http://www.teacherplaces.com/willd/weblog/122.html

One of the topics that emerged this fall at TeacherPlaces Book Clubs is "play" and its role in education.  After reading several great posts on the topic by people much better informed on the topic than I am, I have arrived at this conclusion: the status of "play" in education is largely hypothetical.  To read some of these posts yourself, here are some links:

Bringing Play Into the Mainstream 

Yes, play gets lip service, mostly for children who are too young to read or writ.  But the minute that we could reasonably expect kids to track print with their eyes or hold a pencil, time for "play" is over and it is time to get down to the important "business" of learning the content and skills of academia.  Ned Hallowell, in his book The Childhood Roots of Adult Happiness, refers to this impulse as the "great Harvard fallacy."  In other words, if we don't start working on that g.p.a. and SAT prep ASAP, getting into Harvard will slide off the table and a certain lack of adult happiness (read: earning power) will result.

So, even the most ardent defenders of play are very careful about what they say about its usefulness in certain situations.  Yet, it is easier to get into Harvard if you know how to play than if you don't.  It is axiomatic among college counselors that the so-called "perfect" record in high school (high grades, team captain, class president) can be the kiss of death at the most highly competitive colleges.  Those kids who show academic aptitude but who have done something more, something different, something exceptional, have a better chance at admission than those who followed all the rules to a "t."  Hallowell provides just such an example in his book.

So, how can we define play so that it sounds more productive and on point to those who think good grades are the key to success?