Scrappy thinking

I meet often with teachers who wish to develop curricula, some of it academic in a traditional way, some of it much more adventurous, whimsical even, the sort of thing that creates an intellectual Disneyland for children to play in.

I just came from such a meeting, where the topic was manners. What are the social conventions that allow us all to function well together, and how might you impart some of those conventions to middle school kids in a way that is engaging and effective?

Inevitably the conversation turned to games. Inevitably because I was part of the conversation, and to whatever extent I have any power in a curricular conversation I force it towards games, simulations and real-life experiences, and away from "what I want kids to learn is..." The two are not incompatible, but once you have a sense of what you want them to learn, you gotta go to how they will learn it. Doing is good, listening usually isn't. Besides, the medium is the message. Good manners are not limited to listening well and they need to be done, not recited.

Let me admit it was a mistake to equate collaboration with good manners, and cooperation with bad manners. But I found myself thinking along those lines unconsciously.

We talked about games. The Prisoner's Dilemma is a good one to "teach" collaboration in a dynamic, exciting way. I found myself trying to think of other games that promote collaboration and cooperation, and not competition.

And then I got to thinking about the "humanistic games" and the "new games" that came out in the 60's and 70's. These games don't have winners and losers, just participants. And I found myself thinking, "Yukko!" As a steady diet such games are... let me think of a metaphor here... the metamucil of adolescent life.

I tried to list all the Olympic sports that have collaboration as the main outcome. Didn't take long. You could make a case that team sports are collaborative efforts, but you couldn't claim they were built first and foremost on cooperation. Even something as clearly collaborative as synchronized swimming is built on the premise that, okay girls, you're gonna get out there and kick some serious butt!

I like scrappiness. I particularly like it in young women because it's rarer (I think) in that demographic and quite possibly more important, given the way things are these days. I value their being scrappy more than I value their politesse.

It's not a this-or-that thing. At heart what I value most is directness, honesty and self-confidence. Good manners are good, but not if they interfere with directness, honesty and self-confidence.

To use games will be good, but the games must come in both flavors. New games should be taught every day and the kids should not be told, "This is a co-op game, guys'" nor "Okay, butt-kickers, here's a great one..." The game should simply be presented, and kids over time will learn to think a moment before beginning... which approach will lead to the most positive results, given the rules of the game? And, of course, how do I kick butt politely?

I think such a course could be great fun. Anybody wanna argue the point?