dear Child
Life is no straight line
Or even a circle
But a never ending connecting of spheres
Dear Child
There is no need for fear
Fear begets anger and the destruction
Of all we all hold dear
Dear Child
If you do become afraid
That’s when I will be here to tell you
It’s not a monster, but just the wind you hear
Dear Child
After I am long gone
You will see a young one
And you can sing your own song
This is a guest post that I asked my friend and colleague Melissa Lambert to write, after an impassioned plea for play on Facebook! Melissa is, quite frankly, a brilliant young clinician I have gotten to know over the past year. I truly believe that we must lift each other’s voices as these voices have something to add to a rising tide. Here is Melissa’s biography and her wonderful words.
Melissa Lambert is the following: Child and Adolescent Clinician, IYCA Youth Conditioning and Nutrition Specialist, Thought Leader for Todays Parent USA. She earned her Bachelor’s degree in Psychology from Eastern CT State University and Masters of Education in Clinical Psychology with a concentration in child and adolescent from Springfield College. She currently serve as a Licensed Professional Counselor in a partial hospital program for children and adolescents in crisis, who have been diagnosed with a mental illness. Past experience includes the use of Applied Behavioral Analysis in working with children diagnosed with a Pervasive Developmental Disorder, co-facilitated parenting classes, adult inpatient and IICAPS (Intensive In-home Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Services)
The statement “I don’t know how to play”, made by a Hispanic 10 year-old child during a play therapy session is more common than it should among our youth.
As a clinician working with pre-adolescents in a partial hospital program, I incorporate as many opportunities for play and creativity as possible. I would like to say that every play activity planned has been a joyful experience; however the reality is that children are often frustrated in what should be considered fun. In fact, some are anxious at the thought of having to participate in something involving movement.
I found it valuable to further understand this child’s perception of play while exploring factors that have impacted his social-emotional development. He described his home and school environment, which provided minimal time for play experiences. Then went on to explain that he often fends for himself and acts as the “parent” to his younger siblings. His report is common among many youth diagnosed with a mental illness from my past and current caseloads.
As much as building self-worth and guidance through child development begins with parenting, the harsh reality is some children are born into a toxic environment consisting of poor income, substance abuse, minimal supervision, etc. This lifestyle will continue through the next generation if children are unable to break the vicious cycle. A useful tool for clinicians that I frequently use to assess family history is the genogram. It includes at least two to three generations ahead of the child as well as all medical, mental health, substance use, occupations and parenting styles of each family member. In the case of this 10 year-old child, the genogram indicates the same pattern of behaviors passed down through each generation.
Let’s take another look at the child I mentioned at the beginning of this post. Despite the child’s initial negative response to play, constant repetition and exploration of various play therapy activities resulted in the child displacing feelings of anxiety and anger to excitement about his involvement in mental health treatment.
My thought beyond treatment was how to maintain his daily experience with play after discharge. The problem continues with the lack of movement and play activities offered by the school systems. From my experience I have found elementary schools to have the fewest after school activities outside of a homework club and maybe a 15 minute recess. Could our educational system be neglecting an important component that may be the key to improving the success of our youth? We continue to cut PE, art, music, recess, extra-curricular activities in attempt to keep the focus on academic achievement. With mental illness and obesity in youth on the rise, I question moving forward how detrimental this will be to child development.
I am in the process of writing a piece for this blog on merit pay for teachers. This is a controversial idea with several pros and cons, and it deserves research / careful consideration. So, I am asking you first. What do you think. All you have to do is answer this question. There will be others to follow.
Well, this is an odd post to see on a site dedicated to child development, isn’t it? Don’t worry, I haven’t totally lost it – yet. I am going somewhere with this.
As a young martial artist, I was a fan of Bruce Lee movies – wasn’t everyone? But he didn’t really become a part of my psyche until I was exposed to his philosophy. And the thing about it – I think that this was his greatest contribution. If you really study the man during his tragically short life, it is almost as if he was using gong fu to explain philosophy.
Now I have had many great teachers, and have read many great writers. But you can’t understand where Move Theory came from (if you care) without understanding Bruce Lee’s influence on me – especially since his symbol for the Tao of Jeet Kune Do is tatooed on my right shoulder!
To give you an idea of how he influenced me, here is a quote:
All fixed set patterns are incapable of adaptability or pliability. The truth is outside of all fixed patterns.
Yes, this is one of the early seeds of Move Theory. The “life” of truth. So many look at truth as this dead thing to be looked at and possessed as a trophy. Bruce’s writings taught me that truth is something we seek – it is no more a thing than a process. This is why I constantly speak out against our preconceived notions about child development, education, and the world. Because a preconceived notion means you have stopped thinking, stopped searching.
Here is another gem:
Let an opponent graze your skin and you smash into his flesh; let an opponent smash into your flesh and you fracture his bone; let an opponent fracture your bone and you take his life! Do not be concerned with your escaping safely; lay your life before him!
This led me to understand that was I to learn, I had to challenge. I never back away from anyone in my probing for knowledge. I always wanted a better answer. I don’t care whether the person is a Nobel Laureate or a peer my age. I press and fight – because I know that’s where the growth is. Classmates would sometimes be appalled at the way I would go after a guest speaker and debate. But it was because I had learned to not consider my own standing or opinions of others – my intellectual “life” – in my “fight” for knowledge.
“Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless – like water. Now you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup, you put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle, you put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend.”
All too often, people put so much stock in the apparent strength of rigidity. But rigidity is often brittle, when not fortified by the continued search for truth. So there are very few things I won’t budge on – even things I am passionate about. This is also the reason that when I decide to be forceful – I am tremendously effective. Because my forcefulness is coming from a place of fluidity between theory, passion, practicality, and action – The Move Theory.
Thank you Bruce, with all my heart. I am forever in your debt.
I am speaking out because some political currents I am observing are going to effect children profoundly.
Too much Government Spending…We have to get rid of entitlements…People should learn to pull themselves up by the bootstraps…Too many taxes, I want to keep my money, because I earned it…Unions are corrupt and the source of all our economic/education/moral problems…
All of these are strong sentiments I have heard in politics. All of them have one thing in common – a desire for simplistic rules and a simplistic life. Within a nation of 300 million people of differing ethnicities, religions, backgrounds, and histories – simple is impossible.
The government must step in and save the poor…the government must take care of the elderly…the government must provide for education…the government must strike down anyone in the world who could possibly strike at us in the future….Unions are virtuous and are saving the world…
All of these are strong sentiments I have heard in politics. All of them have one thing in common – a desire for simplistic rules and a simplistic life. Within a nation of 300 million people of differing ethnicities, religions, backgrounds, and histories – simple is impossible.
Wait a minute, Dr. Brown, not so fast! All you did was cut and paste from above. You’re exactly right. I sure did. What I am seeing is an increasing polarization between immature thinkers on one side and immature thinkers on the other. And it is affecting children because it is affecting legislation toward child development and education. I could give a ton of examples of this, but I will focus on one in particular, because it is the biggest economically (with respect to the states).
Let’s take, as an example, the question of spending on education. When the amount of spending goes up, yet the performance doesn’t, people rightfully start asking questions. But when you have competing immature worldviews and a lack of information, there is polarization, which leads to knee jerk responses and ineffective, politically driven platitudes.
Here are two examples of simplistic, immature thinking on education spending:
1. Right Winger: “Well, then cut spending, because money can’t solve the problem.”
2. Left Winger: “Well, then we need to spend more, because obviously that wasn’t enough.”
Here is a more mature view, which always begins with asking thoughtful questions:
1. “Is money even the problem? Is money part of the problem, but not the whole picture?”
2. “Do the tools we are using to measure our performance actually give an accurate picture of that performance?”
3. “What do we do with the information from the 2007 Mckinsey Report on education, that showed teacher pay and selectivity of teacher training programs combined with well planned continuing education to be major correlates in systemic success? How does that apply to our system?”
I will give you one more example of thinking that comes from a simplistic view and a lack of information:
“We just need to give control of education to the states and get rid of the federal control. Democrats are always trying to federalize education.”
FACT: Control of education has always existed at the state level. That’s why the Department of Education is less than 3% of the federal budget.
FACT: The first foray into federal control over education happened under a Republican Administration – George W. Bush’s administration proposed No Child Left Behind, and the late Ted Kennedy (D, MA) shepherded it through the Senate. And Democrats voted for it. And Republicans voted for it. It passed 91-8 in the Senate at a time when the Senate was majority Republican. This was neither a Democrat or Republican thing, it was a legislator misunderstanding the education of the child thing.
One wouldn’t know that from all the rhetoric. In fact, I’m sure some people think Obama was responsible for it, even though he was a little known State senator at the time in Illinois.
But that’s what happens when people stop thinking and fearfully hold on for dear life to a simplistic ideology, waiting for it to solve all of their problems. And then children suffer.
My friend Meg Rosker, a wonderful writer and play advocate wrote a provocative post recently about a young girl who wrestles on her high school team and the recent issue of a boy refusing to compete against her. Besides checking out her article and my comment in response (below), you should all check out her site “Let Children Play”.
Let Children Play – The Littlest Feminist
Meg, first let me commend you for broaching such a complex subject. I was planning on writing a post on this subject, but since you beat me to it – here are my thoughts:
I both agree and disagree, and I will address this seeming contradiction point by point.
First, let’s talk about what I agree with. I agree that there should be no need for women to compete physically against men to prove their worth to society, or their internal self worth. I would say the same for men, actually.
Certainly, on average, men are going to be stronger at certain sports that were designed with men’s unique bodies in mind.
However, I disagree with a couple of your basic premises, and these ideas may be what are rubbing a couple of people the wrong way.
1. The idea that because she is female, she will get injured. False. Wrestling is by weight class. I have a martial arts background and have sparred both men and women. I have bested both men and women with my superior skill. I have been bested by both men and women with superior skill. Women, in fact, generally have a lower center of gravity and wider pelvis than men – great for wrestling!
2. The idea that somehow there will be problems because it gets to sexual. What about homosexual boys who wrestle? We would have to then ask boys if they are sexually attracted or have a wish to sexually dominate other boys before we let them on the team.
3. The undercurrent (maybe just perceived on my part) that somehow girls’ bodies are to be covered up and it is unseemly for a girl’s body to be seen in that way, in that action. It is boys that have the external genitalia. Far more exposure – then see number 2 again!
Do I think there could be problems? Yes. Do I think that it would be great if they had girl’s wrestling teams? Absolutely. But they don’t. What’s a girl who loves “wrastlin” to do?
Now maybe if the current generation of moms can see their way to allowing girls who are naturally rough and tumble to be themselves, we can have girl’s wrestling teams in another 10 years…but that doesn’t help this girl out very much, does it?
This is John Connor. Though we are outflanked and outnumbered, there is a small resistance out here. A resistance against the machines.
Machines like this one
And this one
and this one!
Who will help me stand and fight?
Do you know those “tag clouds” that show how much attention certain words get on the internet? The more these words are “seen”, the more “hits” they get on the web, the larger the words are in the tag cloud.
Well, I saw one of these and it got me thinking: What if I did a tag cloud based not on web hits, but on the importance of elements in the life of an infant? What would this look like?
So I did it. Take a look. What would you add to this? How would you change it?
I am so grateful for the comments I received!
Here is the new “Baby Cloud” below, with everyone’s conributions -
Last week, I created a “Word Cloud”, or “Tag Cloud” with words sized according to the needs of the infant. A variety of professionals commented both here on the blog and on other social media platforms where I posted it. I was able to make significant changes to the original Baby Cloud, thanks to all of you!
From this has grown the new “Toddler Cloud”, where I have made slight tweaks to word sizes to depict the changing needs of the young one as he or she grows into the “toddler” stage of life. This is a very unique time in a child’s life – as a matter of fact, every time in a child’s life is a unique time in a child’s life!
I will be continuing this process through the adolescent years. I look forward to gaining the input of others on the Toddler Cloud as well. As my friend Meg Rosker would say – Let’s Play!
Hopefully you have all seen The Move Theory Baby Cloud and Toddler Cloud. If not, just click on the links. We are collaborating, all of us here, on a graphical depiction of the needs of our young as they develop.
As the young one develops, there is always variability throughout the process. However, as we progress into early and middle childhood, the separations and variability become clearer. This variability between individuals becomes more pronounced as we progress through the adolescent years. So, I expect that some will have views that wildly differ, beginning in this age group.
Notice also, now, that the importance of peer relationships is beginning to gain importance on par with familial love and affection. Children are also beginning to value their independence even more. I have taken out “auditory” and “visual” stimulation, since in a fully aware child, these are now fully replaced by their processing of what they observe voluntarily in their environment.
Put all three clouds side by side…
How would you change it?
What’s not included?
What seems more or less important?
Well, I certainly decided to bite off a big chunk on a Sunday afternoon, didn’t I? Merit pay for teachers has been a hot button issue for so long, and it is such a “tough one”. It looks like it should work. It really does. When I first thought about it, it seemed like a great idea. Why not pay people more for doing better work? How could this not be part of the solution for education? Not so fast…
I felt this way, that is, until I took a look at the evidence. Until I talked to educators, and those who train educators – and most of them are NOT union members by the way. In fact, only 15% of this nation’s teachers are union members! So, certainly unions aren’t as much an indoctrinator of teachers as some think. And, despite seeing a need for unions, I see huge flaws in the way they do business. So I am not some indoctrinated kool-aid drinker either. So let’s put that to bed. This is a discussion on the merits only. Here are my top reasons why merit pay is a bad idea.
1. Merit Pay works well in certain situations where things are well within your control, and when working with other adults. The range of disciplines in which merit pay can work include those where volume is the most important factor, and where one adult can convince another adult to do something through persuasion (sales). In other words, where we are producing something (items or sales) that exists along a steady, linear scale. But teaching is not one of these types of disciplines. Children are not products, and development is definitely not linear.
So, already we are in a bad spot, but shall I go on? Yes? Ok. Let’s talk evidence
2. From the review, “The Paradox of Merit Pay in the Public Sector” by Kellough and Lu: “Studies that have produced favorable results are, in fact, rare.” I highly suggest reading this review. I will also mention that I worked for five years in a high profile county government – in that agency, merit pay is viewed as a joke by almost all employees. It is seen as biased, highly dependent on what supervisor one gets, and most think that it is impossible to have an objective measure because everyone’s job situation is so different.
3. The measures being used have little to do with the curriculum being taught or the actual results of that curriculum being taught. This is a huge problem if you are going to institute a system of merit based pay. The outcomes have to clearly match performance, which in turn clearly matches effort. This is not even close to being the case currently in education. Check this out, from Daniel Willingham, Ph.D. (University of Virginia)
For these reasons alone, merit pay is a horrible idea that has not and will not have a positive effect on teaching or education for out children. So why do it? The reason we want to do it is because the real solution is far too difficult. The real solution – paying teachers well to attract talent, and then spending the time and money to train the hell out of that talent – then coupling that will well thought out curricula? Then valuing education over the creation of large sums of wealth and status? Those things are too hard. Those things are only what other successful educational systems have done.
Is play merely a frivolity we allow children because they “act right”? Not if you’re a child. Not if you are knowledgeable in the field of developmental science. Keep reading…
A friend of mine started a Facebook debate recently about children and physical education/recess. Someone came along and commented that children need to learn to work more intensely, and they would have “plenty of time to play once they grew up and got jobs”.
Hmmm…Where do I begin?
First, let’s address a few of my educational views/leanings. I am no ideologue. I think that we need more time in school, including making school year round, with shorter, more frequent breaks during the school year. I think that we need more of a focus on curriculum and content, especially with regard to having a defined curriculum. I think that rote memorization has a place within an effective, holistic educational process. And while I don’t think we do it well right now, I think there needs to be some sort of evaluation of the effects of our efforts.
But I also know that learning MUST be playful, exploratory and collaborative. I know that play and physical education MUST be a part of a child’s every day life. I know that anyone who doesn’t understand that: Yes, I will say it – they are ignorant. I don’t use that in the derogatory sense of the word. I use “ignorant” in the same sense that I would describe myself if asked about the inner workings of a modern transmission.
So, if any of you are “ignorant” of the value of play and physical education, in the same way that I am ignorant about automobile transmissions, let me catch you up a little:
Physical activity increases blood flow to the brain and brain function. This is not something that is a fringe theory. But don’t just take my word for it, look at the research data…
Aerobic Fitness and Neurocognitive Function in Healthy Preadolescent Children
Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise: November 2005 – Volume 37 – Issue 11 – pp 1967-1974Exercise Enhances and Protects Brain Function
Exercise & Sport Sciences Reviews: April 2002 – Volume 30 – Issue 2 – pp 75-79Exercise: a behavioral intervention to enhance brain health and plasticity
Trends in Neurosciences: Volume 25, Issue 6, 1 June 2002, Pages 295-301Regulation of brain function by exercise
Neurobiology of Disease: Volume 13, Issue 1, June 2003, Pages 1-14Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise effects on brain and cognition
Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 9, 58-65 (January 2008)
Play is a highly effective in improving social development and cognitive skill. But don’t just take my word for it, look at the research data:
Seriously considering play: Designing interactive learning environments based on the blending of microworlds, simulations, and games
Educational Technology Research and Development: Volume 44, Number 2, 43-58
Effects of constructive and dramatic play on perspective taking in very young children.
Developmental Psychology, Vol 15(5), Sep 1979, 512-521.
Fantasy play: Its role in the development of social skills and social cognition
New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development: Volume 1980, Issue 9, pages 69–84, 1980
Physical Play and Cognitive Development: Integrating Activity, Cognition, and Education
Child Development: Volume 69, Issue 3, pages 604–606, June 1998
Now, what does this all mean?
First, let me say that this is by no means an exhaustive list of the literature on this subject. You will have to wait for the book to get that (hint hint). It is a representative list. Putting the concepts above together, physical play is obviously an essential part of a child’s development. Schools must include this in the educational process, and parents must support this at home by playing with their children when at all possible. With this knowledge available to me, and the clear evidence that our current approach of tell and test is not working, there is NO CHANCE I would EVER cut PE or recess as an administrator. In fact I would spend more of my time enhancing and better understanding them. But I guess that’s too hard, huh?
Well, let’s start making it easy. Who will join me in spreading this around? Who will join me in making the case? Share this with a friend. Share your thoughts here.
I have finally finished my word cloud for adolescents! For those of you that haven’t read the other posts I put up in this vein, here is the gist of this exercise:
I have constructed, with the help of others, word clouds depicting words that represent needs in the life of a growing child. Not just what they need from adults specifically, but an overall view of concepts they need to grow up healthy and happy. I am posting here all 4 of them, working backwards, with adolescence at the top and then working back through childhood, the toddler years and finally infancy. Let me know what your thoughts are about the progression, and each word cloud. And don’t forget to check out www.movetheory.com!
ADOLESCENT WORD CLOUD
CHILDHOOD WORD CLOUD
TODDLER WORD CLOUD
BABY WORD CLOUD
Just this morning, my friend and colleague Meg Rosker (of Let Children Play fame) launched a new blog called Let Children Achieve. Meg, a former teacher, and now a mom and play advocate, wanted to launch this as a collective effort. The effort is from a group of us advocates for educational understanding (a better term than reform if you ask me). I was honored that Meg asked me to write the inaugural post for this site. Here it is below, but I really hope you go to Let Children Achieve and bookmark it so that you can continue to be aware of everything this collective is saying!
Taking Education “Back”
Dr. Kwame M. Brown
Megan, thank you for letting me talk to everyone today. The title: I chose the quotes around “Back” because quite frankly I don’t think we have ever truly had a handle on education in this country, not from the perspective of how brains develop. Nor have we ever truly understood it systemically from the perspective of including all members, beyond nurturing the elite. Sure, there have been “pockets of understanding”, but the design of the whole system has never worked. I think problems that we are talking about today have always been there, but are now coming to a head.
Why I am saying what I’m about to say
I have been immersed in the world of education / child development all of my life. I have a father who started as a high school teacher in the inner city and became eventually a college president. A mom with a degree in early childhood education who eventually taught Alternatives and was involved in urban education initiatives. Countless other family members involved in education as teachers and administrators. I got here on a roundabout – through my study of the central nervous system and motor learning /development and my own work with children in motor skill acquisition/play. Additionally, I am a voracious reader – Crain, Hirsch, Hirsh-Pasek, Redfield-Jamison, Elkind, Frost, Ravitch, Dweck, Willingham, the list goes on. Finally, I have a bevy of friends and acquaintances across the spectrum politically and professionally throughout the United States that are passionate about solving education.
My ten point plan to put the focus where it needs to be
I have begun writing over the past couple of years to communicate what I have learned through this intensive lifetime of varied study. My main conclusion is this: As evidenced by the structure of our system and improvement measures, we routinely misunderstand how brain development works in education, and how brain development interacts with the surrounding environment. While the details of that are best saved for another day’s writings, I want to share some very specific things that I think must happen in education and child development.
1. We must nationalize the need for and commitment to education, and set certain standards for content. We must, nationally, gain more and more information through careful research about what works and doesn’t work for developing young minds. And we must communicate this to everyone at multiple levels and in multiple ways. National problems must have, partly, national solutions. BUT…
2. We must leave the control of the delivery of that content to highly qualified educators, caring parents and students in local communities. I have seen countless examples of initiatives that failed to work because those trying them failed to immerse themselves in the culture – especially the student culture. Parents know their kids. Educators know kids. People in the community know the community. This is potentially a wonderful continuum, without politicians stepping in with high-stakes accountability measure to screw it all up. But this will also depend on the below.
3. We must pay teachers more – not through merit pay, but their starting pay, in order to enable my next suggestion…
4. We must attract young, talented, vibrant beings that truly care for children and also have the academic underpinnings to understand complex concepts well enough to move concepts to practice – on their own.
5. We must provide for and follow through on intensive long term apprenticeship for young teachers. This apprenticeship must involve experiences working with parents and other community members. This apprenticeship must also have progressive levels of responsibility. This way, by the time a young teacher has his/her own class, they have already formed lasting relationships with, if not this particular community, a community.
6. We must educate teachers and parents, albeit in different ways, about the general process of how a central nervous system and the body develop within the context of a societal and social structure. There are gross misunderstandings amongst both groups – in not all members, but many. Though, I will say, the level of misunderstandings present in these groups pale in comparison to the lack of grasp among politicians and pundits. To wit…
7. We must begin to understand children as sentient beings who think for themselves and simply need guidance – not “sponges” (a loathsome term) to be told things. It does NOT work like that in a developing brain. Learning must be a main entrée of experiential, with only a side dish of rote memorization, to taste right to a young mind.
8. Parents and teachers must partner to ensure that children have time to play, to be physically active through play. This isn’t just some frivolous thing we let children do – that’s OUR view of play for OURSELVES. For kids, this is essential to the development of a brain.
9. Parents and teachers must partner to ensure that our children have plenty of sleep – especially for very young children and teenagers. Kids don’t just “deal” when they are sleep deprived. The effects on performance are quite profound, and the potential effects on development are unknown but could be disastrous.
10. Finally – we must all ensure that children have access to and are eating natural, healthy foods, especially fruits and vegetables. This, coupled with sleep and play – helps all our educational efforts aren’t for naught. It prevents us adults from spinning our wheels.
I am grateful that Megan Rosker allowed me this forum today to speak out. But I am more grateful for the lively discussion / debate that I hope will result from this. Let’s continue to look at solutions on their merit – with consistent perspective on the needs of our future leaders. Because, to play on a famous quote – It is those we educate this week that shall inherit the earth.
What Happened?
I have been saying for years now that the “childhood obesity epidemic” was a poor name for our problem. I told local government officials in in a meeting in 2006 that this was a mistake to call it an obesity problem. My rationale – the original reason for the name.
The reason it was named “the obesity problem” in the first place was that we were focusing the problem on measurables that were easily accessible, because they were easily accessible. Because we would be focusing on one aspect of physical health, instead of the role nutrition, sleep and physical play as a continuum play in the overall wellness of a child. Because it was too difficult, too costly, too upsetting to the status quo for “stakeholders” to truly change the way we approach movement for kids. Because we would be focusing on DISEASE prevention instead of DIS – EASE prevention (see Exuberant Animal for more on this concept).
And it is the DIS-EASE with movement that is truly the problem we need to fix. The DIS-EASE with coordinated movements due to lack of experience. The DIS-EASE with the outdoors. The DIS-EASE with connecting mind and body.
I said that the primary reasons that children would choose to not engage in physical play is that at some point either their access to or comfort with it was diminished. I told them that once you focus an effort on the reduction of a single parameter, the rest of the equation goes out the window. In other words, the title now would define the approach.
“Great presentation! You’re such a great asset! We really need to keep people like you working with this agency. So…what are we going to do about this childhood obesity issue?”
And so it happened all over the country in meetings of this nature. Programs began to crop up that addressed Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity (MVPA). We studied BMI in children and the changes in it as a result of these interventions to increase MVPA. And you know what? Especially in early childhood / elementary school, many of these “physical activity” interventions did little or no good in decreasing BMI appreciably. There have been many studies that show positive effects on self-esteem and academic success, but BMI – disappointing results. Disappointing, at least if the change in BMI is all you are looking for.
Taking a Closer Look
To explore why there might not be an effect in these short, 6 week experiments, let’s look at all the things that can potentially affect BMI in children:
1. Sedentary time / screen time
2. Stress levels
3. Sleep patterns
4. Amount of MVPA in school
5. Amount of MVPA at home
6. Food tastes / likes
7. Genetics
8. Food access
So, when we choose one parameter to study, or perform an intervention on, and do it for only a short period of time – it is no wonder that our effects are minimal or non-existent!
What Can We Do?
The Intervention
We can create holistic wellness experiences, not programs for children, where we positively affect all the aforementioned aspects of child wellness related to obesity. Programs and guidelines are only a part of the picture. They give us frameworks and models informed by research. But they cannot be the whole story. These experiences must be created via partnerships between organizations, schools, communities, parents, and – novel idea – children! We all have to talk to each other. We all have to listen to each other. And it certainly won’t be accomplished solely by top-down telling or unfunded mandates – which I will address in a later post…
Studying The Effects
We still need to figure out which approaches and methods work best. Longer term (longitudinal for you scientists out there) studies that follow children for years after interventions should be the norm. Not 6 week studies. Development alone is so non-linear that I am not surprised at the paltry effects shown from many studies. Multicenter studies with a standardized intervention design must be part of the equation to figure out what works.
I was a part of such a design when I did spinal cord injury research. It worked. We got TONS of useable information because, thanks to Ohio State, Georgetown University, and many others, we were able to work with a standardized model of injury and behavioral analysis to make direct comparisons of secondary processes and interventions. This model contributed greatly to the advances made in spinal cord injury treatment today, and I am grateful to have been a small part of that.
I am asking that we make the same coordinated effort for our children, for a problem that affects far more people than spinal cord injury – the DIS-EASE with movement and nutrition. And if you want to talk to someone that knows how to do all of the above after a 15 year history in scientific research, fitness, and government:
Contact Move Theory!
You Decide
We love to blame kids, parents, teachers, administrators for the DIS-EASE with movement and food among our youth. If you have your own favorite scapegoat, go back and read my post entitled “Who’s Fault Is It Anyway?”. We are all complicit in chipping away at childhood with the tools of adult convenience and fallback positions. Here is the latest, brought to my attention by Lenore Skenazy. I highly recommend reading this:
New Outrage! Homeowners Assn. Proposes Ban on Kids Playing
What’s the REAL Problem, Though? Let’s use Move Theory Principles and explore the root cause.
Yes, an HOA in Florida is proposing a fine on parents who let their children play outside in groups. They are claiming “safety reasons”. Many people are dismissing this as a fallback position. Move Theory thinks this is irrelevant. The fact is, whether the HOA is actually concerned about safety or not, I like to always look at the beginning of the problem. The problem originated from prioritizing Adult Convenience over Childhood Need.
They never created safe, usable spaces for children to play in the first place!
In other words, their current position is simply a reaction to their own poor planning, or lack of inspiration, or lack of care, or lack of awareness at SQUARE ONE!
And we wonder why kids refuse to play outside? Really? It is obvious to me that as a society we don’t want them to.
Let’s use Move Theory Principles again. What’s the solution?
When we build developments in the first place, when we “improve” towns and cities – in other words, when so called “progress” happens…let’s provide for children. Let us always have as a priority play spaces for children. I bet they built plenty of play spaces for adults. I bet they have access to a fitness center. Maybe a spa? Tennis courts? It’s all about Adult Convenience.
It is high time we begin construction projects with Childhood Needs in mind. From the beginning. That way we avoid the fallback positions, the complaints, and the conflict. Most of all, we avoid children growing up unhealthy in a world that considers them a nuisance and an inconvenience.
With the help of a great friend, who is both a scientist and parent of 3 playful, athletic little girls (not to mention an incredibly insightful and thoughtful person) Move Theory has refined some terminology. The new term I have decided to adopt:
“Active Play”
I want to talk a little bit about this terminology, what it means, the background behind it, and the reason I think it’s necessary. All I say below is from the perspective of a child’s needs, but adults would do well to pay attention to whether they have this in their lives as well.
What is “Active Play”?
By Active Play, I mean the following:
1. My heart is beating fast and I am breathing heavier than normal
2. I am engaging my muscles in exertion
3. I am performing any number (but definitely more than one) of a variety of movements, including: running, jumping, squatting, lunging, climbing, throwing, catching, pushing, pulling, rolling, falling, rotating, quickly changing direction
4. I am always doing the above for fun, not just because someone told me to
5. I am much of the time doing the above with others, by cooperating and competing
6. I am spending a significant amount of time doing the above outside
If these 6 things are true, I am living a life engaged in Active Play.
The Background
I have been seeing the term Moderate to Vigorous Physical Activity (MVPA) all over the place. In the research, in white papers, in guidelines for physical activity. And it seems to me that there is something missing. You guessed it – play! Many of my colleagues believe that the term MVPA is important for professionals to communicate with each other. I agree wholeheartedly. But the term means nothing to me. Moderate to Vigorous sounds so sterile. Physical Activity doesn’t sound like much fun. I get no visceral response from this term. It is clinical. It does it’s job to communicate results and legislation. But it is in people’s lives where we need the change…
Why I think we need a new term
What about people like parents, children, and those who work with children? What term can they use? What will mean something, and is still short and sweet? I submit:
Active Play
Who doesn’t like to play? Who doesn’t know that we all need to be physically active? I think the answer to both is…almost everyone! So, I am using this new term so that we can all have some fun nursing ourselves back to health. Let’s leave the clinical language to the clinical world. WE need something people can relate to, can grab on to.
If no one else uses this term – Move Theory will! It will be the term I use to describe the work of Move Theory. It will be the term I use in trainings, talks, and the manuals I write. Who wants to join me?
