Teacherly Musings 4–Conclusion
One more change from the current educational approach would be in order. The limitations of group schooling ought to be faced honestly and publicly, and the advantages of family-centered education ought to be publicized. Aiming your fire extinguisher at the previous sentence is allowed, but I have not used the subjects of the previous sentence thoughtlessly. To be sure, limitations exist in homeschooling, and advantages exist in group schooling. I’ve lived through many of them. They are commonly known, and I feel no need to address them here. In fact, they are so well-known, and the homeschooling side is so little-known--or at least so little officially addressed-- that, until the situation changes, group input and consensus on educational strategy and programs as a whole will automatically be slightly off-balance. Why can’t we move beyond this?
If training a child is the goal, using a classroom school to accomplish it is only one among a variety of options. Why, in most communities, is it the only one which enjoys the benefits of group affirmation and finances? Why is it the only one with an accompanying cheerleading section (a.k.a. “Supporting the School” admonitions from a variety of quarters). Parents, after all, are the only officially designated child trainers in Scripture. Where are their cheerleaders? When others do it, it’s not because they are designated by God as being responsible to do it. It’s because they have kindly chosen to help lift a parent’s burden (at the Lord’s prompting, perhaps), or they have wrongly assumed that child training is a church or state responsibility. It is that only when parents cannot accomplish it on their own. Being united in this persuasion would spare us a multitude of educational fiascoes–some of them very expensive in monetary and personal sacrifice terms.
I love my job as a high school teacher. I’m always sorry when I don’t get to teach a student that is of high school age. But, any parent who chooses to teach their own child rather than asking me or someone else to do it has my profound respect. I consider it foundational to being faithful in my calling to do whatever I can to help parents be successful at their job. If that means I don’t get to teach their children, then so be it. I am assured that any future interaction I have with those young people as brothers and sisters in the church will be the better for their parents having taken child training responsibility upon themselves if it was in their power to do so. I can only hope that every child I teach has parents who have been so thoughtful and intentional about their educational decisions. Otherwise, no amount of effort on my part can compensate for the empty spot in that child’s mentoring team. School teachers can’t replace parents. They can only extend or hinder their work. That’s why parents must know and feel first the weight of their own responsibility in child training before they can have any hope of a satisfactory delegation arrangement. If this doesn’t happen, the child lives in two worlds: school and home, and he carries the crushing load of expectations from both institutions, or he chooses to ignore the one at the expense of the other. He needs one set of expectations only, with everyone on the mentoring team working to accomplish what is needed.
If school personnel are unaware of how the lines of responsibility are drawn, they are tempted to do “empire building” within the walls of the school, expecting families to bow to the designs of the school as an institution. This is an improper role for schools. However, if everyone understands the limitations of a classroom school setting (One of them is that it doesn’t work well if attendance of students is erratic.), some measure of bowing to the designs of the school is called for. That is the price of delegation–less freedom to determine how a child spends his or her time. If the school is properly respectful of the home, and the home is properly responsible for their child’s education things can work smoothly. If I didn’t believe that, I would have to quit teaching, right now, in despair. Instead, I expect to go back to school on Monday with a sense of anticipation. Yes, come things ought to change, but, in the meantime, God is here, and there, and the students are there, and many good things are possible.
If training a child is the goal, using a classroom school to accomplish it is only one among a variety of options. Why, in most communities, is it the only one which enjoys the benefits of group affirmation and finances? Why is it the only one with an accompanying cheerleading section (a.k.a. “Supporting the School” admonitions from a variety of quarters). Parents, after all, are the only officially designated child trainers in Scripture. Where are their cheerleaders? When others do it, it’s not because they are designated by God as being responsible to do it. It’s because they have kindly chosen to help lift a parent’s burden (at the Lord’s prompting, perhaps), or they have wrongly assumed that child training is a church or state responsibility. It is that only when parents cannot accomplish it on their own. Being united in this persuasion would spare us a multitude of educational fiascoes–some of them very expensive in monetary and personal sacrifice terms.
I love my job as a high school teacher. I’m always sorry when I don’t get to teach a student that is of high school age. But, any parent who chooses to teach their own child rather than asking me or someone else to do it has my profound respect. I consider it foundational to being faithful in my calling to do whatever I can to help parents be successful at their job. If that means I don’t get to teach their children, then so be it. I am assured that any future interaction I have with those young people as brothers and sisters in the church will be the better for their parents having taken child training responsibility upon themselves if it was in their power to do so. I can only hope that every child I teach has parents who have been so thoughtful and intentional about their educational decisions. Otherwise, no amount of effort on my part can compensate for the empty spot in that child’s mentoring team. School teachers can’t replace parents. They can only extend or hinder their work. That’s why parents must know and feel first the weight of their own responsibility in child training before they can have any hope of a satisfactory delegation arrangement. If this doesn’t happen, the child lives in two worlds: school and home, and he carries the crushing load of expectations from both institutions, or he chooses to ignore the one at the expense of the other. He needs one set of expectations only, with everyone on the mentoring team working to accomplish what is needed.
If school personnel are unaware of how the lines of responsibility are drawn, they are tempted to do “empire building” within the walls of the school, expecting families to bow to the designs of the school as an institution. This is an improper role for schools. However, if everyone understands the limitations of a classroom school setting (One of them is that it doesn’t work well if attendance of students is erratic.), some measure of bowing to the designs of the school is called for. That is the price of delegation–less freedom to determine how a child spends his or her time. If the school is properly respectful of the home, and the home is properly responsible for their child’s education things can work smoothly. If I didn’t believe that, I would have to quit teaching, right now, in despair. Instead, I expect to go back to school on Monday with a sense of anticipation. Yes, come things ought to change, but, in the meantime, God is here, and there, and the students are there, and many good things are possible.
1 Comments:
Hmmmm...very interesting.
By Dorcas, at 10/08/2007
Post a Comment
<< Home