Several theories about education are available for the seeker. The teachers at Centre for Learning, Bangalore, felt the need to share their ruminations on, and experiments with, some educational discourses through webinars online. The article below began with a two-hour conversation among all the CFL teachers around the catch-phrase 'child-centred' education. After those initial stirrings, Venkatesh, Kamala and Rhythm further investigated the concept and created a script for a dialogue. The purpose of the conversation was to carefully examine particular views of child-centred education, in addition to sharing perspectives that may enlarge the meaning of this phrase. We hope that these ideas encourage you to ponder on this popular educational idea and ask questions!
Introduction
Rhythm (R): Here I am, having worked in an alternative school for a few years, and it's an interesting question to me, what is child-centred education?
Kamala (K): One way of thinking about this is that currently mainstream education keeps curriculum and adult's notions at its centre. It does not keep the child at its centre, that's obvious. So, then child-centred education would be to flip this around. But what does that involve?
Venkatesh (V): Children are kind of dragged through this curriculum willy-nilly. So, what could it mean to keep the child at the centre?
K: Shall we first try to open up multiple different kinds of meanings of child-centred education?
R: I have always thought it means an individualized learning experience, because after all everyone IS unique, abilities and ways of learning ARE unique, so it seems unreasonable to work in a very general way with all children. And I guess one could vary both the content and the teaching style, to suit each learner. It could also mean, let the child do whatever they want, whenever they want. Centred, in that sense, around their desires, inclinations, interests in the moment.
K: It could mean that if a child shows a spark, an interest or talent, we must cultivate that. Child-centred education must realise each child's potential. Centred around deeper, lasting interests and abilities.
V: It could just mean, make learning enjoyable. This phrase child-centred implies an individual child with their individual needs and individual fulfilment. Child-friendly is a term I am more comfortable with. Or children-centred.
The freedom model
R: Nice, we have a few definitions. So can we begin with this—letting children do what they want, rather than making them do what we want. Some schools have tried this, the 'freedom' model I guess, and they claim good results. I am a bit sceptical, but can we look at it?
K: I get why people would find this model attractive! In our milieu especially, wherever I go, my life and my experiences are personalised, made just the way I want it. My meals are 'a la carte' or 'buffet'! Why should school not also be personalised for me and my child?
V: Which brings in choice. Child-centred—does it mean the child must be able to choose?
R: Choice brings in a sense of autonomy, and therefore, maybe greater engagement in the learning process. In other words, choice brings motivation. There are a few schools like this, where children set the agenda, and I imagine they must feel so involved, so engaged!
K: The choices a child makes, what are they based on? Is there something fundamental or 'real' about these? It seems to be choice based on emotional state—some willingness or readiness to engage. So, I find it difficult to 'trust' the process of choice, deeply. Another thing, do we recognize that the hold of influence is very strong? Peers can influence us, the media, society's norms influence us. What I choose to do is largely because of various influences, I am not sure if there is any special 'me-ness' to it. Now, as a teacher I can be as careful as ever not to influence my students, striving toward child-centredness, but it only leaves the field open for all the other influences!
R: But this is very fundamental, how to question it? Parents see their children as mini-choosers, and believe that their lives are enhanced by their choices. The whole idea of agency, autonomy, is built on choice. Personally, I think that motivation comes when there is the 'illusion' of a chooser.
V: If what I am is a bundle of influences, then is there a 'me' that is separate from those influences? That seems an incoherent idea, even though in my daily life I feel there is that separate me. In alternative milieus, we tend to ask children, what do you authentically want, what is your own choice, as opposed to what you are influenced to do? And this emphasises the special choices of the special chooser.
R: That's why I called it an illusion. To me child-centred is not very interesting if it remains at the level of choice….
The individual fulfilment model
V: The other idea that was mentioned earlier seems more promising, about ensuring that each child fulfils their potential, realises their dreams, in the longer term. In such an education there may not be choice and freedom, since children don't always know what's best for them, and adults might have to apply some pressure, some push…yet it is child-centred in the sense that it means to ensure each child's individual fulfilment.
K: Reminds me of the Tiger Mom phenomenon! Do you remember that? One must be very careful, when getting children to fulfil their potential, that we adults are not projecting our dreams and ambitions onto them. Pressure can become very high, even if it is a subtle movement. But on a different note. If I think about the big goals of education, radically questioning aspects of society that disturb us, such as prejudice, apathy…would this definition of child-centredness address these? Being largely about individual fulfilment?
R: Let's explore a bit more. You are kind of reducing child-centred education to self-centred education! It need not be so. Are you creating a contradiction between a student pursuing her potential and the goal of education being to address deeper questions of society and human life? Can't they both happen together? Maybe when people pursue their own potential, it might lead to more creative outcomes in the long run, solutions to deeper problems and so on. These may not be contradictory aims.
V: Yes, I agree, it does seem that I can 'follow my dream' and 'help society.' I can love car design and help make environmentally responsible cars. But just maybe, we are fooling ourselves in such a situation. Isn't the attitude of needing fulfilment a problem? Can we question the notion of fulfilment itself? It sounds strange even to my ears as I am saying it because we have normalised self-fulfilment to such an extent. But fulfilment has this peculiar property that it often sets up an opposition between self and other.
K: Hmm… but what's the opposite of seeking fulfilment then? It is not a lack of fulfilment in the sense of being unhappy or frustrated in life. Sometimes we glimpse that happiness and completeness are possible without the constant seeking of something more. I guess the issue is the seeking?
V: Earlier you were talking about the development of talent and personality, am I right? A big part of this development is comparison. A few people become rich and famous through creativity and interest. We hold these up as the models for all of us to follow. But what does this do to the young person's psyche?
K: Absolutely. The whole hero phenomenon. You know, looking back I can say, while ability and talent seem great, and one can truly enjoy the activity for which one has a talent, it often creates a loop of pain and a lack of fulfilment—both for those who have achieved and also those who are constantly striving to achieve. Psychologically it is a kind of a lifelong curse, generating feelings of incompleteness. Why can't we leave children to enjoy their talents without the pressure of having to fulfil themselves through them?!
R: Or even to have the option not to follow a talent if they don't want to! But you know, this goes against all that we traditionally teach children—dream big, try until you succeed, get all the awards, and so on.
V: We find ourselves practising longing. So, when we get what we want, we continue to long for something else. It is an endless loop, our addiction to seeking and longing. Anyway, we've got to remember, this follow-your-dreams thing is for a narrow portion of humankind. The vast majority don't even have the option of dreaming big. So, I don't know how meaningful it is then.
K: Our dialogue here on practising longing reminds me of that poem 'Desiderata'…it says: 'You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.' Also, I've been reading that relationship and interdependence are more crucial to human existence than the human individual with his or her own talents and ambitions. We are not alone in the world, and to put oneself at the centre invites all kinds of pain and suffering! So, since I care about a child's well-being, I will not make an individual child the centre of our endeavour.
Can we make learning enjoyable and accessible for all children?
R: We are saying that for us, child-centred is not about individual choice and freedom, nor about personal fulfilment. Can we go back to what Venkatesh said earlier—that to him, child-centred education is all about making learning possible and enjoyable for each and every child?
V: Yes, I meant, in a given classroom interaction, can I deliver content so that each child gets something? Because if I don't think that way, I'll just deliver my lesson and that's the end of it!
R: Right, if you say each child gets something…you are implying that my expectations will differ for each child. I need to assess each child's learning in an ongoing way.
K: Wait—can I just ask—is this about figuring out each child's learning style and then matching instructional style to fit that? That doesn't hold any water.
V: No, no, it's not at all about learning and teaching styles or modes, but more about ensuring learning no matter what. We can use a variety of methods, or we can just patiently repeat, which works well most of the time! With small numbers in a class, we can ensure individual understanding, though not all to the same degree.
R: So then, child-centred means making knowledge and skills accessible to children. In that word accessible, a lot is implied. We are trying to ensure that we don't ever give up on any child's learning and understanding.
V: Yes, when I see a child, I must see the potential to learn. To move from wherever they are at this moment.
R: Can we expand this potential to learn beyond knowledge and skills, to a more holistic sense—ultimately for overall well-being?
K: Definitely. This is one way of looking at child-centric that excites me: that we respect each child as a learner, in a holistic way. Respect takes the form of being interested in the child's thinking, listening and taking what they say with the right amount of seriousness, not 'talking down' to them, and so on.
V: The culture of our school is that our regard for each child is unconditional—it does not depend on them being good, or good at something. The adults' respect and affection are automatically given to all children, no matter what. And I am not talking about praise and appreciation, feeding egos!
K: In a school community that practices this kind of child-centred education, children are not incomplete beings. Fundamentally, spiritually, they are equal to the adults. They know less and they are immature in many ways, but in a deep sense, the adult and child are on the same page. This, for me, removes the tension between adult-centred and child-centred.
V: Of course not. But there is the strong and continual message from the adults that every one of us is a 'child of the universe', needing no justification or reason to be accepted. This is what child-centred means to me too.
The issue of passivity and resistance in learning
R: I am also happy with this view of child-centred. But I am still thinking about something you said right at the start, that children are being dragged through an education dictated by adults. It creates a dichotomy between autonomy and passivity. Maybe one reason to worry about adult-driven curricula is that students become passive in school.
V: Why are students passive at school? I think this is a very important question. Yes, knowledge is fragmented, disconnected from their lives, so they feel uninvolved. Time also is fragmented in schools. And students are motivated by external rewards, so they don't feel an ownership of the curriculum.
K: Of course, children should be involved in what they learn in many ways.
R: One model we seem to have is: if there is autonomy, then there will be engagement.
V: But what is autonomy actually? What if it is synonymous with engagement? There is a causal arrow we are drawing: first ensure autonomy, then engagement will follow. I would question this. What if the causal arrow goes the other way? If you engage with something openly, you may learn about it deeply, run with it, become an 'independent' learner!
K: Is this a chicken and egg situation? Which leads to which?!
V: Engagement leads to something that may look like autonomy. Engagement may be an 'allowing of something to happen together,' making space for something to emerge. But autonomy feels like an imposition, shaping the world according to my own wishes at the time.
R: Back to the chooser, and to the one who has to be fulfilled! However, the issue of resistance and boredom remains.
K: Can we encourage students, and ourselves as curious human beings, to learn about resistance and boredom? Normally we want to quickly overcome resistance and boredom, make the environment exciting to prevent or remove boredom; but I'm asking can we learn about boredom or resistance itself?
R: If we can notice this voice and its energy, then perhaps we could learn to simply pay attention to the task at hand, no?
V: Yes, learning to engage with tasks brings its own meaning, and a sense of participation. This is very interesting because it is no longer about entertaining students in order to make them learn. It is rather helping us see the richness that is inherent in involvement without resistance.
R: So, when it comes to involvement, it's irrelevant whose choice or plan one is going with. Either a student or a teacher could have suggested an idea and there could have been engagement either way. Maybe we can stop at this point? It's been a very rich and complex conversation! I'm noting some questions for reflection below:
1. What does it mean to be at the 'centre' in an interdependent and intricately connected world full of other living beings? 2. What creates the dichotomy of teacher and student, and is it possible for us to challenge and break this distinction? 3. What makes learning accessible for all children? 4. How can resistance and authority be addressed in educational spaces? 5. What could learning for overall well-being imply?