Hi Howard,

Thank you again for your insights. I appreciate the continued exchange of ideas. Ive enjoyed reading your articles and the thoughtful research that has gone in to all the work you’ve produced. The focus of my inquiry in to education has been primarily on early childhood and primary education. Viewing the education system through a humanistic lens, much of the current cultural variations of what constitutes a quality early childhood an primary education have given me pause. Social interaction and social learning are primary to evolution. The question for me becomes, how is the environment constructed in early childhood and primary education to facilitate learning the best of what the culture has to offer. The manner in which many of our cultural tools are being employed is drawn in to question when positioned against developmental and psychological needs of the individual and group.

Vgotsky’s work is seminal in the field of child development and psychology and provides a foundation for a look at scaffolding in education and teaching. His framework and ideas have helped lay a foundation for the education of the child. I do wonder if his work provides greater insight to the time in which it was written as opposed to providing insight to the culture of today. While teachers are master scaffolders, there do exist other forms of learning, as expanded in Learning Theory and Gestalt psychology, that provide foundations for learning that do not require scaffolding of material. Whole to part learners need a big picture of the system, prior to mastering individual skills. Systemically, the school system has incorporated, to the best of its ability, the concepts of psychological and philosophical thought, in an effort to promote learning and growth. Though the system is slow to incorporate new knowledge and ideas from science about what we’ve gleaned from more focused attention on how a child develops and what is needed to thrive.

For example, it was once thought that the primary drive of a human being is for food. This drive for food was thought to be primary to all others. If you look at the works of John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth on attachment theory, in particular, Bowlby’s experiments with monkeys. The experiment was set up putting a baby monkey in a cage with the wire mesh mother who had food and a wire mesh mother covered in fur, but with no food. The baby monkey preferred the warmth of the fur monkey to the wire mesh monkey who had food. This led to a great insight that warmth and comfort are a primary need that can, at times, even surpass the primacy of the need for sustenance. Attachment research has grown and provides great insight in to the drives of humans and what is important.

Certainly, a well trained mind takes the work of many participants, parents, teachers, friends, neighbors. Natural conditions for a human beings involve the complete ecological units that function as natural systems without massive human intervention. In this way, the structure of schools are not natural environments, but rather man-made. This does not intrinsically make them either bad or good, but they are “constructed.” That being said, schools are an environment that humans have inhabited and have had to learn to function in. Learning to function in the social environment requires interaction in all forms of ecological life, building an experience and awareness of both natural and man-made laws.

Originating from a humanistic perspective, I look for how the human is nurtured and cultivated in an environment. In the area of primary education, while neural circuitry for the more humanistic values, empathy, positive regard, compassion, are being cultivated, how are behavioristic measures, as adopted by the school system, impacting the development of young minds. Research in to neurological and cognitive development and how the right/left and upper/lower are connected require a warm, gentle environment to form a “better brain.” If brick and mortar structures are the current culturally-formed mechanism for helping to develop a thriving, well-educated mind, then how can we make these facilities more adaptive to basic human needs. It is these basic human needs, particularly in early childhood, that will set the foundation for later, more advanced and comprehensive development. Im concerned that the field of education, as with so many others, have lost the ability to “connect” learning intrapersonally and interpersonally. This idea goes back to the over-focusing on standardized tests, Skinnerian behavioral measures, and a cultural-emphasis on competition and “correctness” over connection and cooperation.

Vgotsky’s thoughts on human psychological development emerging through interpersonal connections helped the education system to look at the importance of the social aspect of learning. Vgotsky also, later in his career, identified the need for young children to play, identifying “play” as the leading activity for psychological development among young learners. Bowlby and Ainsworth advanced an aspect of social learning, highlighting warmth as a primary need for psychological development. How has a 7 hour school day, much spent on “academic” pursuits and being trained by Skinnerian measures, supported a child’s psychological development? Marie Montessori has come close to trying to re-create a more natural setting for young children by suggesting classrooms of mixed ages, getting children out in nature, and using natural elements such as wood and beads to help introduce concepts. Culture and social relationships can only evolve when the environment supports each individual as a whole person and the group as a interactive, cohesive unit.