Twenty one years ago, on being named New York State Teacher of the Year 1991, John Taylor Gatto made a famous and powerful speech denouncing the American school system and questioning its hidden curriculum, designed to produce generation after generation of helpless, powerless people.
In the "Seven Lesson Schoolteacher", Gatto talked about being paid to teach confusion, class position, indifference, emotional dependency, intellectual dependency, provisional self esteem and the notion that one can't hide from the system. Britain's school system, like America's, has not deviated much from those seven lessons in the last 21 years. A few hours spent in a school, in the company of schooled children, or even hanging around on education forums will amply prove that.
As a home educator, I see things rather differently. Inspired by Gatto's speech, I believe there are seven lessons that most home educators teach their children, almost by default. I went to excellent schools and I shone academically. I didn't, however, learn any of what follows; in fact, I didn't learn some of these lessons myself until we took our six year old daughter out of school, eight years ago, and turned our backs on the damaging education system. I wonder how many adults reading this can truly say that their schooling embraced these seven principles, rather than the seven Gatto so eloquently described?
1. Intellectual Freedom
The first and probably most important lesson I teach is intellectual freedom. My teen daughter is more than capable of deciding where her interests and talents lie; at six, she was perfectly able, as all six years old are, to say which topic she was most interested in at any given time, even if that changed by the day or by the hour. Why should that not be respected? It has been estimated that it takes at most 100 hours to teach children the basics of reading, writing and maths. During the rest of their 'compulsory school years', who cares if they prefer to learn about ancient Japan instead of volcanoes, or about neuroscience instead of crude oil? There are millions of things worth learning about, of course - and the national curriculum does not include most of them. Home educators cannot cover everything either - but that's my point. We don't have to. What most of us do do, however, is to listen to what our children want to learn and take steps to facilitate that within whatever kind of educational philosophy we have - instead of insisting that they spend hours studying something of no interest to them. My daughter's intellectual freedom is important and will be respected.
2. Passion
If my daughter is absorbed in something, why would I force her to stop doing that at a set time and move on to something completely different? There are no school bells and timetables in our home. She may work on something for ten minutes. She may work on it, pretty much non stop, for ten days. If it's important enough to her, she'll pour her heart and soul and passion into it, and I will join in rather than interrupt. The regimented routines of the school day teach children that things are not important enough to be done properly, however much they might be enjoying them. The second lesson I teach, on the other hand, is that following a passion can never be wrong and should never be cut short to fit someone else's idea of what you should be doing.
3. Context
Everything relates to everything else in this beautiful, complex world of ours. Studying a topic or subject in isolation, or out of kilter with related areas, inhibits true understanding and learning. A schooled child will learn facts. Those facts are all too often underpinned by only the vaguest understanding of the wider issues. Particularly in the humanities subjects and perhaps most particularly of all in history, you cannot hope to make sense of a given area without exploring and understanding what happened before, what happened afterwards, and what was happening simultaneously elsewhere in the world. School doesn't do that, for all the fine words about cross-curricular teaching. Most home educated children, on the other hand, learn in a more organic way and cannot help but pick up background, extended and related knowledge around the topic in hand. The third lesson I teach is that everything has a context and that exploring that context is a productive thing to do.
4. Self Respect
My daughter's self respect is not dependent on the behaviour of bullies, the whim of a teacher having a bad day, ticks on a piece of paper, badges, stickers, reward charts, applause in assembly, notes home from the school, grades in an exam or the termly school report. She does not have to judge herself based on what an unknown, unrelated, uninterested 'expert' says about her, and she knows that we do not judge her either. She is not constantly tested, evaluated and examined, to be either found wanting and expected to try harder or to be found adequate and to give up in boredom. Instead, she measures her self-worth by her own standards and thereby sets up healthy self-esteem habits for life. She knows whether she has tried her best or not, and she is proud of her work or slightly abashed accordingly. She knows that she is free to set her own ambitions and that we will help her work towards them, rather than imposing our own ambitions onto her. The fourth lesson I teach is that only she can judge herself, and that when she does, it's okay to do so kindly. Related to self respect, I also teach one of the hardest lessons for non home educators to grasp: that the 'teacher' does not always know best, and does not always have the answer - and that (whisper it) it's by no means inconceivable that you might know more about a subject than your teacher does. And that this is a good thing.
5. Reality
When was the last time you had to ask to go to the toilet, put up with abuse because it was 'character building' or limit yourself to mixing with people born within the same particular 12 months? School does not prepare children for anything other than life in school. Home education takes place in the real world, in real life, with all its ups, downs and glories. Home educated children mix with people of all ages and, by and large, enjoy far greater freedoms than schooled children do. The fifth and often overlooked lesson I teach is that we all live in the real world - and here it is, right around you. You don't have to wait until you're 18 to join it.
6. Individuality
From uniforms and hair requirements to bullying of anyone 'different' and petty rules designed to ensure control and compliance, schools are not very friendly places for those who refuse to subdue their individuality. My daughter has the freedom to be who she is, all day, every day, not just at weekends and during holidays. Aged seven, she spent a whole year living in a Harry Potter related fantasy world. Aged eight, she dyed her hair a gorgeous bright green. Aged thirteen, she favours Victorian fashions, despises pop culture, rides every day and is passionate about law, politics and psychology. She has been picked on by the few schooled children we know for speaking properly and for being able to spell and use correct grammar, she's never seen an episode of Glee and she has no idea (or desire to know) who, what or where TOWIE is. She's slightly eccentric - 'odd', I'm sure some would say in derisory tones - and completely herself. She's never had to 'fit in', and why should she? The sixth lesson I teach is that individuality is a wonderful thing. Should it be lost at school, like mine was, it can take half a lifetime to get it back.
7. Insubordination
Such a negative word - but actually, it just means the opposite of subordination. My daughter is not subordinate to anyone, nor are we - nor are you. Yet the system teaches you that you are, and teaches you to accept authority without question. I on the other hand, teach, as my seventh lesson, the wisdom of disobedience. This involves learning to question, question, question. Wise disobedience also involves, of course, understanding when rules are a good idea, and when it's sensible, healthy or just 'right' to follow them and to toe the line. A healthy mistrust of authority, as opposed to a blind mistrust, is a very good thing, provided one has a clear understanding of morality, ethics and personal conduct. Wherever she chooses to carve out her future, my daughter will never be cannon fodder, factory fodder or 21st century wage-slave fodder, and she will never accept injustice, untruths or misinformation. The seventh lesson I teach is perhaps the very opposite of what the school system teaches - indeed, the opposite of what the school system is designed to teach.
That schools teach such miserable lessons is not necessarily the fault of the teachers. Many recognise the faults in the system and do their best to overcome them, within the limitations of their employment. It's not the fault of the parents, many of whom, as Gatto points out, have learnt the seven school lessons so well themselves that they're unable to envisage anything different. Most people involved in the education of young people do not deliberately or even consciously teach the lessons Gatto describes - and yet, only a minority of schooled children will also learn the seven more positive lessons I describe above, if they are very fortunate, and have strong-minded, passionate parents. For those lucky few who do, it will be despite their school education, not because of it.
Follow Nikki Harper on Twitter: www.twitter.com/spiritodyssey
How many children are? Not many.
So what happens?
Children learn by playing – but often the dictates of societal and school expectations have taught them something different – to sit still, and listen, and be tested.
Teenagers are not being rebellious if they are finding it hard to motivate themselves to follow what is asked of them in school. We insist that their understanding of the world be parceled up into disconnected subjects that they often only learn because they will be examined on them. Happily, some teachers have found ingenious ways of working with their pupils, creating the space for them to explore their own ideas before introducing them to the ideas of others.
Children are told that they must do well in school so that they will get a good job. Sadly, adults often do not enjoy their ‘good jobs’? Children notice this.
Children stop following their hearts and learn to follow someone else’s plan. Many eminent adults cite their success as seeded by a childhood passion, started in their bedroom or shed. To sit in a classroom and be told what to know and how to think can be soul-destroying for many. Facts are easily learned but a healthy attitude towards learning is much harder to acquire.
If our children learn how to learn and acquire a love of learning, whether from school or at home, then they are well equipped.
Enabling this is true education.
Your arrogant denigration of pop culture is illuminating, particularly coming from an astrologer. Why does your daughter despise something to which she has had no access? Does she know enough about it to despise it? Given that at some point she is going to have to interact with her peers, don't you think there is possibly a down side to denying her these shared cultural experiences?
You say she's never had to 'fit in', but will that always be the case?
Or perhaps you're trying to imply that we keep her locked in a cupboard somewhere and control her viewing and listening?
At some point she's going to have to interact with her peers? Oh, right, thanks for telling me. I'll tell her those glad tidings when she's finished socialising with her friends.
You wrote "she's never seen an episode of Glee and she has no idea (or desire to know) who, what or where TOWIE is. " that does not suggest that she has tested popular culture and rejected it. That suggests she has picked up her mum's elitist prejudices against 'ordinary' people. If she hasn't seen Glee how does she know she doesn't like it?
I'm quite happy to accuse you of elitism "She does not enjoy a great deal of the diet of TV and celeb obsession which her schooled friends enjoy". So the 99.9% of kids who go to normal/ordinary schools are all the same are they? Extraordinary!
These friends she socialises with, are they "the few schooled Children we know" (schooled children being as I say 99.9% of the population) who "picked on her" ? No problems fitting in there then.........
You say that "my daughter will never be cannon fodder, factory fodder or 21st century wage-slave fodder". Does she get any say in this, or is it going to be your decision? And one wonders how she is going to make a living in the 21st century without joining it?
I'm not implying anything, I'm stating quite openly that whilst there are faults in the state system, the alternative you outline also has drawbacks and your attitude towards "ordinary people" is frankly appalling.
Your focus on the faults in school seem to have led you to believe that you have none of your own when it comes to education. Your opaque, non-academic writing begs otherwise. You also admit that your daughter faces social problems, and then decide on her behalf that she doesn't actually need to 'fit in'. Maybe she'll decide otherwise if she's ever allowed to think for herself.
It's possible your daughter is nothing like you. What if she is completely non-spiritual teenager who thrives only under conservative institutional guidance? What if she turns out to be a Tory Atheist? Where can she find happiness? You have taken all choice and autonomy away from her, and this will eventually be questioned and even resented. Remember that familiarity breeds contempt, and your daughter is going to be more familiar with you than anyone else.
You are cheating her by shackling her to yourself, no matter how many buzzwords you use..
"there are just as many bad home educators who do just as much harm"...? based on what evidence?
Again: "fear, prejudice and misinformation" seeming to be "the biggest motivations"...? really? I don't know how many home educators you have met, but this claim in itself seems to be a highly prejudiced and misinformed one. The biggest motivation to take children out of school that I have come across since meeting other Home Educators has been that their children failed to thrive in the school system, despite parents trying their hardest to work with the school system.
It is possible Ms Harper's daughter is nothing like her - in fact in her replies to the posts below I believe she states quite clearly that her daughter is actually very different to her - and she embraces that. I can't find anywhere in the article that suggests Nikki Harper has taken choice and autonomy away from her at all. Home Education is all about empowering children to choose, rather than shuffling them off to an institution that they have not chosen to be at.
And shackling? I don't know if you're deliberately trying to be offensive, but that kind of baseless insult does not deserve justifying with a response.
However, Ms. Harper's own evidence of assessment puts her firmly in the elite of all educators, indeed, at the very pinnacle of educational achievement, since she has been assessed as having no scope for improvement anywhere.
Where did I say that my daughter faces social problems? Where did I say that she was, aspired to be, or was being forced to be anything like me?
In terms of spirituality, as if it needs justifying, my daughter defines herself as agnostic. Do you have a problem with that? Politically, she identifies as a Lib Dem - which considering her father was a Labour activist for most of his life yet again negates your assumptions and insinuations. As for thriving - yes, she does. Thanks for caring.
Where on earth have you found, in everything that has been written in the post itself or in my replies to comments similar to yours, evidence that she is not allowed to think for herself and has no choice and no autonomy?
And while on the subject of evidence, can you give me a link to any evidence/statistics of "just as many bad home educators who do just as much harm", or is that just another assumption?
Those who like to criticise home education really should get their collective argument together. On the one hand we have people going on about a child having no choice and no autonomy; elsewhere in the same comments we have people talking about it being wrong for a child to have had freedom of choice in what she does and what she learns. You (collectively) can't have it all ways.
Intellectual Freedom! 100 hours to teach the basics of reading, writing, and maths,is a very rough estimate! There has to be a core structure to learning, allowing a child to decide which subject they want to study leads to disjointed information, because often one discipline is often rooted in several others! English language, spelling and syntax with literature and poetry! Maths with chemistry, physics and engineering. etc.
Passion! Unless one is able to provide an income for oneself, the world of work requires, time schedules and the ability often to switch from one thing to another no matter how absorbed you are in something else!
Context! I agree with all the comments.
Self Respect! Should also include respect for others. The world of work often requires the attendance of training courses, even if the individual thinks they are a waste of time! One other lesson! Teacher may not always know best. But employers think they do and have often protocols in place for good reasons. Employers do not always like young know it alls!
Reality! Some jobs require that you cannot leave your station without permission! Work requires that you fit in with colleagues whether they are born within the same twelve period or not! Abuse and bullying still exist in the workplace!
Individuality! Employers have rules and protocols that need to be adhered to! Some also have dress codes!
Insubordination! Every employee is subordinate to someone!
Self respect falls under the same banner, as does your comments on reality and individuality. Some employers may have strict rules, but their employees CHOOSE to submit to them. They always have the option of handing in their notice and working somewhere else.
School on the other hand has these rules, with no escape option for most children. Their parents decide where they go, and if they don't choose to submit to the school rules they are punished or excluded. It's hardly they same.
How will you truly respect others if you don't respect yourself?
If there'd been a few more 'young know-it-alls' in 1930s Germany fewer people would have been drawn into 'just following orders'.
The reality that some jobs require you can't leave your station without permission is self-evident in, for example, air traffic control (and who'd be stupid enough to leave that desk unstaffed?). But, in the case of some call centres, really it's time the staff organized and challenged these arbitrary rules which create resentment and undermine productivity. Might take a home educated maverick to spot that it's unacceptable, along with abuse and bullying.
Regarding individuality and observing rules and protocols - the home educated young people I know seem perfectly able to navigate between their own individuality and the requirements of particular settings (eg orchestras, sports teams and the like). But they don't have the pressure to conform in their social lives.
Yes, every employee is subordinate to someone but if, historically, some employees had not been subordinate we'd still have child labour, 12-16 hour days, no holidays and zero consideration for health and safety.
And I asked a perfectly legitimate question - quis custodiet ipsos custodes, if you like. The answer I got was that it wasn't necessary. And you know what? for some crazy reason, I don't think that is quite good enough, when you think that there are at least 20,000 children being educated at home, and possibly as many as 60,000. If all parents took that attitude, i'd say there might be a problem.
- John Locke
Where education is concerned, those of us who home educate are at the leading edge of a paradigm shift. There will always be detractors, those who fear stepping out of their boxes.
You set up a straw-man and argue against it. Schools are not as you paint them. Your generalisations are hopelessly wide of the mark.
Basically, you are justifying the education you give your daughter (which no-one has any means of objectively measuring) by comparing it against a false picture.
For all we know you may be teaching her astrology.
I think you're letting yourself down a little with your astrology remark. Do you have children/teach? I only ask, because, for all we know, you may be teaching them bigotry and ignorance.
So Gatto says that schools are not wonderful. If I may borrow Mandy Rice-Davies' words - "Well he would say that, wouldn't he".
Ms Harper, I am very new to Home Educating and accept that I have a lot to learn, but I found your article echoed others I have read recently where Ieading academics are increasingly questioning the value or success of our education system. Personally I see very little future in it - but I do accept that not everyone has the courage to question the norm, so thanks for speaking out :)
I always tell my daughter (8 years old) that she will learn more from her mistakes that she ever will from her triumphs, so use them positively and don't be afraid to make them. I'm pleased to say that she is turning out to be independent, individual, self-assured and very stubborn!
You're right, of course, that any parent can take an engaged and constructive part in their child's life, and that many school-using parents do so out of school hours. By no means all do, but that's a different matter. Good parenting can certainly mitigate faults in the school system; that such mitigation should be necessary, however, underlines the general negativity of the life lessons learned in school.
"Such a negative word - but actually, it just means the opposite of subordination."
End quote.
No. "Subordination" means the process of putting someone in a subordinate position, with the strong suggestion that they don't really belong there. Insubordination is behavior inappropriate to a legitimate subordinate position. Insubordination doesn't change the fact that they're in a subordinate position. It just means that whatever they're trying to do doesn't work.
A subordinate isn't inferior personally or morally. A subordinate isn't even necessarily inferior in status. They can just be a less-experienced colleague. Suppose the boss's protégé is a go-getter, a genius, a sage, and a natural leader; and they're just rotating through some low-level jobs while they learn the ropes and get to know the people. They'll be in the corner office next year and everyone knows it and is glad of it: They're still the shift-supervisor's subordinate in the meantime. The shift-supervisor is still the one who checked that day's invoices and knows what that means in terms of where everyone on the shift needs to be when. So the shift-supervisor is the one who tells the up-and-coming star where to go and what to do.
You can't condemn illegitimate authority effectively unless you can distinguish it from legitimate authority. That means you have to be able to acknowledge the possibility of legitimate authority.
I agree that one must acknowledge the possibility of legitimate authority; that is what I mean when I say in point seven that wise disobedience also involves understanding when the "rules" (for which read: law, instructions, wishes of authority) *should* be followed.
I am not advocating wilful disobedience for the sake of it - that is just as much poor judgement as mindess compliance can be. What I am advocating is instilling in children sufficient critical faculties to enable them to distinguish between legitimate demands/requests/orders/laws/expert pronouncements and those which are merely power trips/unnecessary/optional/illogical/fallacious etc. This applies to the media too - far too many people (the vast majority having been through the school system, obviously) are unable to apply any kind of critical thought to what they read or see in the media. This and wise disobedience are important skills, and in my experience schools do a much poorer job of teaching this lesson than home education does.
The home educated child, on the other hand, will have as long as they want to explore that topic, helped by their parent, reading books, having conversations, watching bees, watching video clips or TV programmes - their curiosity can be satisfied there and then, to whatever extent the child retains the interest. This nutures curiosity. School often kills it, or at best, does little to encourage it. And if the home educated child's interest in bees that morning lasts for only 20 minutes - does that matter? The subject is more or less bound to come up again at a later date and may be reprised then. If their interest lasts all day and they do nothing else that day - is that a bad thing?
By the time a child is a teen, they do have a fairly broad idea of where their talents and interests lie. My 13 year old daughter has spent virtually no time learning about volcanoes beyond the general knowledge which you would hope any 13 year old would have. She has, however, spent many months studying psychology and politics. True, there is a chance that she might discover more of an interest in volcanoes if forced to do a "topic" on them - or she might not. In order to find out, however, we would have to abandon or scale back on the subjects which genuinely fascinate her - just like a schooled family, we only have 24 hours in our day. Should I decide that it's more important for her to pursue a topic she has no interest in, just in case she discovers an interest, than for her to follow her own existing passions? Should I force her to learn more about volcanoes at the expense of time spent elsewhere? Why?
Say what you like about the current education system, the syllabus is the product of a huge amount of thinking by a huge number of educationalists, and it is taught by people who have been trained to teach. In secondary school, subjects are taught by people who have studied that subject in tertiary education. In short, children are taught by subject specialists.
You say you emphasise teaching your daughter psychology and politics. Your specialisms and interests, perhaps? But what about literature - are you specialist in literature, or grammar, or French, or German, or mathematics, or history?
Maye you avoided teaching her geography because YOU didn't like it, or value it. Maybe you teach politics in a subjective and biased way.
Who's to know? Where is the validation coming from? To whom are you accountable in what you teach and how you teach it?
Your seven objectives are indeed what should be instilled in students. However, I do not think that they cannot get them in a public school. On the contrary, my experience is that a large number of them do.
There is as yet a scarcity of research in the UK about the academic performance of home educated students; the research there is does show that generally, they outperform their schooled peers by some measure. My experience of the peer relation/social interaction/debate abilities of home educated teens does not fit with yours; of course, my experiences are anecdotal and more limited than yours, but I have no reason to suppose that my experiences are exceptional. Meanwhile, many of the schooled children I know are not only being failed academically but are also unable to interact positively with adults, and are certainly not being encouraged to form any degree of independent thought. Universities and colleges frequently complain about the standards of education their schooled students arrive with.
The British school system does not teach children intellectual freedom, individuality or self respect - how could it, when the system decides what they will learn, when and how, then grades them to within an inch of their lives, and punishes or inhibits any desire to be different?
Because in each of those subjects you are not expected to produe a "right" answer, you are expected to produce a coherent, justifiable and well-argued point of view.
As for the "punishing" - that's just nonsense.