Mother's Day Reverbrations
Today I read a blog post by Jewel at A Thousand Gems (Wordpress), and it sparked a rerun of mental rant I have rehearsed a number of times over the past 25 years or so. I agree wholeheartedly with Jewel's take on "liberated women." My own take on it elaborates on something she mentioned briefly.
My first rant on this subject materialized about 25 years ago when our oldest child was a preschooler. By then I had several years of intense mothering behind me.
Before that, while I was in college, I remember doing a report on Raymond Moore's philosophy which promoted delayed academics and home education. I didn't have a pronounced opinion on the subject, but found it interesting. Still without a firm persuasion on the matter, Hiromi and I left our boys with their grandparents and went to hear Raymond Moore speak in Wichita. Before we went, I asked Hiromi what he thought we would do when our children reached school age. "Send them to school, of course," was his prompt answer.
After the meeting, while we were visiting with friends we had carpooled with, someone else asked him the same question. That time Hiromi said, "We don't know yet." We really didn't know--either of us.
I don't know where I had heard these sentiments, but I knew that a common perception was that a mother is not usually the best "school" teacher for her own children. I think I believed that--until one day when that all changed.
I knew that in our church circle no one would suggest that someone besides a baby's mother (or parent, at least) should routinely change a baby's diapers, feed the baby, bathe the baby, get up at night with the baby. What's with the claim that when it comes to something that actually takes brains and creativity, the mother can't be trusted? I wondered. Thinking about that low view of the capability of women stirred my indignation. Custodial care? Absolutely. Beyond that? Not qualified. Gag.
At that time I had a current teacher's certificate, and I saw the absurdity of the idea that I was legally considered competent to teach any child--except my own.
Mentally I challenged the line of demarcation that separated social, moral, and academic training. Who decided that all these should exist in separate camps? Didn't that run directly counter to the Christian understanding of faith impacting all of life--that compartmentalizing of various aspects of life was not advisable? Why must child training be compartmentalized, with some of it mandatory for mothers and some of it off-limits for mothers?
I also challenged the line of demarcation by age: Before six? Parents are basically responsible for child training. After six? Most of their waking hours should be spent with "professionals." The St. Louis school administrator that came up with that idea of six-year-olds being first graders wasn't really God. He was just on a mission to bring order to the classroom education process. Along these lines of thinking, I once heard a father say sarcastically that he thinks our church should appoint a professional child disciplinarian. Then whenever any of our children need discipline, we should call on the appointed person to do the job.
I looked at Scripture again, and saw that all of the injunctions to parents on child training focused on taking responsibility, and delegating that responsibility was not mentioned. Why did most people seem to think that delegating responsibility was the logical first recourse? I saw that bearing one another's burdens was commanded in the same passage as bearing one's own burden. Why did it make sense to think of teaching children as a burden in the first place? And why should it be foisted off on others if we have not even considered first carrying it ourselves?
What Jewel idealizes is intentional, thoughtful, intelligent, creative mothering. While that can happen within the framework of various educational choices, I wish we could all agree that homeschooling is one valid way to do all of the above. Agreeing that it's the best way may not be necessary, but a good case can certainly be made for that assertion as well.
My first rant on this subject materialized about 25 years ago when our oldest child was a preschooler. By then I had several years of intense mothering behind me.
Before that, while I was in college, I remember doing a report on Raymond Moore's philosophy which promoted delayed academics and home education. I didn't have a pronounced opinion on the subject, but found it interesting. Still without a firm persuasion on the matter, Hiromi and I left our boys with their grandparents and went to hear Raymond Moore speak in Wichita. Before we went, I asked Hiromi what he thought we would do when our children reached school age. "Send them to school, of course," was his prompt answer.
After the meeting, while we were visiting with friends we had carpooled with, someone else asked him the same question. That time Hiromi said, "We don't know yet." We really didn't know--either of us.
I don't know where I had heard these sentiments, but I knew that a common perception was that a mother is not usually the best "school" teacher for her own children. I think I believed that--until one day when that all changed.
I knew that in our church circle no one would suggest that someone besides a baby's mother (or parent, at least) should routinely change a baby's diapers, feed the baby, bathe the baby, get up at night with the baby. What's with the claim that when it comes to something that actually takes brains and creativity, the mother can't be trusted? I wondered. Thinking about that low view of the capability of women stirred my indignation. Custodial care? Absolutely. Beyond that? Not qualified. Gag.
At that time I had a current teacher's certificate, and I saw the absurdity of the idea that I was legally considered competent to teach any child--except my own.
Mentally I challenged the line of demarcation that separated social, moral, and academic training. Who decided that all these should exist in separate camps? Didn't that run directly counter to the Christian understanding of faith impacting all of life--that compartmentalizing of various aspects of life was not advisable? Why must child training be compartmentalized, with some of it mandatory for mothers and some of it off-limits for mothers?
I also challenged the line of demarcation by age: Before six? Parents are basically responsible for child training. After six? Most of their waking hours should be spent with "professionals." The St. Louis school administrator that came up with that idea of six-year-olds being first graders wasn't really God. He was just on a mission to bring order to the classroom education process. Along these lines of thinking, I once heard a father say sarcastically that he thinks our church should appoint a professional child disciplinarian. Then whenever any of our children need discipline, we should call on the appointed person to do the job.
I looked at Scripture again, and saw that all of the injunctions to parents on child training focused on taking responsibility, and delegating that responsibility was not mentioned. Why did most people seem to think that delegating responsibility was the logical first recourse? I saw that bearing one another's burdens was commanded in the same passage as bearing one's own burden. Why did it make sense to think of teaching children as a burden in the first place? And why should it be foisted off on others if we have not even considered first carrying it ourselves?
What Jewel idealizes is intentional, thoughtful, intelligent, creative mothering. While that can happen within the framework of various educational choices, I wish we could all agree that homeschooling is one valid way to do all of the above. Agreeing that it's the best way may not be necessary, but a good case can certainly be made for that assertion as well.
posted by Mrs. I at
1:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home