| Many homeschooling parents have puzzled over the
distinction between "guidance" and
"manipulation". As a parent strongly committed to
"unschooling" (learner-directed homeschooling) with my
son Jason, now 17, I have sometimes wondered if I should encourage
certain activities in spite of a lack of interest on his part, or
at least remind him of areas he has ignored for a while. I was
most likely to wonder about these things after reading about an
unusually dedicated child who has excelled in a particular field
of activity, such as music. It was at those times that John Holt,
through his inspiring books, reminded me that trust is the most
essential ingredient of a homeschooling program.
While it is indeed important to make a variety of subjects
available to the child, I think that is almost impossible to
avoid. This is the age of information. Children are surrounded by
information of all kinds, through conversations, books,
television, films, the Internet, stores, and nature. One day when
Jason was five, he asked me about opera. This surprised me, as we
had never discussed this topic. I asked what had led to his
question, and learned it had been a Disney cartoon! He asked me
several questions about types of operas, and we had a brief
discussion. In spite of my own lack of interest in this subject, I
trusted him to know if and when he would want more information. He
knew that our encyclopedia had articles on opera, and that he
could find additional information at the library, or from
knowledgeable people. (These days, of course, virtually every
topic is also covered on the Internet.) While modeling by the
parent can be helpful, if the interest the parent shows is not
sincere, it will have little value; I would never feign an
interest in opera or anything else. Over the years I have often
seen him study subjects at great depth despite my own lack of
interest, and I trust him to set his own "curriculum" in
this way.
A subject either "clicks" with Jason, or it does not
- who knows why? Initially, art, astronomy, math, and physics
"clicked" strongly; and over the years he has studied
other areas as well. What would have been gained by requiring him
to study those other areas sooner? The most likely result would
have been resentment, frustration, and less interest in that
particular area. If I can trust him to know what he needs to
learn, and when he needs to learn it, he may some day become
interested in the areas he has "missed" so far, and with
that kind of inner motivation, he can learn them quickly. Even if
he "misses" a subject all his life, there should be
little reason for concern. After all, no one is interested in
everything, nor is every field of study essential to living a good
life.
In some circumstances, we should direct and model important
concepts that children may not be ready to learn all by themselves
- avoidance of danger, constructive handling of anger, peaceful
conflict resolution, compassion for others, and so on. But does
Shakespeare really fit into this category? I think not, and
besides, what is the rush? There seems to be an unspoken
assumption in our society that if a child has not mastered each
and every subject by the age of ten, we have failed in our
homeschooling. But a child has a lifetime to learn whatever
interests him as an adult; homeschooling advocate John Holt
demonstrated this beautifully, when he learned to play the cello
in his 50's.
Children are very adept at hearing our hidden messages.
Regardless of how carefully we phrase it, when we tell a child
that a certain activity is required, we imply that it must be so
unpleasant or difficult that he would never want to do it on his
own; otherwise, why are we going to the trouble of requiring it?
No one has ever required a child to eat ice cream!
Another problem with requiring a child to do something is that
it implies potential punishment. If the child refuses, then what
happens? If we require a certain activity, and the child is unable
or unwilling to comply, then we are forced into the position of
either rescinding the requirement or punishing the child (if we do
nothing, we weren't really requiring the activity after all). If
we punish, then we give many harmful messages to the child. As
Susannah Sheffer, Editor of the homeschooling newsletter Growing
Without Schooling once suggested, using force to further
learning is a mistake because "it is discourteous and
probably won't work anyway, and the risks of doing it are so
great."1 Perhaps one answer
to the question, "When does guidance become
manipulation?" is "when it becomes threatening".
The goal of homeschooling is to help a child learn how to
learn. At the same time, we should not dictate what that learning
must be, or when it must take place. As John Holt so often
reminded us, the simple truth is that we can and should trust
children.
|
