Chris Lehmann's Page

I apologize, Chris, for not seeing a comment you made to a post of mine a few days ago until now. I suppose I could say that my excuse is I spend most of my time here at Classroom 2.0 at other members' blogs and very little at my own.

I have a great suspicion that we're missing out on using one of our greatest resources in the effort to engage the indifferent or unsupportive--our students. Forget high level appeals to the politicians or administrators for their funding and support. Forget high-level appeals to parents for their participation. Let the kids speak (reach out) for themselves, their own interests, and their futures. Engage them in helping to bring about the (r)evolution needed in our classrooms and communities. Knowledgable, articulate kids presenting their case in a public forum have a psychologically better chance of being heard and remembered than do the typical experts who testify to the facts involved.

For quite some time I've pondered what good a group of sixth graders might do in our political capitols in considering and deciding the key issues we face. When compared with the spin of adult politicians and their special interests, perhaps a good dose of naivete might cure the illegitimacy and obscurity in government. Where have some of the most significant changes come from? Mostly from those whose ideas were considered to be naive. The names Edison and Gates ring a bell.

In the same vein, many of our public school establishments might be subjected to the same refreshment of can-do naivete from our students. In many ways, we've robbed them of opportunities to take responsibility for thinking through decisions about their own education and for presenting them articulately.

I've always found that experts "rule" by making what's actually simple very difficult to understand. In this regard, I love the stories told of Albert Einstein's passion to relate the "simplicities" of physics to beginners, not sophisticates. What those beginners didn't know was that they were receiving explanations of the most important problems of science at the time. Perhaps what we label as "simple" is not necessarily simple at all.

Sorry again for missing your comment,

Skip