---> au·to·di·dact, noun: a self-taught person
When I was seventeen I took a Driver's Education course in which I had to watch an inane video tape which intended to teach, or at least claimed to teach why reckless driving "isn't worth it". To be clear, I'm all for safe driving - in fact, many people's driving habits bother me, but that is neither here nor there. The problem with this video is that it presented no real information. It merely projected a facade of objectivity and used manipulation and pseudo-science to support a preordained conclusion. The story of this video itself is boring, but can be confined to one paragraph...
In the video, two different drivers are timed as they drive a certain route. One observes the speed limit, stop signs, etc..., and the other doesn't. They are each scored on a rubric which takes the time each driver took to complete the route, and from that subtracts time for courteous driving and adds time for violating traffic laws. Arbitrary values are assigned to various penalties and those values are used to calculate the final score. The reckless driver gets a better drive time, but the courteous driver scores better according to the rubric and wins the competition. The obvious conclusion, the video would have us believe, is that driving safely is objectively and scientifically superior to the alternative. And hooray for courteous driving and all, but the real issue here is the use of nonsensical, Machiavellian tactics as tools for education. Having safe drivers is important, but it certainly doesn't justify using deceptive pseudo-science in the process.
When you use nonsense to teach, not all kids will react in the same way. Some will listen to you because they are eager for approval, or because it doesn't occur to them not to listen. Others are going to ignore you because they just don't care and no matter what you say or how you say it they are lost, at least for the time being. And a few other kids will ignore you because some part of them understands that what you are telling them is bullshit. They will be labeled "problem students", and they may even end up in jail. This is what and when we will notice and shake our heads in mournful disapproval, but jail is the end of their path. And their path frequently begins the same way – with an absolutely earnest, innocent appeal to teachers and parents long before their discipline problems begin: "This video doesn't make any sense. Why do I have to watch it? Why don't my classmates or teachers notice that this is nonsense? Why aren't they as frustrated as I am?"
These appeals are frequently misunderstood and ignored, and the youth's confusion may soon turn to anger. They know they're not getting anything out of the "material" being presented and they're going to do their best to make sure no one else does either, because they feel insulted. They don't care if they are reprimanded for their naughty, disruptive behavior because they have lost respect for those doing the reprimanding. They feel insulted and hurt, and they don't understand why the people who are supposed to care about them seem to be ignoring their feelings.
Many teachers, administrators, politicians, and parents don't understand that what they teach with the best of intentions can sometimes be poisonous. The real lesson learned in Driver's Ed that day had nothing to do with driving safety or turn signals, and was different for different kids. Many learn from their teachers' dismissive attitudes that it isn't important to understand the point of what they're doing, but rather to just complete the assignment and pass the class. And most significantly, they learn that seeking out help from their parents and teachers is futile because when they do seek it, they just don't get any. Their genuine appeals are met with indifference at best, and criticism and condescension at worst. This produces alienated teenagers who choose not to seek help from their parents or social programs in the future, but may instead turn to various bad influences, gangs, and cults. They will take their cues from nearly ANYONE who makes them feel more understood, more accepted and less alienated, anyone who provides the feelings they weren't getting from their parents and teachers.
In high school I took a Speech class from a subhuman known as Ms. Marhkles. The garbage that woman tried to teach me was asinine and she honestly didn't understand most of the jokes I made at her expense, but you can be sure the majority of my classmates did. It was the most frustrating class I've ever taken, simply because I knew that I was trapped in a class that was a waste of my time and that some of the information being presented was flat-out wrong. The recurring phrase "I have a dream" in Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous speech is an example of repetition, not metaphor, but don't tell Ms. Marhkles that. She once sent me to the office for disrupting her class, where I had a very memorable conversation with an Assistant Principal named Ms. Sehdle, a conversation in which I took great solace. In so many words, she conceded that Ms. Marhkles wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and that she understood my frustration, but that I had to suck it up and just ride out the rest of the semester. That is the most honest thing any teacher has ever said to me, and it was one of the few times I felt like one leveled with me about something significant instead of patronizing and manipulating me. It caught me completely by surprise. I went back to class feeling very content, and this is key, even though I still had to go to that ridiculous class.
Indeed, the moronic teachers out there with asinine lesson plans are only half of the problem. If you make a kid do something ridiculous but are straightforward and honest about the situation, that can be tolerated. It's not desirable, but at least the kid isn't going to feel deceived. He will still know that he can trust you and expect honest answers from you, even if he's mad that you're making him go to a stupid class. But if you try to deceive the kid, whether you think it's for his own good or not, all you will do is alienate him. It may not be immediate and you may successfully trick him for a time, but the end result will nearly always be the same.
This seems to be a difficult concept for many educators and parents to hear, but one that is important to a small group of very bright kids with tremendous potential. These are kids who, for the most part, don't need or even benefit from traditional education, and are indeed inhibited by it. But given an appropriate environment to learn, these kids will likely become important leaders with the potential to do great things both for themselves, and even for society as a whole. These kids benefit from teachers who are available to answer questions and make suggestions, but do not force the kids to adhere to a rigid lesson plan. Not all children benefit from this style of learning, to be sure, but it makes all the difference for the ones who do. They don't even need you to teach them; they can teach themselves. They just need your permission and a little understanding.
To make life more interesting, given my general dissatisfaction with the education system in general, my sister Laura has become a middle school teacher. It's really not nearly as bad as it sounds. In fact, it's pretty cool in a lot of ways, but we sometimes disagree on some key points. A story she told me actually constitutes most of the reason I began writing this anecdotal abomination in the first place: She has a student who was keeping his pencils in an inside-out Crown Royal whiskey bag, and she told him he needed to replace it. To me this is astonishing, almost as astonishing as most people's lack of astonishment is to me when they hear this story. What has the student done wrong? He didn't bring alcohol to school. He's not advocating underage drinking, at least not overtly. He even turned the bag inside out.
What Laura's actions say to him are, "You aren't old enough or smart enough to even be cognizant of alcohol. I'm pretending that alcohol doesn't exist because it's more comfortable for me that way, and you must also." She doesn't ask him why he chose that pencil bag, what it means to him, where he got it, or what he thinks about alcohol. She doesn't ask whether he thinks it's okay to drink in seventh grade, or why. She doesn't ask him whether he drinks at all. All she does is get rid of something that offends her in some way – a seventh grader with a Crown Royal bag. Indeed, this is solely and precisely what the entire conflict is really about – good, old-fashioned hear no evil, see no evil denial.
I sincerely have no doubt that Laura is an awesome teacher. She is compassionate, intelligent, and passionate about teaching, and she wants nothing but the best for her students. And of course, she is under pressure from parents and school administration. There are numerous rules she must follow or risk serious ramifications if she defies them. She only has so much freedom to do what she thinks is right, but it is important that teachers help maintain a voice of reason. As the educators interacting most directly with the kids themselves, more so than the principals and superintendents, they are privy to the most information from them. And this information is of the utmost importance, because if those educators making the policies and writing the lesson plans don't really know and understand their kids, they will never reach the majority of them. In school it's the same as it is in show-business – an educator must know his or her audience.
Please keep in mind that I took Driver's Ed ten years ago, and Ms. Marhkles' speech class about a year after that. After all this time, I still remember both of them vividly. Both were such insults to my intelligence that the memories are permanently etched in my mind. When writing and rereading some stories I relate in this essay I relive the emotions I describe in them, and it's still enough to make my eyes well up with tears. I feel that I was robbed of parts of my adolescence, which is arguably the most precious time in a person's life. We are willing to go to great lengths to help and protect our children, but when it comes to protecting them from mandatory time leeches like these classes we turn a blind eye. An hour a day, five days a week, for a whole semester I was in that speech class! Think of all the things I could have experienced and learned in that formative time, given a little freedom.
It must be difficult for a teacher like Ms. Marhkles to teach a student far more intelligent than herself. A teacher of moderate to low intelligence has little to offer a very bright kid, but the most important thing she can do is be aware of that fact and stay out of the way when she is not helping. The most intelligent people in the world are the people who listen, and the teachers who really listen to their students do the most good. Throughout this essay I think I have been pretty clear that I consider myself to be an example the bright autodidacts I have described. I try not to be boastful and my goal is not to gloat. Besides, I don't have any kids of my own, so why should I care about the schools at all?
The purpose of this rambling, abruptly transitioned series of anecdotal observations is to explore and express feelings I've always had but never understood or felt comfortable with until recently. I also hope these musings make sense to some educators and young people who can relate to the stories I've told. These are kids whose confidence in their very real gifts is being destroyed by the education system, which tries to cram those gifts into boxes that just do not fit, and whose labels aren't even close to accurate. And of course this is all just my opinion, but I am confident that my experiences are relevant to other young autodidacts suffering from frustrations and difficulties similar to those I have faced. It is completely unfair and counterproductive to chastise these kids for their natural curiosity and shrewd intelligence, and adapting education to better suit them is really not as radical a proposal as it sounds.
Without being "taught", I have learned how to do the following: Run my own Computer and Network Troubleshooting business, fix bicycles, play the guitar, and take quality photos with amateur equipment, just to name a few things. I have also quickly become a valuable asset to the wood shop I work at, even though I admittedly don't know much about woodworking. Of course, I've had plenty of valuable support from the time I was little, but I generally learn best by experimenting and researching on my own – and, as an apprentice of sorts, working with people who know a trade. For the most part I don't need or even benefit from having a “teacher” in the traditional sense of the word; all I really need is someone who will answer some questions and otherwise stay out of my way.
Indeed, my employers like me because I can figure things out and solve problems without them having to babysit me, and I like them because they give me the freedom to get things done in a way that makes sense to me. I don't need to pay for school because I can get paid to learn while I'm providing a service of real value to a real business that is, in turn, providing a real product in the real world for a real profit. Compare this to paying money to sit in a classroom and not provide any real service to anyone, except maybe for the university. I'm really not even very unique; lots of people can learn this way and some do it already. But unfortunately, the mindset that learning must involve a teacher and a classroom has been ingrained in us like a religion, and many people are convinced they can't learn any other way.
This, however, is another subject entirely. For now I shall stick to the one at hand and conclude my defense of the self-taught and misunderstood. We all learn differently, and some of us are actually impeded by an educator's best intentions. The irony is rich: We're sabotaging some of our brightest kids in an attempt to help them, and we're using tax money to pay for it. As a parent or a teacher it must be hard to know when to let go and give a kid more freedom, and perhaps even harder to let go when you know it's the right thing to do. But what all kids need are more Assistant Principals like Ms. Sehdle – sincere educators who give honest answers even when it would be more comfortable not to. Kids also need more teachers like Laura, a sister who is willing to consider what I have to say even though I've gone to the trouble of writing an entire essay more or less attacking her profession. They are the ones who are listening, and the ones who listen are the ones who make a difference.
