The Case Against Professionalism

There are children playing in the street who could solve some of my top problems in physics, because they have modes of sensory perception that I lost long ago.      ~J. Robert Oppenheimer

When architect Simon Nicholson first proposed his theory of loose parts ("How Not to Cheat Children") in 1971 he asserted that the "gifted few" (professionals) got to have all the fun. They designed the buildings, created the music, wrote poems, did the science, and then the rest of us were left to just sort of live with, but never touch, change, or question their work. His big idea was to give amateurs, and especially children, the ability to do the fun part themselves by filling their spaces with "loose parts" that they were free to manipulate, connect, and transform.

It was a radical idea, one that holds the potential to turn education upside down. It was an idea in keeping with the ideas that had been emerging over the preceding 70 years from education pioneering amateurs like John Dewey and Maria Montessori right through Loris Malaguzzi and even Mister Rogers. The idea was to put the "fun part" of learning into the hands of the learners themselves, to allow children to determine their own curriculum from the loose parts of life.

Those of us who have embraced play-based learning strive to do this, but we continue to be outliers. Most "professional" educators today have acknowledged the theory, then absorbed it into their professional work, manipulating it to fit in their professional orthodoxy, and generally colonizing it with their professionalism. It is in the nature of professionalism to accept the current "environment" and only consider change that can happen within that current environment. If they stray beyond the current boundaries, they risk being deemed "unprofessional," which is the kiss of death. That's why, you can today find preschool classrooms with "loose parts" corners that are little more than a few tidy baskets of bits and bobs, just another watered-down concept that allows the profession to say, "See? We're open to new ideas."  

I'm not blaming the educators: I'm blaming professionalism. Professionals have a lot to lose, amateurs and children do not. As philosopher Marshall McLuhan puts it, "The "expert" is the man who stays put."

I understand why professional educators want to be seen as professionals. If nothing else, being a "professional" often carries with it both prestige and money. That's why we fight for the recognition. I have nothing against prestige and money, but I resist, at some level, being a professional in the name of . . . well, professionalism. I strive for a professionalism that constantly questions the status quo: one that abhors staying put, that recognizes that, at its heart, learning always involves upsetting the status quo.

As adults, we become experts by learning the rules of our professional environment and that's useful, of course. It allows us to navigate the professional world efficiently, which is one of the hallmarks of professionalism. But it also tends to blind us. When we learn those lessons too well, when we get too wrapped up in the jargon and "best practices," we have a tendency to stop noticing possibilities that fall outside those rules.

This is, I think, what Oppenheimer was referring to as well. He certainly wasn't saying that children know their physics as well as the father of the atomic bomb. Rather, he's pointing out that children, as amateurs, haven't yet had their sensory perceptions boxed in by all those professional assumptions. They're inclined to ask questions a professional would never think to ask. They consider objects in ways professionals would never imagine. They see possibilities where professionals see obstacles. Even a child can see the insanity of creating an atomic bomb, while the professionals went right ahead and created a way to destroy life on earth.

Children are classic amateurs, or even dilettantes (in the best sense of that word). They're not incompetent, but rather free from the systems of conventions and agreements, the environment, that too often captures professionals. Amateurs dispense with the professional jargon that often seems designed to exclude amateurs. Amateurs retain the freedom to ask questions that professionals cannot conceive of asking because to become a professional, to be considered a professional by their peers, they have mastered the assumptions and "problems" of the world as the other experts know it. Curious amateurs are inclined to question whether they're even addressing the right problems.

We see this phenomenon all the time in education. Go to almost any online resource for educators and you'll find professionals asking professionally appropriate things like, How do we get children to learn letters sooner? Or How do we improve compliance? Or How do we measure learning more accurately? Or How do I motivate these children? Or How do we get children to listen?

Being a professional too often means losing the ability to perceive the profession's own assumptions. "Professionalism" means delivering curriculum, adhering to "best practices," aligning with standards, and achieving measurable results. That's the professional environment. Anything outside of that is, by definition, unprofessional.

Meanwhile, children are asking valid questions that fall beyond the scope of the professionally accepted ground rules; genuine questions like Why do we have to learn this at all? Why can't we think about something more interesting? Who got to decide that this crap matters? Why can't we just go outside?

In our work with children, these are the questions play-based educators ask: the amateur's questions. The children's questions. We fight to remain connected to our amateur status. 

I've never done most of the "professional" things that educators in normal schools do. Instead, I create environments, I pay attention to the children, I respond to what emerges from their play, and I trust the children's competence. I listen to the questions the children are asking. Instead of being professional, I strive to remain curious, to retain the capacity to be surprised, and to be willing, at any moment, to abandon any plan when something more interesting emerges. I'm more interested in children learning to motivate themselves, to assess their own learning, and to practice life itself within the context of community.

This is what play-based learning is all about. It's what pioneering amateurs like Montessori, Malaguzzi, and Mister Rogers understood. They distrusted expertise that had, as it always does, become disconnected from direct experience. They wondered what would happen if we stopped deciding, in advance, what learning is supposed to happen, and instead let the children pursue learning that is meaningful to them.

Of course, children are not merely amateurs—they are also novices. They don't know what they don't know. It is also part of our job to keep them safe enough, to provide information that they need, and to help them figure out how to be part of a community. But we err when we make the mistake of trying to professionalize childhood. We cheat children when we forget that childhood is, and always must be, a season of life when curiosity matters more than expertise.

That's why children need play, the natural environment of amateurism. Not because play prepares them for the real world, but because it preserves ways of seeing that the rest of us too often lose. Our job is not to rush children toward professionalism. Our job is to create beautiful environments, keep them safe enough, answer their questions, and then stay out of the way as much as possible. The future doesn't belong to the experts who stay put. It belongs to those who can still discover possibilities where everyone else sees only the way things have always been done.

******

Books have a way of transforming us unlike any other media out there. Be it fiction or non-fiction, a books has the power to fully immerse us into a world in way that makes us come out the other side a changed -- and better -- person. I've put together this list of 16 books that have done that for me. They are intentionally not early childhood books, although each one has, in one way or another, profoundly transformed my work with young children. Maybe you'll find a few new ones here that will do the same for you. To download the list, click here.

I put a lot of time and effort into this blog. If you'd like to support me please consider a small contribution to the cause. Thank you!