Most children in our society protest going to school. Am I telling you something new?
They protest in many ways - by feigning illness, by dragging their feet in the morning, by doing the least
they can to meet the school's demands (or not doing even that), and by violating school rules when they can
get away with it. Even those who get high grades in school and enjoy a bit of showing off protest school
through their expressions of cynicism, and sometimes by cheating, which they justify by saying that it's all
just stupid hoops to jump through anyway.1
Why all this protest? Education is a good thing, right? Children need to become educated to do well in
society. Society goes to tremendous expense and trouble to provide schooling - lots of it! - for every child
(whether they want it or not). Are these kids just spoiled ingrates? If so, then you and I - and essentially
everyone else who ever attended school after schooling became compulsory - were also spoiled ingrates. We all
protested it. In fact, back in the days when schools first became compulsory kids protested it even more than
they do now, even though there was much less of it then. They had to be beaten with birch sticks to get them
to stay in school and do what the teachers told them to do.
|In my last essay I used the concept of evolutionary
mismatch to explain why infants and young children protest going to bed - alone, in the dark, at night. The
term refers to a lack of congruity between environmental conditions today and those that existed during the
time of our evolutionary ancestors. For at least 99 per cent of our history as human beings, we were all
hunter-gatherers. Anthropologists have pointed out that the hunter-gatherer way of life is the only stable way
of life our species has ever known. Ever since the origin of agriculture, a mere 10,000 years ago, we have
been caught in an ever-faster whirlwind of cultural change. From a biological perspective, we are all still
hunter-gatherers, doing the best that we can to cope with the conditions of life that exist today. In my last
essay I pointed out that infants and young children protest going to bed alone because, in hunter-gatherer
days, to do so would likely lead to death. The monsters under the bed were real. They were jackals, tigers,
and other nighttime predators, prowling around looking for small snacks unprotected by adults. Instincts and
fears that evolved when we were hunter-gatherers have not changed.
Now I want to apply the concept of evolutionary mismatch to the problem of education.
As I pointed out in another essay2, the means by which children became
educated in hunter-gatherer cultures were the opposite of the means by which we try to educate children in our
schools today. One of the most cherished values of all hunter-gatherer societies that have ever been studied
by anthropologists is freedom. Hunter-gatherers believed that it is wrong to coerce a person to do what the
person doesn't want to do - and they considered children to be people. They rarely even made direct
suggestions, because that might sound like coercion. They believed that people, on their own initiative, would
learn to contribute to the welfare of the band, because they would see the wisdom of doing so and experience
the joy of it. For hundreds of thousands of years, that was the organizing principle of human society.3 The hunting and gathering life required great personal initiative and creativity,
and it required trust that people would share and cooperate because they wanted to. Hunting and gathering
people seemed to understand that - and they also seemed to understand that children would best grow up to be
free, trusting, cooperative, creative adults if they were permitted freedom throughout their childhood, in the
context of the moral community and models that the band provided.
Throughout our immense hunter-gatherer period, children were free to play and explore all day, day after
day, and in that way to educate themselves. Education was always self-directed. In fact, the reason children
are naturally so playful, curious, and social is because those traits were the motivating powers behind
children's abilities to educate themselves. Those "childish" traits were promoted and shaped, by
natural selection, precisely to serve the function of education, in conditions of childhood freedom.
||So, when we force children to sit in their seats and listen to a teacher and do just what
they are told, every bone in their body, and every neuron and muscle, resists. Their body tells them,
"This is wrong. I need to control my own actions; I need to play at the skills that seem to be important
to me; I need to explore the questions that I'm curious about, not ones that bore me; I need to pay attention
to what people in the real world are doing, not to what this teacher, who doesn't even seem to be part of the
world outside of school, is telling me. If I don't do these things that I need to do, I will not grow up to be
a competent, dignified human being." In hunter-gatherer times, a child who did not feel so strongly
driven to run his or her own life and education would have grown up to be a misfit.
So, our children have instincts that drive them to educate themselves through their free play, exploration,
and socializing. But we have schools that insist that they give up that freedom and do what they are told to
do. The schools have never worked well, and even in theory can't work well, because they always pit the school
against the child and thereby evoke resistance.
What are we going to do about this evolutionary mismatch?
It seems to me that we have two choices. We can continue stumbling along with our coercive system of
schooling and continue to fight our children's instincts, using drugs or whatever other means we must to
dampen their cries for freedom. Or, we can adopt what to most people today seems like a radical, even crazy
approach to education, but which to hunter-gatherers seemed like common sense. This radical approach is to let
our children educate themselves, while we provide the conditions that make that possible.
The idea that children can direct their own education, and can do it well, seems absurd to most people
today; we are so conditioned to the idea that education requires top-down direction and coercion. But, for
those who are willing to take a look at it, the evidence is overwhelming that the hunter-gatherer approach to
education can work beautifully in our society today. I've described that evidence in previous essays.4 We can build play and learning centers - similar to the Sudbury Valley School -
that provide children with the resources they need to educate themselves. The essential resources include
access to lots of children of mixed ages to play with, access to the tools that are crucial to our culture,
and access to caring adults - all within the context of a moral community that embodies the highest values of
our society. Amazing as it may seem to some, this can all be done at far less expense and trouble than that
extracted by our current system of coercive schooling. And this sort of institution - unlike our standard
schools - is filled with excitement and joy.