Who's Gonna Help Brother Get Further?

         Before you read, you may want to check out the original article:

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/lego212.shtml

         Depending on your source of news, you may already be well aware of this social experiment. If you aren't, however, it may help to read the article first, as I will refer to it in some detail throughout my response.
         In summary, this experiment - my terminology, not theirs - involves a group of school-age children in private, parochial afternoon childcare building a "Legotown." Soon after building commenced, as "materials and land became scarce," the children began showing -- horror of horrors! -- capitalistic behaviors. Their teachers, concerned about the harm inherent in such tactics, quickly put a stop to it and turned the game instead into an exercise in collectivist socialism. The article details the results of this in glowing tones.
         I certainly am not one of those people who thinks that all teachers are crazy left-wing whackos who read Keynes and save whales (not that there is anything wrong with those things...). I do, however, believe that teachers have to walk a fine line on many subjects they teach, whether they lean liberal or conservative: they must educate, not indoctrinate. And in this case, I think the teachers took it too far. Here are a few reasons why:
"...the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive." This is a very poorly constructed sentence, but that aside, I take serious issue with the fact that the capitalist economic system -- the American economic system -- is, ahem, "unjust and oppressive." When I think of economic oppression, America doesn't make the top five, or the top ten, or the top twenty. There are equity issues inherent in America's culture, yes, but I still find it one of the least "oppressive" economies in the modern world. That's quite an ideological leap for these teachers.
         Does capitalism have its flaws? Absolutely. Fact: in capitalist economic systems, class structure exists. But, counter fact: in socialist economic systems, class structure still exists. (In communist economic systems, there are no classes because everybody is dead.) There isn't a country in the world that doesn't have some form of class system, and yes, much of that stems from money and property. Here's another fact, though: there's simply no way around it. People are not equal; even given complete equality of opportunity, a generation or two down the line some families are simply going to have more money and influence than others. And I highly doubt that these teachers are advocating 100% communal property via government intervention, because if they were, their church-based private school would not exist.
"...Legotown was seen as the turf of particular kids. The other children didn't complain about this; when asked about Legos, they'd often comment vaguely that they just weren't interested in playing with Legos anymore." So, in other words, the teachers were creating problems where none existed. Contrast this sentiment with that of post-socialism Legotown: "...the children had come face-to-face with the frustration, anger, and hopelessness that come with being on the outside of power and privilege."
         Wrong. What they were "face-to-face with" simply hadn't been an issue before. The "outsider" children didn't feel hopeless and angry before they were required to play this game and play it with the teachers' new rules. If they weren't part of Legotown's "upper echelon," if you will, the children simply moved on. That sounds like a life lesson to me -- and a basic tenet of capitalism. If there's no way to break into a specific market, the entrepreneur will simply move on. A child disinterested in playing with Legos simply moved on to a different game. However, when all the children had to play and the new rules put into effect showed them the inadequacies of the game (and, by proxy, their own inadequacies, according to the teachers), they became very upset. Not the psychological reaction I would have included in my positive write-up, but for the sake of science, there it is. Greater economic applications set aside, that doesn't seem like a healthy lesson to teach young children.
         Speaking of teachers inventing nonexistent problems, here's another concern:
"Several times in the discussion, children made reference to "giving" Lego pieces to other children. Kendra pointed out the understanding behind this language: "When you say that some kids ‘gave' pieces to other kids, that sounds like there are some kids who have most of the power in Legotown." ... These children seemed to squirm at the implications of privilege, wealth, and power that "giving" holds. The children denied their power, framing it as benign and neutral, not something actively sought out and maintained."
         They framed it that way? Or it actually was that way? These kids are 8-year-olds, not jaded politicians. Maybe the answer is simply that the kids were playing, some were established and some were not, and it was easier and more fun to be capitalistically inclusive than to be collectivist.
         Obviously, if there had been some sort of behavioral problem associated with the Legotown, then teachers should have by all means intervened and worked out a solution that made everyone happy. But it seems that not only did no major problem exist, but that by playing the block-by-numbers game, more feelings were hurt. When it comes to children and their interpersonal relations, shouldn't inflicted worldview, even in the name of "social justice" that the teachers so often invoke, take a backseat to common courtesy? If it were my child, I'd rather his teachers demonstrate kindness than politicking.
         At the same time, though, we have to take this whole deal with a grain of salt. Are there really 8-year-olds who flaunt terms like "public use" or opine that "Little kids have more rights and older kids have half the rights" ? And what about this statement itself -- is this really the lesson to be learned? In order to give more rights to some, we must take rights away from others? Why can't we simply have equal rights, with everybody playing together?
         From reading the article, I struggle with the concept that there were sharing problems in the old-thinking capitalist version. If a child built a structure like a market or coffeeshop (only in Seattle would the children be building coffeeshops, of course) that everybody could use, then that was okay. Did the children not see inequity on their own? Sample this exchange:
Lukas: "I think every house should be average, and not over-average like Drew's, which is huge."
Drew: "I'm the fire station, so I have to have room for four people."
         Logical enough. But not, apparently to the teachers, or to this student:
Lukas: "I think that houses should only be as big as 16 bumps one way, and 16 bumps the other way. That would be fair."
         Okay. I think we would all agree: that seems fair. But what about after? If each child has the allotted 28 blocks, building just a 16 x 16 bump house will leave some blocks left over. Shouldn't each child be allowed to choose what else to build for a successful town: a park, a store, a school? What about a fire station?
         The answer appears to be an unequivocal no. And that in itself seems to restrict the very freedom of expression the teachers emphasized earlier.
         Here are a few bytes on what this [re]education program taught:
"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes....We should all just have the same number of pieces, like 15 or 28 pieces. A kid should have their own Lego character to live in the house so it makes the house different." Aside from the classically conditioned poor grammar, the kids have learned that everyone should be different personally since, apparently, we are all living in ant-like conformity. There's no problem with sharing and equality -- no problem whatsoever. But number one, when kids are still hoarding those precious green blocks with the point system in the back of their mind, and number two, when everything has to be the same - well, sorry, I simply can't buy into that.
"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building. And it's important to have the same priorities." Oh yes, very important to have the same priorities. Assimilation and lack of free thinking is always the answer. This isn't sharing. This isn't community development. This is, plain and simple, forced assimilation. Are these teachers disinterested in teaching these children the benefits of individualism?
         The United States has a primarily capitalist economy. No matter what camp you fall into, you should acknowledge that it isn't going to change any time soon. Teachers who have a socialist bent are perfectly capable of expressing their opinions -- but when they force them upon children who not only don't know better but probably haven't the slightest idea about what is even going on, they are without a doubt overstepping their boundaries. It isn't the teacher's job to tell a child who's gonna help brother get further. It is a teacher's job to open up the world for a child so that he can decide for himself.

This first appeared as "Who's Gonna Help Brother Get Further?"  in "All This Useless Beauty"  [GC]. Initial commentary may be viewed there.

© Copyright 2007 Lorien (UN: thatonegirl at Writing.Com). All rights reserved.
Lorien has granted Writing.Com, its affiliates and syndicates non-exclusive rights to display this work.