Thursday 15 July 2010

Giving children a shove

Every time I write here about a curriculum or indeed any sort of planned structure for a child's education, I am sure to be told of the innate curiosity which children exhibit. This sense of wonder and longing to find out about the world is portrayed by autonomous educators and unschoolers as a holy thing, a spark which must be carefully fanned into flame rather than being smothered beneath the dead weight of a formal curriculum. This is all fair enough and there is a good deal in it. Children are inherently curious and do have a huge desire to explore the world and discover things about it. What is less certain is if this wish to explore their environment and find out about things would be enough in itself to lead them to discover Shakespeare and Milton, calculus and the lives of the Tudors, photosynthesis and the nature of radioactive decay. I don't want to go into the question of whether it is desirable for children to be offered a 'broad and balanced curriculum'; I am aware that for many unschoolers and autonomous educators, the very idea is little more than a sinister and coercive tool of central government. The very idea of prescribing a body of knowledge is, for some of these parents, anathema. I am just thinking for now about the child's chance of stumbling across these various topics by accident while she is exploring her own interests.

While it is true that children are by nature curious about the world around them, many have another characteristic, one which is seldom even mentioned by autonomously educating parents. This is a desire for the same thing regularly, a wish for the familiar rather than the strange. This can manifest itself in a conservative attitude to food; many children will only eat certain foods, sometimes only if prepared in a particular way. It can also be seen in children who only want to do the same things every day. Perhaps they prefer to learn only from the Internet rather than books or maybe they dislike leaving the house to visit museums and want to stay in their own home and garden. One of the great things about school of course is that children are, often against their will, obliged to join in activities which they feel that they will not enjoy. These can range from playing teams games to reading poetry, from studying the Romans to moulding clay, learning about the planets to discovering other religions. Why should this be a good thing? Because often a child finds that she actually enjoys some of these things, even though she was at first reluctant to become involved in them. By giving the children a gentle shove, they are given the oportunity to get to know about things in which they not only have no interest, but might actively dislike.

The suggestion above that children should be compelled to take part in learning and other activities against their will probably go against the grain for many home educating parents. After all, their whole theory of education is predicated upon children not being pushed to do things that they don't want to do. Sometimes though, we need to look beyond the wishes of a child and consider his ultimate welfare, think about a future which he may not be able to visualise himself. Just as a small child might not be able to foresee the consequences of not brushing his teeth, so too he may be quite unable to realise that his lack of interest in physical activity may harm his body in the future. He might not be able to see that it is necessary to know about geography and percentages in order to make sense of his world in the future. More to the point, he may miss out on some things which he would very much enjoy. Unless an effort is made to insist that he listen to poetry and plays, he may reject these out of hand and characterise himself as somebody who does not like poetry. This can mean that he will end up missing out on a lot in later life.

For many children embracing the familiar and rejecting the strange and new is a way of life. They may well be curious about the world, but they are also a little nervous and prefer to play safe and stick to what they know. Sometimes they need to be encouraged, even forced to join in things and at least get a taste of something which they do not like. Bad habits can grow stronger if left unchecked and while it is quite true that the habit of curiosity and wonder can grow as a child develops, so to is it the case that some children can become less willing to try new things and new ideas as they grow older. It is part of our duties as parents to see that they do, for their own sake.

20 comments:

  1. I don't see why education has to be either laissez-faire or coercive. A child can be made aware that it's really important that they acquire some skills and knowledge, without the need for 'shoving' them, or 'forcing them to join in'. If a child is averse to some activity, there is usually a good reason for the aversion, that needs to be identified and addressed appropriately.

    In fact 'shoving' and 'forcing' can often be counter-productive. Just as a matter of interest, how would you ensure that your coercion was not counterproductive?

    ReplyDelete
  2. In a classroom, it would be very easy for encouragement or pushing to become counter-productive. Since home educating parents are working one to one with their own children, this is less likely. Most of us know to within a fraction of an inch how far we can urge our own children; when to push and when to hold back.

    " If a child is averse to some activity, there is usually a good reason for the aversion, that needs to be identified and addressed appropriately."

    It's a human trait, which battles against the other trait of curiosity. One would not suggest identifying the reason for curiosity; we assume it to be inbuilt in children. So is a desire for the safe and familiar.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "One would not suggest identifying the reason for curiosity; we assume it to be inbuilt in children."

    I suspect that is because one is not sufficiently familiar with the complex mechanisms in the brain through which positive and negative reinforcement take place. Perhaps one could consider brushing up on one's cognitive neurology before waving one's arm in the general direction of a 'trait'.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh very sharp, suzyg! I was using the word 'trait' as shorthand for the same things to which you refer. the same things also explain the fear of the unknown.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The desire to explore the environment in search of food, water, absent mothers or simply too play is easily explicable in the sort of terms which you would probably apply, suzyg. So to is the wish to remain quiet and still in a safe corner to avoid attracting predators. These instincts are also present in the human child. We often encourage the curiosity without trying at the same time to discourage the instinct to stick with the familiar. I think that this can be a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I take your point. However, to respond to an aversion - which might be for a very specific reason, rather than a vague instinct to stick with the familiar - with coercion, would, in many cases be counterproductive.

    In my experience no animal species responds well to coercion and it's usually only worth adopting if there are are serious immediate health and safety considerations involved. Persuasion, encouragement, reward and modelling, by contrast, are more effective.

    ReplyDelete
  7. While also very skeptical of "unschooling," I was very intrigued about some of the ideas you expressed in your post. From several of you other posts, I seemed to gather the idea that your are supportive of the idea of children's rights as guaranteed by the U.N. CRC (is that right?). In America, we haven't yet embraced the full idea of child's rights as many European countries have.

    What has been perpetually puzzling to me (and, as an American, I'm willing to grant there may be a lot I don't understand about this topic) is that child rights treaties never seem to actually grant any additional rights to children. It seems to me that the government is the real winner every time. It isn't the child that is given more freedom and more leeway to make his own decisions; it is the government who is granted increased power and ability to affect the lives of its citizens, albeit under the banner of "the best interest of the child."
    You discuss in your post the idea of children in schools being "forced" into activities that they may not have chosen to do, often ending up enjoying them. While I do not disagree with that idea at all, it does not seem to square well with child right's. To me, unschooling (which I am intensely skeptical about) seems to be the education system that fits best with the idea of child's rights in that the child is free to pursue whatever learning he desires.

    I think we could both agree that children are simply incapable of both the discipline and the knowledge needed to direct their education. Therefore we need a top-down approach to education and curriculum, whether that be parents or the local school board/teacher. With this understanding, to me the idea of child's rights makes no sense. Of course children have a right not to be abused, not to be exploited, etc. But that right is not based in their childhood, but in their humanity. Those are basic _human_ rights. Child rights grant children no more rights, but rather grant the government a massive amount of additional power.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The problem is Matthew, that a child's rights are a little bit dfferent from an adults's rights. A child might have the right to medical treatment for example. This is in his best interests and the parents have a duty to see that he gets it. If he is scared of needles, then his wishes might have to be disregarded in his own interests and the injection given against his expressed wishes. The same can apply to education, in that the child's wishes might have to give second place so that his rights can be secured, even if he does not want those rights! This is because children cannot always see and fully understand the consequences of their decisions. So a law which guarantees a child the right to an adequate education might at the same time entail compulsion; he must have this education whether he wishes it or not. For every right, there must be a corresponding duty. The duty to ensure that the child gets the education devolves in the first instance upon the parents. If they are unable or unwilling to provided the education for the child, then the state steps in and does it on their behalf. This is in any case how most people prefer to arrange things; few wish to provide an education for their child, they prefer to let the state do it in schools. Without laws which guarantee the right of an education or freedom of conscience to a child, some parents would not provide an education , while others would force their children to follow their own religion.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't think the analogy with medical treatment holds. Even assuming the parents and medical practitioners are agreed that the child be coerced into receiving treatment in his or her best interests, the interventions are generally either short-lived, or if long-term the child adapts, or the child's lack of compliance leads to poor outcomes.

    Education, by contrast, is not a clearly defined intervention, whereby one party does something to another party, but an iterative, life-long process with which the learner is actively involved. One can coerce a learner in terms of forcing them to participate in an activity or be in a certain place at certain times, but one cannot force them to be educated. Education, by definition, requires the co-operation of the learner.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think my confusion is due to the different meaning of "rights" between the U.S. and Europe. So my question is, perhaps, not germane to these discussions.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "One can coerce a learner in terms of forcing them to participate in an activity or be in a certain place at certain times, but one cannot force them to be educated."

    This is of course true. One can however put the bite on parents and force them to provide an education. Whether the child takes advantage of this education is another matter entirely. After all, there are many children at school who refuse to benefit from the education which is on offer. The most we can do is ensure that the education is there. You are right; you can't mame somebody learn.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So what's the point of all the 'shoving' and 'forcing' you were recommending originally? Of the children, that is.

    ReplyDelete
  13. To give them the impetus to try new things. Sometimes it is only by being in a situation where we have little or no choice to take part in some activity that we actually do it. Sometimes we find out that it was fun and we are pleased that we did not mis out on it. The same thing happens a lot with children. I am not only talking about academic studies, but also of new things in general.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The thing is that we are all different when it comes to what gives us the impetus to try new things. Some people will only consider trying a new thing when they are in a place where they feel safe. Other people respond well to being put 'on the spot'. Some people love trying new things and are always at the front of the queue. My aim, as a home educator, is to support my children in discovering what works best for them.

    As for 'insisting' that someone listen to poetry or see a play - I am not interested in making things I love into punishments or chores for other people. Maybe that's why I never wanted to be a school teacher.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The suggestion above that children should be compelled to take part in learning and other activities against their will probably go against the grain for many home educating parents."

    But I'm sure you have said that you daughter is too strong willed to be compelled to do things she does not want to do and that you always made new things so interesting and such fun that she would never refuse to take an interest, or am I remembering incorrectly? Did you have to compel your daughter to study subjects she did not want to study, or to study when she did not wish to? If so, how did you do this?

    "Just as a small child might not be able to foresee the consequences of not brushing his teeth, so too he may be quite unable to realise that his lack of interest in physical activity may harm his body in the future."

    You do not think it is possible to explain to a small child that not brushing their teeth might make their mouth hurt like their knee did yesterday when they fell over? And that the pain would last a long time? Worked for mine.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "But I'm sure you have said that you daughter is too strong willed to be compelled to do things she does not want to do and that you always made new things so interesting and such fun that she would never refuse to take an interest, or am I remembering incorrectly? Did you have to compel your daughter to study subjects she did not want to study, or to study when she did not wish to? If so, how did you do this?"

    She grew up with a background of my saying, 'Now we are going to do music, or it's time for history." Interestingly, we had a home educated young person from America staying with us for a fortnight recently. She is now twenty one and has bad feelings about her childhood. Not that her parents were cruel or anything. She simply remembers the feeling of having too much power herslf as a child and said it used to scare her. She would have felt more secure if she had felt that her parents were more in control; the unlimted power which she felt she had was too much to handle. Children often do better under a benign dictatorship.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Some people will only consider trying a new thing when they are in a place where they feel safe. Other people respond well to being put 'on the spot'."

    If a child is in a family group and everybody in the group is watching a play or reading, listening to music, wortking out sums and so on, then she is not put on the spot. She will be fitting in with everybody else.

    " As for 'insisting' that someone listen to poetry or see a play - I am not interested in making things I love into punishments or chores for other people."

    I didn't mean this at all. I don't care for Shakespear myself, but pretended to when my child was young in order to get her to enjoy it. I sat through a number of plays and was very enthusiastic about them when she was little. Now, she is absolutely obsessed with Shakespeare and adores him. When a friend came to stay recently, they went to stay in Stratford and the whole visit was focused around Shakespeare. My decpetion paid off and because she thought when young that watching these plays was a treat, it became so for her.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Simon wrote,
    "She grew up with a background of my saying, 'Now we are going to do music, or it's time for history." "

    So did you daughter never object to any proposed activity during 16 years of home education?

    "If a child is in a family group and everybody in the group is watching a play or reading, listening to music, wortking out sums and so on, then she is not put on the spot. She will be fitting in with everybody else."

    Have you never experienced a child who rebels against an activity the whole family or group is doing? Have you never attended a HE meeting? Or were all of the HE children you met perfectly behaved an happy to do exactly as their parent requested at all times? If you experienced a child rebelling against an activity, what did you do?

    ReplyDelete
  19. So giving children a shove is fine as long as it's in a direction you agree with? You don't appear to agree with parents who shove their children in the direction of chess, for instance, at least going by your last post. Who gets to decide in which direction to shove children in your view? I would guess you would shove them all over the place in every direction you could think of to be sure they received a broad, balanced and trivialised education. Just make sure you don't shove them too hard or they may trip and hurt themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 'Just make sure you don't shove them too hard or they may trip and hurt themselves.'

    Yes, that's the key, isn't it?

    A gentle shove from Mum and Dad (not necessarily teachers) in an unfamiliar direction, timed well, can reap many rewards. My son didn't know he had a facility for sciences until I encouraged him to have a go at the IGCSE's. I could have waited indefinitely for him to have shown signs of wanting to explore science to that level, but what purpose would that have served? Now he knows he likes them and is good at them.

    This isn't the same as hot-housing or 'pushing' children.

    Mrs Anon

    ReplyDelete