Reimagining Education Beyond Traditional Boundaries

As our economy and democracy are being centralized around the desires of one man and his minions—so much for Lincoln’s definition of democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people”—I want to stay positive and examine what ordinary people, and homeschoolers in particular, might accomplish in the midst of this confusion and social upheaval. As some states are showing us, centralizing school curricula and stamping out opposing viewpoints about what and how things can be taught is already well under way. Empathy and sharing are bad words in today’s politics, and we, the people, are not individuals in this configuration but the “work force” to be marshaled to the needs of billionaire overlords.

Fortunately, families still have the right to educate their children as they see fit, but the cost of private schooling, tutors, childcare, and all the expenses associated with learning outside the public school system are a considerable barrier for many, particularly single-parent and families with special needs children. Despite those barriers, homeschooling continues to grow, providing new models for learning in non-school ways, new models for teaching outside the classroom, and new places for children to be during school hours.

Over the years I’ve written for and addressed educators who are interested in homeschooling and I continue to hear from teachers who are interested in giving children in their classrooms more freedom and time to think, learn, and play. Here’s a recent example:

“Hi.  I was wondering  if y’all know of people working to bring  the heart of homeschooling  to teachers?  Teachers are swamped with messaging  about classroom management, and this really sucks the love and trust out of the room.  Currently we have an administration causing a lot of chaos and I wanted to see if now would be a good time to educate  teachers on the most empowering "teaching" methods, like those of John Holt.  I would love to be part of a collaborative effort by homeschooling families & school  families (public, private, charter,  magnet) to directly inform teachers  about  best practices for the children they want to help.”

As this writer shows, some teachers want to support children to experience the world outside the classroom as homeschoolers do and I want to support how to enable this at the local level. The silos of schooling and homeschooling have prevented much cross-fertilization to date, but perhaps now there are enough people on both sides who can ignore the politics and social opprobrium of “working with the enemy” to make education better for children. I want to help such an effort expand and invite you to tell me about your efforts as a schoolteacher or homeschooler to make your local school less about classroom management and more about the needs and interests of children. Please use the comments section below or email me with your thoughts.

My next few blog posts will explore ways that society can integrate children more fully into daily life instead of sending them to school all day. Instead of the usual fixes of more instruction time and stronger classroom discipline I’ll explore different places and ways for children to develop their social, emotional, and academic skills as individuals, in groups, and with the help of teachers and other adults.

I want to start by reminding everyone that this is not a new idea. John Holt and many other thinkers and educators of the sixties and seventies (and earlier!) sought such changes and were rebuffed. When the alternative school movement lost its steam in the 1970s it didn’t stop John from attempting to make things better, which is why I’ll start this series with John’s thoughts about how teachers can find and work with schools that support new ideas about learning and teaching. This quote is from the last chapter of What Do I Do Monday? when John still thought schools could become more student and community centered. Homeschooling became a focus for John seven years later, when he founded Growing Without Schooling magazine.

“There is much heated and not very helpful argument among teachers and teachers-to-be about whether they should work in public schools or start independent and free schools of their own. This is one of those decisions that depends on the tactical situa­tion. If a public school will allow a teacher to do a good many things that he thinks are important and helpful to children, and not require that he do too many things that are harmful, it is obvi­ously a good place to work. It may even be a good place to work if he only thinks that there is a fairly good chance of getting it to move in the right direction. It is movement that is important. But if a school seems not only bad but unwilling to change, immov­able, a teacher who works there will probably not only be wasting his time, but in spite of his good intentions will, as much as anyone else in the school, be doing more harm than good to his students. It would probably be better to get out and find a school, or join others in making one, in which he can do at least a good part of what he thinks ought to be done. 

“Some people argue that since most free schools have to charge tuition, this leaves poor kids in the lurch. True, but only partly. Free schools are important agents of change, both as a training device and as a model. When they work well, other people in the community understand what they are doing and want them for their own children. This can put pressure on the public schools to start some such schools of their own, which they have done and are doing in quite a few places. Or it may rouse public support for the voucher plan, in which parents are given money directly for their children's education, to spend where they wish. Or it may bring closer a time when independent schools with no tuition and nonselective policies, no weeding out of children, at the door or later, will be considered "public" and supported from tax funds on the basis of the number of students attending. In Denmark any ten parents can start and get tax support for a school—why not here? 

“Some say, this is all very well, but since most children are in public schools, reformers have to work within that system. Such people seem to me to make a stronger commitment to the system than to the children. They also tie their own hands and greatly limit their change-making power. 

“Of course, any schools that look as if we might be able, with­out too much delay, to change them so that children may truly learn and grow there are all worth working with. But there are many other schools and school systems so top heavy or bureau­cratic or power hungry and fear ridden that the best thing we can do for the children in them will probably be to make available something better. I have met some fine teachers who have told me that for as long as twenty years or more they have been working in this or that school or system to bring about some of the kinds of changes I am urging, and with no success at all. I can admire their courage but not their tactical judgment. Not only have they wasted their time, skill, and devotion; they have given them to an institu­tion that has made bad use of them. 

“There is no necessary reason why a chance to attend indepen­dent schools based on freedom and choice in learning should be limited to a few middle-class children. I have already suggested a way in which such schools might be supported without charging tuition, or in which poor people might be enabled to afford them. There is still another possibility. Young people themselves might be able to raise much of the money to support the kind of schools they want and need. George Dennison, and others active in this movement for new education, are organizing what will be called the New Nation Fund. The idea is that young people ( and sympa­thetic adults) on their birthday (or any time they feel like it) will send a gift to the Fund, which in turn will contribute money to the support of free schools. Some might say that not enough money could be raised this way to support more than a handful of schools. Possibly, though even this would keep some very important model schools alive. But I read some years ago that what was called the "Teen-Age Market" spent something on the order of fifteen billion dollars a year. This is very nearly half as much as the cost of our en­tire educational system. Very recently I read that in 1969 total sales in the record industry, which sells mostly to young people, were over two billion dollars. I am not assuming that young people, in order to get the kinds of schools they want, are going to stop buy­ing everything else. But they have more economic power than they think. And we can almost certainly find ways to provide education at far less cost per pupil than most conventional schools.”