It's interesting that the children, when left to themselves, solved their own disputes peacefully through negotiation and a form of organically-grown community law. They had no cause to complain about unfairness until the teachers used arbitrary force to impose a solution that nobody wanted to a problem that nobody recognized as a problem.

I don't see that that's what happened at all. Apparently a fair portion of the class was marginalized and basically kept from play. They were either subtly or directly told that they weren't welcome in Legotown. The "smarter" kids learned to hoard limited and valuable resources, and used that power to direct what other kids could do.

It might have been "peaceful" in that setting, but take the teachers out of the equation for an hour or so, and see how peaceful it is when the marginalized kids realize they can force their way into the game by pushing the hoarders around, or simply smash the buildings so _no one_ gets to play.

You think it wouldn't happen?

The article specifically mentioned that most of the kids simply chose not to play the game, which is a choice with some obvious metaphors in adult society. Only a few kids were explicitly asked to stay out, and the article doesn't explain the circumstances behind that.

Quite simply, the students established their own meritocracy, which the teachers replaced with a form of socialism.

That may indeed be a more peaceful solution, but I can't remember any age at which that wouldn't have pissed me off. I used to play with Legos as a kid, and Construxx, and even an old erector set. I probably would have been one of the central kids in the story, one of the ones establishing rules and hoarding (and bartering for) pieces. I had to share a room with my younger brother at about that age, and that's exactly what we did.

I would have protested loudly at the change of rules, and then I would have lost interest in playing with them altogether.

There were many better solutions to the problems developing in that game, but the teachers chose instead to teach the kids that regardless of your skills, interest, passion, or ability to barter, at the end of the day, everybody gets the same thing.

"Quite simply, the students established their own meritocracy, which the teachers replaced with a form of socialism."

That is emphatically not what happened. What the kids discovered was that the fastest and most aggressive kids (i.e. the ones who got to the bins first) got the most desirable bricks/pieces. The spin you (and to be fair, most of us, me included) are putting on it implies that children are miniature adults, which isn't the case.

The role of the teachers (and recall that this is an after-school program) was to create a place where all children had the opportunity to play and enjoy themselves...not to allow the creation of an environment where some kids were specifically excluded. Yes, they proposed a framework -- one entirely appropriate to the setting. But in the end, most of the rules were created by the kids themselves.

The end result was a more satisfying experience for _everyone_, not just the fastest, biggest or smartest. In short, everybody does better when everybody does better.

"We invited the children to work in small, collaborative teams to build Pike Place Market with Legos. We set up this work to emphasize negotiated decision-making, collaboration, and collectivity."

I'm hard-pressed to see how people find fault with this. Who doesn't want their children to learn how to negotiate decisions and collaborate with others?

"There were many better solutions to the problems developing in that game, but the teachers chose instead to teach the kids that regardless of your skills, interest, passion, or ability to barter, at the end of the day, everybody gets the same thing."

But at the end of the day, everyone _didn't_ get the same thing. The only thing everyone got was a chance to be a part of the play. Where they went with that was up to them.

"I probably would have been one of the central kids in the story, one of the ones establishing rules and hoarding (and bartering for) pieces."

Except you wouldn't have had to. By getting all the "cool pieces (windows and such) you would have set yourself in possession of what everyone wanted. Plain building bricks were not valued, simply because there were so many of them. You wouldn't have needed to barter except in a very limited way. In short, you'd be the one with all the marbles. That's not appropriate to the setting, regardless of what spin adults might put on it.

it never says how food was distributed through lego town. and if i had to stand in line to get toilet paper. if their economy is any good. : )