https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-2/supporting-material-1/a.s.-neills-summerhill

Education in general offers the promise to prepare learners for real-world challenges. I would like to discuss two pedagogical models in this space—didactic and authentic pedagogy. While each has its pros and cons and they contrast each other, they also present complementary philosophies in the teaching and learning process.

My teenage years were spent at an art school. This meant that subjects consisted of both fine arts and traditional academic subjects. The respective departments were managed very differently. The academic classes were more didactic, while my art classed were very authentic. In the academic classes the teacher was charged with prescribing what lessons to be taught, and how they would be dispensed. There was strict discipline, and there was no unauthorised mouthing. In contrast, my painting and design classes were more carefree. In the art classes I could sit where I wanted-alone or with a group of friends…depending on my mood. While the art teacher would still prescribe the topic, one had self-agency in choosing the format and medium of delivery. Sometimes, this meant leaving the school premises for research purposes. It would be during this research process that one would be thrust into unexpected life experiences. In my case, one of the researches led me to interview a person living with HIV, and learning for the first time that it was not always about promiscuity. This part of the illness was never a part of my health studies in class; nor was the part about judging such a person. I also became aware that the arts rewarded those students who were less academically inclined with other options-options that they could relate to. It was only in later years when reuniting with some of them that we would learn that each of us came from broken homes. It was the creative space afforded to us that fashioned a hiding place for us, thereby creating “`tolerable kids” in a didactic world.

In his Summerhill collection, A.S. Neill indicates his understanding on authentic pedagogy. While I am a supporter of this method, his commentary does not convince me to support his own interpretation. Free thinking does not necessarily equate to free will. If we are to truly believe that education is liable in preparing children for the real world, then his theory is misleading. Free will without any boundaries or any repercussions is not how the real world operates. I am also inclined to say that this is also an injustice to learners. Children expect all adults to be their guardians, in one form or another. It is detrimental to a child’s development not to have a healthy dose of guidance if they are to be prepared for the real world.

Some of my academic classes were tedious, and definitely irrelevant to my life choices and experiences. But part of the dichotomy of life, is doing what you “don’t feel like doing” in order to be able to do “what you want” in later years. That is the role that the didactic method plays in education. My art classes taught me self-discovery and also how to authentically understand how society really operates. Both have taught me how to be myself in relation to other people; and that life is an art worth taking risks for without impeding on other people’s experiences and their right to live an authentic life.