Good People, Open Constructs

I'll never forget. 5th grade, math, we had a teacher named Mrs. Scofield. Mrs. Scofield allowed snacks during a given time frame in class, a method I think more people should adopt. Anyway, we were on I think the 2nd day of our roman numeral lesson, learning the system itself after memorizing the letters the day before, and were just finishing up snack and transitioning back into some class quizzing. So Mrs. Scofield asked probably something like what is LX, to which someone raised their hand and replied 60. 

...And then she asked, "Okay, what is XL?" To which a fully confident 10-year-old Sheldon Stott, with a mouthful of crackers, blurted out in a not quite sarcastic but clearly facetious moment, "Extra Large". 

And I thought specifically 2 things immediately, but responded involuntarily with only 1. Laughter. Everyone did, actually. And although it was pure funny (I mean, it was elevated humor at the time), I thought it probably wasn't worth it, because of thought number 2. He was for sure about to get in trouble. You can't just say things to a teacher without raising your hand, especially if it's not even a real answer to her question. You just can't. But he did. And it was funny. And I was worried. So here's what happened:

Nothing.

Mrs. Scofield laughed for as long as we did, never addressed the temporary break in elementary-school-teacher-elementary-school-student relationship, and went on teaching.

I wasn't baffled by it when I was 10, I remember it being really funny and a little odd, but it was just a thing that I remembered until I thought about why I remembered it. It was the first time I saw the progression that comes with a flexible system. The same teacher that allowed food during class had created an environment where one kid could say something so memorably honestly different, that another kid would be able consider the results of that environment, and how they could be used, decades later. And really the best part is what happened to the classroom from that point on.

Nothing.

People didn't consistently speak out of term from then on. The class itself was fun enough that we didn't feel the need to change it, and we knew that that outburst was kind of a one time deal by the way the person in charge had handled it - no consequences needed, because the intentions were pure. The effectiveness of that system, realized in that moment is hinged on the 2 constraints in the title: good people, and an open construct. It was the GT math class, so we were interested in learning, which allowed the authority to be more focused on empowering rather than controlling. Had it been a remedial 5th grade class (if that exists) Sheldon probably would've been met with a note home expressing concern for his focus. But Sheldon was a good kid, so it was trusted that the joke wasn't replacing his focus, but rather an indication of it. Extend that trust to the whole group and you have a roomful of freedom, where everyone trusts each other's motives because the group is working toward the same goal, to learn math. Under those conditions, there is no need to abide by the stiffer rules of general 5th grade etiquette as they would actually stifle the learning process for fear of not feeling like you could express yourself.

The point of course is that we should be able to apply this concept to other factions of the world that fit those conditions. I can envision an America where certain cities abolish speed limits, where there are no zoning laws, where non-business owners are charged a flat tax, and eventually where the electoral college no longer exists. It’s all predicated on people raising their kids really, so it’s a long shot, but if we can work toward that level of trust, there’s so much progress to be made.