Educational Myths
"Parents who teach their own children in a classroom setting with other children must realize that doing so is traveling through a minefield. It's better to avoid this situation than to risk the hazards involved." I don't think I've ever heard it in exactly those words, but, by all appearances, these sentiments are common.
Fathers in the classroom quit before their children get there. If that can't be avoided, they make such a diligent effort to avoid favoritism that the reverse happens: their children don't get the same privileges other students enjoy. I've seen both, and I think the problem is based on a common educational myth: It's risky for parents to teach their own children.
Children need social contact with other children their age to develop normally. It's true, of course, that interacting with other people is an essential part of a child's development. But to imply that an age-segregated group is a necessity is the myth here.
If you teach your children at home, it's best to maintain a school-like atmosphere. This myth presupposes that an institutional setting is superior to a home-like setting.
Is there a truthful counterpart to each of the above myths? I'm glad you asked. Several decades ago, when I was most desperate to latch onto the truth in each of these areas, I found them in Scripture and in nature, in very familiar territory.
First, I noticed that commands in the Bible to teach children are always directed to parents. Period. No hint anywhere that it was inadvisable to have parents teaching their own children. While people often separate academics from other kinds of learning, and apply different standards, I found no evidence that this kind of compartmentalizing is necessary or ideal.
Furthermore, I found no commands in Scripture for parents to delegate their teaching responsibility. To be sure, it happened sometimes in Bible times, as in the case of Esther, who was orphaned and then grew up in her cousin's household, and in the case of Joash, another orphan, who grew up in hiding inside the temple because his life would have been in danger otherwise. Both of these children grew up to become Godly saviors to their nation, so it's clear that God's blessing can reach to those who have had an "abnormal" way of being taught. But the "abnormal" is not to be confused with the "normal," no matter how long-standing or widespread the confusion is. It is especially not to be recommended as the better practice for everyone always.
In Kingman County, right next to ours, is a family with sextuplets. They are among the very few people I have even the remotest connection to that I would give a pass on if they missed the next observation: Children normally arrive in their families one at a time. Only rarely do they arrive in "litters." This tells me something about whether or not God saw it as a necessity that children be raised with their age mates. It might even give us a hint about what is ideal. Here again, "abnormal" does not necessarily equate to failure, but it's important not to confuse the normal and abnormal or to make the abnormal normative.
I think old people are usually better off in nursing homes than anywhere else. And all children should have the opportunity to go to daycare as soon as their mother's six-weeks of maternity leave is up, and then preschool at three, and kindergarten at five. . . . This is how the myth of the institutional ideal might look when it's gone to seed.
To be sure, most of us instinctively operate within certain boundaries when we view an institutional setting as the ideal. Young children definitely need to be in the care of their mothers. Old people should not be routinely shoved aside to be cared for by strangers. In acknowledging these boundaries, we are tacitly acknowledging the model Scripture and nature provide: The God-designed family is the social structure best able to meet people's needs at every stage of life. What logic is there in deciding that between the ages of six and eighteen, an institutional setting is always better for everyone? None that I can see.
In practical terms, exploding these myths means at least this to me:
1. In a Christian community, parents ought never have to apologize for or defend their interest in taking their teaching responsibility rather than delegating it. They ought to be encouraged and supported when they choose to do so.
2. It's more nearly right to make schools as home-like as possible than it is to make homes as school-like as possible.
3. An emphasis on compartmentalizing matters of faith and learning is counterproductive, at best. To do so denies one of the foundational insights the Anabaptist reformers held dear--that every area of life is encompassed by and informed by our faith.
4. A family functioning within a community is the most "normal" setting for teaching children. While other models may be needed occasionally, they should never be considered primary, normative, or superior.
5. The parent-child relationship is the proper model for teacher-student dynamics throughout childhood. (Teachers of older students can find a model also in the teacher-disciple relationship.) Parent-teachers do not have to affect an abnormal relationship to do well at teaching their own children, even in a classroom setting. Instead, people should be willing to put aside normal classroom expectations if they do not allow a teacher to treat all the students as they would beloved offspring.
People who have known me for a long time or have read my writing for some time know that educational philosophy is one of my passions, and, no matter how far afield I range sometimes, I circle back to this subject eventually. Perhaps as soon as I perceive a widespread willingness throughout the faith community I interact with to lay aside the educational conventions of popular culture in favor of an abiding loyalty to the commands and models of Scripture, I can let the matter rest.
Fathers in the classroom quit before their children get there. If that can't be avoided, they make such a diligent effort to avoid favoritism that the reverse happens: their children don't get the same privileges other students enjoy. I've seen both, and I think the problem is based on a common educational myth: It's risky for parents to teach their own children.
Children need social contact with other children their age to develop normally. It's true, of course, that interacting with other people is an essential part of a child's development. But to imply that an age-segregated group is a necessity is the myth here.
If you teach your children at home, it's best to maintain a school-like atmosphere. This myth presupposes that an institutional setting is superior to a home-like setting.
Is there a truthful counterpart to each of the above myths? I'm glad you asked. Several decades ago, when I was most desperate to latch onto the truth in each of these areas, I found them in Scripture and in nature, in very familiar territory.
First, I noticed that commands in the Bible to teach children are always directed to parents. Period. No hint anywhere that it was inadvisable to have parents teaching their own children. While people often separate academics from other kinds of learning, and apply different standards, I found no evidence that this kind of compartmentalizing is necessary or ideal.
Furthermore, I found no commands in Scripture for parents to delegate their teaching responsibility. To be sure, it happened sometimes in Bible times, as in the case of Esther, who was orphaned and then grew up in her cousin's household, and in the case of Joash, another orphan, who grew up in hiding inside the temple because his life would have been in danger otherwise. Both of these children grew up to become Godly saviors to their nation, so it's clear that God's blessing can reach to those who have had an "abnormal" way of being taught. But the "abnormal" is not to be confused with the "normal," no matter how long-standing or widespread the confusion is. It is especially not to be recommended as the better practice for everyone always.
In Kingman County, right next to ours, is a family with sextuplets. They are among the very few people I have even the remotest connection to that I would give a pass on if they missed the next observation: Children normally arrive in their families one at a time. Only rarely do they arrive in "litters." This tells me something about whether or not God saw it as a necessity that children be raised with their age mates. It might even give us a hint about what is ideal. Here again, "abnormal" does not necessarily equate to failure, but it's important not to confuse the normal and abnormal or to make the abnormal normative.
I think old people are usually better off in nursing homes than anywhere else. And all children should have the opportunity to go to daycare as soon as their mother's six-weeks of maternity leave is up, and then preschool at three, and kindergarten at five. . . . This is how the myth of the institutional ideal might look when it's gone to seed.
To be sure, most of us instinctively operate within certain boundaries when we view an institutional setting as the ideal. Young children definitely need to be in the care of their mothers. Old people should not be routinely shoved aside to be cared for by strangers. In acknowledging these boundaries, we are tacitly acknowledging the model Scripture and nature provide: The God-designed family is the social structure best able to meet people's needs at every stage of life. What logic is there in deciding that between the ages of six and eighteen, an institutional setting is always better for everyone? None that I can see.
In practical terms, exploding these myths means at least this to me:
1. In a Christian community, parents ought never have to apologize for or defend their interest in taking their teaching responsibility rather than delegating it. They ought to be encouraged and supported when they choose to do so.
2. It's more nearly right to make schools as home-like as possible than it is to make homes as school-like as possible.
3. An emphasis on compartmentalizing matters of faith and learning is counterproductive, at best. To do so denies one of the foundational insights the Anabaptist reformers held dear--that every area of life is encompassed by and informed by our faith.
4. A family functioning within a community is the most "normal" setting for teaching children. While other models may be needed occasionally, they should never be considered primary, normative, or superior.
5. The parent-child relationship is the proper model for teacher-student dynamics throughout childhood. (Teachers of older students can find a model also in the teacher-disciple relationship.) Parent-teachers do not have to affect an abnormal relationship to do well at teaching their own children, even in a classroom setting. Instead, people should be willing to put aside normal classroom expectations if they do not allow a teacher to treat all the students as they would beloved offspring.
People who have known me for a long time or have read my writing for some time know that educational philosophy is one of my passions, and, no matter how far afield I range sometimes, I circle back to this subject eventually. Perhaps as soon as I perceive a widespread willingness throughout the faith community I interact with to lay aside the educational conventions of popular culture in favor of an abiding loyalty to the commands and models of Scripture, I can let the matter rest.
posted by Mrs. I at
12:37 PM
2 Comments:
Oh, I would love to sit and pick your brain about a few things here. We've been doing a lot of thinking about this subject since we will soon be faced with some decisions. Some of what you wrote reminds me of what Susan? Wise wrote in "The Well Trained Mind".
By
Anonymous, at 3/31/2008
Fire away, Carolyn. Ask Hans for my email address--or maybe I'm on the wrong track about where/who you are. I've never read "The Well Trained Mind." Sounds interesting.
By
Mrs. I, at 3/31/2008
Post a Comment
<< Home