BOSTON GATHERING & NEW ENGLAND WANDERINGS
On Sunday, July 21, the home of Michelle (Efros), David Fox
and one great kid, Leo Fox, was the scene of a Roeper gathering. I am not even Leo’s grandparent and I can
tell you this toddler is officially a “Cutie,” “Sweetie,” and “Smartie.”
In attendance were:
Rand Barthel, ’74.
Sevan Ficici , ’82, with wife Hasmik Vardanyan
Beth (Kellogg) Prince, ’91, with husband Brett
Debbie (Lipson) Feldman, ’74, with husband Steve
Deidre Wade, ‘87
Arthur Ensroth, ’68 (finished at Cranbrook since we didn’t
have a graduating class until 1969) & wife Barbara
Michelle (Efros) Fox, ’95.
Linda Pence as chief organizer, photographer, videographer
and official memory person. Emery Pence as pretty face and moderator.
The crazy heat wave had broken some so we enjoyed a lively
discussion in the backyard after a lot of socializing in the house. As usual at a Roeper gathering, people who
didn’t know each other soon were acting like long-lost friends. Linda was overjoyed to see some people she
hadn’t seen in years. If I haven’t
mentioned it lately (& I just love mentioning it), next year will mark
Linda’s 40th year at Roeper.
I posted the questions:
“What kind of people does society and the world need?” “What kind of attitudes, values and skills
do we want people to have?” Then I
muffed it and asked “How can Roeper
produce people like that?” People
quickly (rightly) jumped on the word
“produce.” Roeper helps people find
their own way; the words were barely out of my mouth before I knew I had mis-spoken. Roeper people are serious about words and
ideas and not shy about mentioning when they disagree.
Michelle started us out.
As a middle school science teacher in Newton, MA, she is keenly aware of
the importance of scientific thinking in society and she finds that too many
people today are distrustful of science and do not understand the scientific
method. Students need to learn a
framework for making claims, finding evidence and doing careful reasoning based
on that evidence. People need to know
how to make an argument and be able to analyze their own arguments and those of
others.
Debbie (seen on the left with husband Steve) added that too many people are so relativistic that
they don’t even acknowledge the existence of facts. It was déjà
vu as Paul Rabe in Philly made precisely the same argument a few days
ago. Reasoned discussion stops as soon
as people say “That’s just your
opinion” as opposed to countering with
data and/or arguments. People stake out
a position and then hang onto it for dear life as opposed to adjust their
thinking when confronted with new info.
Sevan continued that there seems to be a lack of societal
trust in science; the idea that valid research that can be verified and
repeated can provide answers and can be the basis of societal action.
Below is Sevan and wife Hasmik (Linda was so excited to see Sevan that she couldn't hold the camera completely still)
Deidre suggested that it is a matter of integrity and intellectual
honesty. People need to have
“Congruence” (I had mentioned Keith Cornfield’s short essay on what we now need is “congruence” or people
walking the walk – living their values instead of just paying
lip-service). Deidre thought that being
honest with one’s self is hard but necessary before one can be honest with
others.
Deidre featured on the left.
I should have said (but didn’t as I was scribbling like mad)
that the Roeper Philosophy of self-actualization in a communal context (people
growing with the help of others for the benefit of the individual and the
community) needs people capable of self-awareness, people respectful of others
enough to genuinely listen and learn from them and a safe environment so both
of those can develop.
All I said to the group was “How?” “How does, or more accurately for you Roeperians from years past, how did Roeper
help you develop into a deeper thinker and a more intellectually honest person?” Or a better question yet, “How should Roeper
do these things?”
Deidre replied, “Modeling.
The adults around us showed us how to talk to each other, engage in
nuanced dialogue and explore even sensitive, challenging topics in a safe and
meaningful way.”
Rand added that it was obvious that people respected each
other. “Respect” defined as acknowledging
the differences between people, withholding judgment until one has really heard
others and changing one’s position when appropriate. Authentic dialogue was the norm.
On the right is Rand, Debbie, Steve & Em.
Rand continued that what people need is the ability to bring
to the surface one’s own basic (& sometimes hidden) assumptions. If a person can identify his or her
assumptions he or she can better understand their own thinking and can engage
in more meaningful dialogue. If we don’t
develop this ability in most people in our world, the planet is in serious
trouble. (note from Emery: what Rand is describing is what Richard Paul, Sonoma State University. Center for Critical
Thinking and Moral Critique, describes as
“Third-degree critical thinking” –the willingness and ability to analyze one’s
own thinking.
Deidre added that questioning was always
encouraged at Roeper. It was safe to
question others and one’s self.
Arthur remembered that it was comfortable to
be interested in learning. It was the
norm to think about and talk about a wide variety of subjects. Students who at other schools felt like
oddballs because of their intellects and interests felt at home and comfortable
at Roeper. One learned to accept one’s
personal strengths and recognize areas in need of work. Below is Brett, Beth and Arthur.
Deidre and others suggested that we need to
learn how to better listen to others.
Rand said that we need to develop the belief
that a person can always learn from others.
Sevan said that noncomformity needs to be
accepted.
Beth responded that during her
years in high school at Roeper she and friends intellectually agreed with
Roeper allowing and even encouraging nonconformity but it was sometimes
difficult knowing how to act to be accepted in the group and still be true to
herself with public school friends. She
didn’t like her outside-of-Roeper friends thinking of us as that school for
weirdos.
Someone (maybe Art) said that he just
wouldn’t have friends outside of Roeper who didn’t understand Roeper acceptance
and celebration of diversity (all kinds of diversity).
I recounted how in the mid-2000s before we
had our own gym, we had visiting students and parents coming to the Birmingham
campus to watch games in our gym. One
Roeper student leader was appalled by the posters, drawings, cartoons, text, etc.
on the outside of the lockers (there is no policy of prior restraint on what
could be posted on a locker but one had to engage in dialogue with anyone
offended). This student wanted us to
“clean” up and restrict such locker postings.
Other students countered we had to be who we were and they had heard
visitors express envy for our ability to be so open.
Deidre told how she gained a certain
authenticity and openness from her experiences at Roeper and found others in
the outside world respectful and appreciative of that genuine confidence. If you are comfortable with yourself, others
notice and are amazed.
Debbie said that she did have some transition
problems because she just assumed that everybody was as gifted as were her
peers at Roeper. She adjusted because she
had a lot of practice learning how to get along with people and figuring out
where others were coming from.
Michelle brought up an interesting Roeper
problem. When a person grows up in a
school, it can be hard to reinvent one’s self.
If you are in a high school of 1500 or a college of 25,000 or if you
move to a new community, you don’t have to deal with people who knew you in
Stage I when you spit crumbs on people.
I didn’t (but should have) point out that the acceptance and tolerance
of the Roeper community for folks to lead their own lives helps offset that.
Rand thought we should move onto the topic of
the rat race. He learned at Roeper to
ask “Why bother with competition for its own sake?” Why not focus on developing and pursuing
one’s own goals and passions – more internal motivation and less external.
We agreed that kids should be aware that some
“game-playing” and compromising might be necessary to achieve certain goals. We discussed how various Roeper alums have
successfully navigated the “after-Roeper world although it can be tough.
This lead into a really interesting
discussion with many of those present mentioning that they, at times, didn’t
challenge themselves. In subjects or
areas not of interest, they didn’t push themselves as hard as they might have. Michelle talked about how she focused on math
and science at Roeper and in college realized she had missed something by doing
so. Deidre agreed she had gaps in her
knowledge. All agreed there were plusses
to allowing students to take control of their educations as they came out of
Roeper feeling confident to be able to be managers of their own educations and
lives.
Linda and I noted that what is supposed to
happen depends on one of the pillars of the Roeper Philosophy – healthy, strong
relationships. If a student has trust in and close support of an adult or
adults that know him or her well, the student will not fall through the cracks,
will be more well-rounded, and will take risks to go beyond the student’s
comfort level.
Linda mentioned that students are now
encouraged to develop their own questions, their own rubrics of success and
their own assessment to compliment what the teachers do.
My gut feeling is that Roeper is doing more
to make sure kids don’t fall through the cracks and that we do better balancing
out the Roeper education without losing the most important values of the Roeper
Philosophy – students should own their own educations, pursue their passions
and come out of our school feeling confident and empowered.
TECHNOLOGY: HOW TECH CAN HELP ROEPER STUDENTS
BETTER OWN THEIR EDUCATION, MASTER THE SUBJECT MATTER & PURSUE THEIR
PASSIONS.
I threw the question out about the promise
and challenge of new educational technologies.
Michelle who teaches at the high-achieving public
school district of Newton was ready for this question as I have been publicizing
what the discussion questions for the gathering would be. This is a question
close to her heart. She said we must realize that the kids today
are digital natives and that they are very different from students from just a
few years ago. They won’t connect to
teachers and their pedagogy if it isn’t tech-based.
She continued that the Roeper Philosophy of
student ownership and empowerment can be enhanced by new tech developments. A
student can go more at his or her own pace.
There are more opportunities to pursue individual passions and
interests. The walls between school and
the outside world can be lowered. She
recounted how her 8th grader science students have benefitted from
her Earth and Space unit being partially online (using a variation of the flipped
classroom concept). After the students
viewed videos and resources outside of school, she follows up with small
discussion groups of 8-10 kids at school.
She finds that students who are quiet in a regular class are more
willing to respond online. Many kids are
more excited and more comfortable online.
Sevan wasn’t completely buying it. As techie as he is, he wonders if technology
hasn’t become a barrier to better interpersonal relationships. Aren’t people using technology to hide from
each other, engaging in pseudo-communities?
Shouldn’t they learn to work with each other face-to-face?
Michelle pointed out that she used a combo of
traditional, face-to-face and online activities.
Beth mentioned MOCCs and other online college
courses. Roeper students and others
could take subjects that Roeper, no matter how flexible and accommodating, just
couldn’t offer.
Arthur worried that many 16 year olds might
not really know what they should take but might opt for what is a parochial
interest instead of going for well-roundedness and challenge. I think my words about Roeper needing healthy
relationships between students and adults applies here.
Deidre mentioned research shows that interest
and commitment towards online learning does lessen. Having to invest the energy and time to
attend a formal educational setting might better serve a student feel committed
to learning. I wonder if the Hawthorne
Effect might be in play here. This
principle states that most experiments will increase positive effects at first
as participants are aware of the “experiment.”
In addition, the novelty will temporarily increase “buy-in.” In many
cases, the level of positive effects will lessen. However, this does not mean that true
improvements will fail to make lasting effect.
We all agreed that somehow we need to
acknowledge and use new technologies without losing what we already are doing
well via traditional education practices.
I mentioned that Roeper has avoided, for both
good and bad, many new educational advances.
We have avoided dead-ends and fads and let others test things out. But we have also lagged behind. Now is time to take the best and leave the
rest. And as other participants at other gatherings have stated: New practices need to have both teacher and
student participation in the planning and implementation.
Sevan noted that online education could have
economic advantages. Could we make money
by using new technologies to offer a Roeper education to the many people who
can’t have it now. Sevan strongly felt that intrinsic to our mission to educate
thinking, socially conscious, global citizens is the mandates to establishment many
more schools with the Roeper philosophy of education.
Someone (my notes fail to say who) wondered
if technology could spread Roeper. Is
anybody looking into offering a Roeper education online? This lead to a larger
discussion of there being any way the values, practices and/or culture of
Roeper could be shared with the world.
Many alums don’t live in Michigan so their kids can’t go to Roeper. Many gifted kids are suffering from not
having a challenging, accepting learning environment.
I explained how George and Annemarie never
wanted to spread Roeper too far ((such as franchising) so as to lose control
and so as to perhaps dilute quality and essence. But Annemarie towards the end of her life was
miffed that there were Montessori Schools everywhere but not Roeper Schools
everywhere. I think our message and
Philosophy are nuanced and complicated and not easily duplicated. We are anything but formulaic but wouldn’t it
be wonderful if somehow more kids could benefit from a Roeper kind of
education?
We did have a discussion of what is essential
to Roeper. What has to stay at Roeper or
it isn’t Roeper?
Sevan explained his
kids attend a school where uniforms are required, something he can’t imagine at
Roeper. But he didn’t believe a lack of
dress code was a “make-or-break” requirement for Roeper.
I asked how many called their teachers by
their last name or both.
There were
those in the group that totally did one or another (depending on years
attended) and those that attended during years when some teachers required last
names and some first names. Perhaps, it
boils down to why a decision is made and how it is made. If the community can refer back to the
Philosophy, apply it to a particular question and then in a communal,
shared-decision manner decide on something, then it will be Roeperian.
AFTER BOSTON INTO THE RAINS:
On Monday after breakfast with Michelle and that uber-adorable Leo, we
headed for Salem to look for more Linda family history.
Here is an excerpt from our discussion with Hindstrum:
Hindstrum: Where are
we?
Emery: In Salem,
Massachusetts looking for Linda’s aunt’s house.
There it is now.
Hindstrum: Another big house in the family? Let me guess.
Someone sold it and I don’t have any legal claim to it.
Emery: That’s right.
Hindstrum: Didn’t
those ancestors believe in stewardship?
Why didn’t they have any regard for future generations of squirrels?
Hindstrum: Why does
every house say “Witch” on it? “Witch
House.” “Witch Museum.” “Witch Dry-cleaning.”
Emery: About 220 years ago, there were people accused of
being witches here and they were hanged.
Hindstrum: What’s a
witch? Is that a witch?
Emery: That's actually not a witch but someone who played an annoyingly perky witch on TV. She always married someone named "Dick" but no one can remember which was witch. Anyways, a witch is a person who
supposedly has magic powers and can fly around on a broom.
Hindstrum: If they
fly they probably are birds and should be hung.
Emery: They weren’t
birds and weren’t witches and didn’t fly or have magic powers.
Hindstrum: Then why
were they hung.
Emery: Hard to explain. Here’s a copy of Arthur Miller’s THE
CRUCIBLE. Read it. Ponder upon it. Remember it.
You would be surprised how often people get scared and do violence to
people out of fear.
We took a quick trip to the beach by Nahant (north of Boston and south of Salem). We had to leave quickly because of Hindstrum freaking out about the sea gulls and our not letting him have his hatchet.
After Salem and my taking a wrong turn which resulted in a
lot, a lot, a lot of north Boston suburb driving, we went to Townsend, MA (near
the New Hampshire border) for camping for a couple of days before the Amherst Gathering on
Wednesday at Tommy’s Roeper, 6:00-8:00 PM, 123 High St.
Things went well until apparently God forgot his promise to
not flood the Earth again. 3-4 inches of
rain last night and this morning and our
tent had its own swimming pool. So while
I am typing up this blog, Linda is back at the state park doing her magic to
get us ready for sleeping, not swimming tonight. I think even Linda is having a hard time as
it just keeps raining. Here she comes
now and she announces “Mission Accomplished.”
Next blog will probably be posted Thursday.
