April 12, 2009
April 12, 2009

I think I've liked games for as long as I can remember. No, what am I saying - longer than I can remember. I know my father taught me to play chess when I was four and never let me win. I'm glad he didn't. Though it did seem that by the time I was good enough to beat him him we somehow stopped playing. But very early on he gave me his own copy of a chess book by Alexander Alekhine. It was enthralling, and it was difficult. Even when I was at my peak (and I never really got far beyond the foothills), it was tough. But it was and is a book that absorbed me. Going through that book is probably the closest I ever got to studying anything. But would I have struggled with it if it had been a set text at school? I'm almost certain that I wouldn't. Which is why I have immense reservations about the Game School, a proposal for a public secondary school in New York.
According to Wired it is a win-win scenario. But something can only be win-win in situations where there are two different camps. And of course, there are. The school is aiming to get funding for being able to get "low-level" kids through state exams. This seems wrong to me on so many levels.
How is it that modern education needs to create a hierarchy and grade children like objects in a factory? Why is it necessary to have a "one-size fit all" system? If the education system was truly for the children then there would be many paths and diversity. If the education system was truly for the children then the idea of a win-win scenario wouldn't exist. Everyone would be in the same camp. There would be no incentives or tricks required to get children to learn a prescribed curriculum. The focus would be on learning itself, or rather on satisfying children's natural and insatiable curiosity. I really think that compulsory schooling as it stands now destroys rather than nurtures learning in the majority of children.
When I look back on my school days I can recall lots of good times, but very few of them to do with learning anything. In elementary school I loved playtime and playing different kinds of tag. At secondary school I had a group of friends and we played all kinds of different board and card games when we could manage to stay inside. Many of them were games that I created myself. I'm sure I would have jumped at the chance of having some work experience at a games company. But for the most part actual studying left me cold. Numb. Probably that was why I passed up on doing computer science (it consisted of punching holes into cards in those days). My potential interest had long been killed off, although nowadays I do do some programming for fun.
The Gamelab Institue Of Play which is behind the idea of the Game School talks about game literacies and “gamer intelligence” that is remarkably relevant for productive citizenship in the 21st century. And there we have the true focus. Productive citizenship. This is what education focuses on. Creating workers who will be productive. This is what the state and industry require and demand.
I'm not saying that useful skills aren't important. But who defines what skills are useful? Where should the emphasis lie? My feeling is that the adult generation doesn't really trust children. Rather than facilitating and mentoring children our compulsory system subjugates them. The balance is all wrong, if there is any balance at all.
I think if I had been forced to study gaming my natural interest would have shrivelled and died. Yet I use games with children on a daily basis. The difference is that the children I work with play games with me through choice. Moreover, we are doing things in English much more than we are using games to learn English. I sense the focus is different from what the leaders of the Gamelab institute have in mind. Still it is something I will be keeping an eye on, just in case there is more than first meets my eye. Watch this space
International
Japan
Comment Preview