When I explore alternative schools, such as
a holistic school, a Montessori or a Waldorf school, a school that
doesn’t grade or a democratic and integrated free school like Sudbury
Valley, it seems like the boundaries between them and homeschooling
start to disappear. I have, after all, come across schools that use very
similar learning methods as those used by unschoolers and homeschoolers.
So what makes homeschooling better?
Last week I visited a very liberal classroom. In this
school, the day is set up to be similar to a normal day outside the
classroom where learning experiences happen as a result of interaction
with the environment. Book learning is intertwined with experiential
learning. The lesson might be cooking. While the children are physically
taking part in the cooking process, they are also learning math
(measuring ingredients and figuring out how many ounces are in a cup),
logic (following the correct order of the recipe) and spelling/reading
(reading and following recipes). A typical day at the school starts with
circle time on the couches where reading and announcements (by the
teacher and students) take place. Then comes journal time, snack time,
free (play) time, a Spanish or cooking class, lunchtime, math time and
more free time. Even during math time the kids do not neatly line up in
rows of desks – there are no rows of desks at this school. And the ratio
of teacher to child is 2:18 – an amazingly good ratio considering that
the average public school ratio here in Washington State is 1:19 and it
may be even higher in other places!
This school was, I do believe, one of the best out there. So why do I
still feel like the kids are missing out on something? A few things come
to mind. The first thing that I noticed was the structure that required
the management of so many kids. Despite the
fantastic-in-comparison-to-public-schools teacher to student ratio, the
students didn’t – couldn’t possibly – get as much one-on-one time as
they needed or would have liked. I found myself feeling cut short
because I felt like I was cutting the kids short. As soon as I started
to get involved with helping a child learn, as soon as we both engaged
in what we were doing, it was time to move on. After all, there were
seventeen
other children who needed attention too.
In some ways, this lack of attention makes kids try to figure things out
for themselves…but if the kids need to figure out so many things for
themselves, then why do we place so much value on teachers and schools
to begin with?
The other problem with the school schedule is that, no matter how casual
or child-respecting the schedule is, it is still structured by someone
other than the child. I felt sorry for the kids. There is no time or
place to be an individual in the school – there are only times and
places for the group. Although the school was a comfortable place –
there were lots of toys and couches – the kids still had to follow the
schedule of the school (which exists in order to manage so many kids.)
What if a child wanted to take a nap? What if she wanted to be alone?
What if she wanted to call her parents? What if she wanted her parents
to hold her and read her a book? What if she wanted to feel the comfort
of being at home? What if he just wanted to be left alone for a couple
of hours to play a game or read some books of his choice? What if he
didn’t want to be constantly watched and surveyed and monitored? Well,
too bad. Sorry. In even the most holistic school there is often no
special time or place for the individual child. Even holistic free
schools have schedules and rules that all the kids have to obey – even
if sometimes the kids create or participate in creating the rules. Even
in the most democratic school, such as Sudbury Valley, the children
still have to be democratic! They are still expected to take part in the
daily meetings that run the school and they still have to spend their
entire day in or around a building full of other students who are in the
same predicament. The children are free only to the extent of the school
philosophy and the school walls: Although they are attending so-called
“free schools,” children still have to follow the “free-rules.” Even in
the freest school, attendance is expected and is usually compulsory.
Although the freedom to learn and grow is certainly more
present in liberal schools than in traditional schools, there are still
many limits to the learning and experiences that can happen in school.
Schools limit learning and development because they are not capable of
providing individual children with all of the attention they need and
deserve. Schools limit learning and development because they force their
predetermined structure, values and ideas on children before children
have a chance to develop their own sense of self and their own ideas.
Schools manage children and schools stage learning.
Most liberal educators would consider a school to be a
good one if it simulated a natural environment; a good liberal school is
a place where children can feel safe and can understand how what they
are learning applies to real life experiences – experiences they
encounter when they exit the school and go out into the larger world.
But if schools are trying to teach children how to feel safe, why aren’t
the kids allowed to be in the comfort of their own homes and with their
own families? If schools are trying to teach children how to live
outside of school, why is there school to begin with? Do we really need
the school “middleman”? Doesn’t first-hand, in-context learning make
more sense?
The purpose of education, according to Ron Miller in his
book What Are Schools For? Holistic education in American culture
(Holistic Education Press, 1997) is not to impose the values of the
adult world onto children but to help them to grow toward their own
personal potential. If we agree with this statement, then we must allow
children to deeply explore themselves, to feel comfortable and safe and
to have the time and space to develop and to engage in the world.
Forcing our ideas, our philosophies and our style on our children, even
with the best intentions, can hinder their unique development. Even
those of us who know this tend occasionally to forget that even the best
school we can find is merely one model, one perspective, one philosophy,
one way to learn, one way to carry out the day. There are many other
ways and many other perspectives that will be left out when one way of
learning is chosen.
Even the best school we can find will impose the values
of the adult world onto the children who attend it. Therefore, it is not
education, per se, that schools do best. (As life learners, we know that
we can get our hands on learning every step of the way.) Rather, the
primary purposes of schools are to provide daycare and to coach children
to become used to being guided by external power structures. Even the
best alternative and liberal schools are really just daycares and power
structures that teach children to obey hierarchies, to follow certain
rules, schedules and philosophies. Schools – no matter what their style
– enforce a certain structure and expect children to obey and go along
with the structure that has been established.
Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that kids should be
ignored, unguided and unassisted. I am not saying that children should
be left in the dark to fend for themselves. There is a very large
difference between what John Holt called “natural authority” and having
to unquestionably swallow and accept the power structure of an
institution. Authority in and of itself is not a bad thing. Rather, it
is the kind of authority that is being used that may be a bad thing.
Natural authority, such as when a parent prevents a child from touching
the burner of a hot stove or when a parent tells a child (who asks) how
to pronounce a word correctly, is good authority. Manipulative
authority, on the other hand, such as when a teacher tells a child to
sit down for circle time because it is circle time, is not-so-good
authority. The former is obviously right and in the best interest of the
individual child, the latter is merely unquestioned and for the sole
purpose of management.
School as a Power Structure
The issue of socialization comes up a lot when people
don’t have much experience with the notion of learning outside of
traditional institutions. But it also comes up in liberal circles and
relates to the possible conflict between community/society interests
versus individual/family interests. In liberal circles, the question of
socialization is usually asked in this context: How will a child who is
not regularly in school learn the values of the community and how will a
child who is not regularly in school learn how to compromise and accept
the status quo? This question is not really about whether or not the
child will learn how to talk to or relate to other people, but rather is
based on the concern (or fear) that the unschooled child may not be
willing to compromise her values when her values are different from the
prevailing trend.
When we break down the reasons that make us feel like
school might be better than no school, we find that the reasons for
going to school are rather contradictory to a liberal and explorative
education. That is, the reasons for going to school are actually the
opposite of liberating. In fact, the reason for going to school is to
learn to fit in and obey the very same power structure that mainstream
society (and public schooling) operates under.
African American educator and researcher Lisa Delpit
discusses the difference between what she calls the “culture of power”
and the “silenced dialogue.” In her book Other People’s Children:
Cultural conflicts in the classroom (The New Press, 1995) she
writes that there are two main cultures in society: those in power (the
culture of power) and those not in power (the silenced dialogue).
A big fear regarding homeschooling and what children
“should” know is based on the worry that home-educated kids will not be
able to “make it” in society – that is, they won’t figure out how to be
a part of the culture of power and instead they will be a part of the
silenced dialogue. Delpit believes that there are codes and rules one
must follow to participate in the culture of power, and that learning
these codes and rules should happen in schools.
It is here that Delpit acknowledges that schools are
transmitters of culture and “good” schools train individuals to work
well in society. This fact may be understatedly obvious, but it is
important. When we break down the ultimate purpose of schools to be the
transmitters of culture, and when we explore how schools transmit this
culture, it becomes clear that we are dealing with a very invisible, yet
very powerful and active structure. Even the most liberal schools are
perpetuating a system that takes power out of the hands of the
individual and family and transfers the power into the hands of an
entity – an institution – and the culture of power. By using this system
as the sole means for learning and education, we are surrendering our
inherent ability to be the leaders of our own learning, education and
future.
According to Delpit, if the silenced culture wants to be
heard, it must fuse into and become part of the culture of power.
However, the problem with doing this is that if we only concern
ourselves with adding to the culture of power, we will actually never be
able to fully disassemble it and reshape it. By adding to the system
that we are skeptical of, we are, in fact, making it larger and more
powerful, not changing it into something truly liberal and equal. Until
we can see the true purpose and power structures behind school, and
disassemble the power structures that are at its core, there will be no
such thing as truly liberating schooling. Until then, even the “best”
liberal and alternative chools will be – ever so disguised –
perpetuating the very same system that the public schools operate on.
What makes homeschooling better?
As life learning parents, we don’t spread ourselves thin
by having to divide our time and instruction among a classroom of kids.
We don’t need to spend an entire day, week or year scheduling subjects,
organizing grades, managing a classroom of children and dealing with the
emotions of twenty different kids.
And as for life learning kids? They don’t get cut short.
They have the opportunity to learn much faster than their
institutionalized peers because they get more one-on-one interaction and
love, and far more learning experiences. The lessons I described at the
beginning of this article, which happened at the liberal school I
visited, are lessons that happen all of the time with life learners.
Unschooling, unlike schooling, offers a lot for both parents and
children. For example, as a parent, you can be washing dishes and
talking to your daughter about how to spell a word; you can be pulling
weeds in the garden and talking to her about what veggies are, what and
how you grow them, how to clean and cook them; you can be reading a book
to your daughter and simultaneously be referring to something that
happened earlier in the day which corresponds to what you are reading in
the book; etc. With life learning there are constant “personalized”
opportunities that work out simultaneously (like quality multi-tasking)
in a reciprocal way for both the parent and child. This kind of learning
situation can and does meet everyone’s needs simultaneously because it
is about meeting the needs of two or three people at a time, not a
classroom of twenty-some people. You can’t meet the needs of everyone in
a classroom, but you can meet the needs of a family that works together.
In her book Caring: A feminine approach to ethics
and moral education (University of California Press, 1986) Nel
Noddings talks about the one-caring (who I consider to be the parent)
and the cared-for (who I consider to be the child). Learning and
development occur best when the one-caring has a displacement of
motivation and is striving to be fully present with and truly meet the
unique needs of the cared-for and when the cared-for is open to receive
the one-caring. This kind of relationship cannot be established by
staging, by force or by pre-determined models. To fully embrace this
idea of one-caring and cared-for, there needs to be an intimate
understanding of each person involved and the time and space to embrace
such a genuine and deep relationship. I do believe that, aside from the
unlimited learning possibilities, this is the very real and very
important difference between the best liberal school and homeschooling:
the loving, personal and close relationships within the life learning
family.
The home and family, when they are stable and
compassionate sanctuaries, offer children and adults the most freedom to
develop the individual and self within. The home and family have the
ability to offer unlimited resources and individualized attention and to
provide a safe place outside the box where actions to affect the larger
society can be created.
Geraldine and Gus Lyn-Piluso, professors at Goddard College and Seneca
College, in an essay in Deschooling Our Lives (New Society Publishers,
1996) discuss how committed individual families can begin to change the
status quo and facilitate social change toward individual and social
liberty: If the family is a powerful force, they say, then a more
communal and egalitarian childrearing arrangement can act as a
powerfully subversive force. It can challenge those institutions
organized along lines of command and obedience – institutions which
propagate the self-serving notion that egalitarian social organization
is impractical, if not preposterous.
Gea D’Marea Bassett lives in Washington
State with her partner Doug and son Zizi. When she wrote this article in
2007, she was working on her MA in Partnership Education at Goddard
College, integrating the design principles of permaculture in her
backyard, and getting into as many gardening, traveling, and
life-learning experiences with her family as possible. Thanks to her mom
Denise and grandma Danic’a, she has the values of life-learning
streaming through her veins and is passionate about social
reconstruction, individual liberation, and re-connecting with natural
wisdom.
