Is Curriculum Necessary for a Proper Education?

The other day I found myself in a most disagreeable situation. An acquaintance of mine has been considering the option of homeschooling her children. I have been paying attention to her questions and concerns on the subject and been able to introduce her to some of my opinions on the matter. In this particular instance she posted a link to THIS article, and asked for parent's thoughts. No one had yet commented on it so I ventured to leave my $0.02. This was immediately followed by an man with a very anti-homeschool opinion. His statement was simply "Education without a curriculum or benchmarking spells disaster." I ventured to respond to his comment which perhaps was my first mistake. I made what I believe to have been a reasonable assertion that when homeschooling fails it is often parental neglect that is the fault, not lack of curriculum.

Unfortunately this digressed into a mud fight. I tried to avoid it in what I had thought were diplomatic statements, but they evidently weren't as true to Benjamin Franklin's character as I was striving for as I was emotionally affected by his slander. It is very difficult to be diplomatic when provoked to anger, no matter how slightly you *think* it has affected you.

I have apologized to my acquaintance for her post taking such a sour turn due to no initiation of her own. And I have now, after seeing my pride and prejudice's that hindered the conversation and recognizing his would most probably (though I may be proved wrong with enough patience) not allow a level-headed one, decided to write a post on my views addressing his original statement. "Education without a curriculum or benchmarking spells disaster." And since this is my blog, I will have no scruples in allowing my explanations to wax long.

First I believe we need to address the history of such an assumption. History is exceedingly important aspect of any education, as there is so much to be learned from other's lives. I will not go into this here, but if you have any inclination to know more of my opinion on the subject you can read my post HERE about it. 

The word Curriculum comes from the latin word for race-course. In more ancient times it was often used in the idea of "Curriculum Vitae" which means "the curriculum of (a) life". This is referencing all the things which we learn to become successful in adult society. This is how to be a good, respectable person. Not how to do algebra and write reports with the purpose of summarizing a books plot. This was the purpose and I believe still is the purpose of religion. To teach us to be good people. 

Curriculum as it is referred to in formal education refers to the plan surrounding what it is intended for the student to learn. However, it is a fallacy to believe that you can teach a child anything. "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink." So, unless you successfully inspire a child to want to learn themselves, no learning will be accomplished. This is where parents have such a great advantage over a teacher in a school setting. The parents have an intrinsic love for their children and interest in their well being that can only be partially and ineffectually imitated by a teacher. Though I will say, to the respect of some teachers, that they manage this far better than most others. 

So, as a child will only learn what they want to learn it is inconceivable to believe that a curriculum developed by a school board will be able to know what truly interests the individual students. It is true that most, if not all of these things should be learned by each student, but the WAY in which they will be best learnt is arbitrarily different for each person. Even in a family each child learns differently. So to make a plan as to how each subject is to be taught to all students at large is silly. It wont work. I do not oppose the general idea of what should be learned in life, but how and when is something we cannot presume to know. 

Some children understand the complexities of reading earlier than others. Some can read by age three or four while others are finally grasping the concept by age ten or twelve. This is not a deficiency in teaching or in the student, just a difference in understanding. 

Most successful teaching occurs when the mentor acknowledges the interests of their mentee and encourages their pursuit no matter how seemingly menial. Just yesterday a saw an interview of a mother who did this with her autistic son who the experts claimed would never even be able to talk. Through following what interested him at the time of his interest he is now thirteen and investigating the undiscovered nuances of physics at university. I have seen this same type of success in differing ways. All led by the student and guided by a mentor. 

As a students natural hunger for knowledge increases, so will their applications to their mentors for variety. This is where a mentor can help broaden the education of their pupil beyond what they see in their immediate world. Guided experience and conversations can open a mind to the many possibilities that lay ahead. Here is where the desired all-encompassing education is discovered. This is how we teach our kids to have open minds.

Now because I followed this rabbit trail in my attempts to address what is wrong with our idea of curriculum, I have written a little about the history of schooling in America and what a narrow view of successful education that is to be considered.    

Schooling in America was first made compulsory by the Massachusetts Act of 1642. This act required that parent and master see to it that their children knew the principles of religion and the capital laws of the commonwealth. This would be a guideline or benchmark but not a curriculum. The leaders of Massachusetts put forth this act because of large differences between the people's lives in England and their lives in New England. They were effectively in a new country and needed to be able to follow the laws of this new land. In order to do that, they must be educated enough to understand the laws. They left it to the parents to teach their children these things in whatever manner they felt appropriate. 

This law did give the state the right to take the children away if these things were neglected and place the child somewhere that these things could be adequately learned. This gave the parents anxiety but not enough to overcome their notions of impropriety. These people had come to this new land often with the attitude of being free from all government. Due to these feelings, many people ignored this act, imprudently focusing on other endeavors and neglecting the education of their children. 

You may well see that the people who were not educating their children were not at all affected by the laws requiring it to be done, though it was exactly these same people for whom the law was written in the first place. Perhaps these people did not have the education or the ability themselves to educate their children. We, at this time, do not know the extent of the reasons for this parental neglect. I do venture to say that as a parent, I always maintain the desire for my children to do better and be better than I am, I can only conjecture that most other parents, regardless of their place in history, have this similar motive. Of course, I will not let my desire to be Miss Jane Bennet override the sense of her sister, Elizabeth. I am sure there were at least some of these parents who were voluntarily neglecting their children for mean selfishness on their part. 

The government powers need to be as fair and just as they are impartial to be able to please all those involved as best they can. So, in 1647 another act was drawn. The Law of 1647, also known as the Old Deluder Satan Act because of this statement in it: "It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures". This act required that towns of fifty families hire a Schoolmaster to teach their children to read and write. Towns of one hundred or more must have a Grammar Schoolmaster to prepare the children to enter Harvard. These acts also only applied to the boys. Girls, having not yet been formally recognized for their equality of mind. This left out any debate about who was or was not able to teach their kids. It did not give any consideration to the parent's intimate understanding of their children either. This served it's purpose however, by increasing the education and literacy level of it's population to be closer to that of their former home in Europe. (It could also here be argued that the original purpose of schooling was to educate the population in religion, but I will not venture further on this point.)

It is now interesting to note that though this form of compulsory education had been around since nearly the inception of the founding colonies in America, you may well pay attention to the fact of the date. 1647. This in and of itself states that this mode of schooling has been around for a short 367 years. The history of Egypt alone spans more than 5,500 years. Previous to this new American form of education, it was the sole responsibility of the parents to educate their children. The wealthy had tutors and other great experiences that have a discretionary income allowed. The middle and lower classes were taught by parents, community, church or apprenticeship. Advance training was typically reserved for priests, bureaucrats and specialists. Of course, this was also primarily for the men and boys, though some strong willed women or more benevolent cultures allowed for the higher education of their female sex.

Many people believe the former version of education to detract from society as it creates a caste system, or at the very least a class system. I am not going to argue this point here as I have not fully formed my opinion on the matter, but I will leave this nugget. Doesn't our current idea of age-segregation, honors classes, remedial classes, and grades accomplish just as much? For we do have a class based society in America, we just choose not to acknowledge it.

As America was the first to implement a compulsory schooling law it would lead naturally that we would be the first to see the fruits of such a system. We have taken everyone away from the possibilities of a "better" education by forcing our society into the educational model of the poor. We are now all given a "poor" education so that there are none "left behind" or that have an un-"common" education. We are now to be stamped with labels on a conveyor belt through our most formative years. Any person that grows too well must be trimmed down, those that do not grow well enough must but fed drugs to catch up. All for what? so that we can be equal in all things? This will never be accomplished. We are all too different. Society works best when we are different. But our system of schooling tries to stamp this out. It is ineffectual, and the more you let a flaw go, the more it will grow. I see the option of homeschooling as our governments way to appease those who want their children to have more than a "poor" education. With love and inspiration we can allow our kids to become as good as their teacher. We can show our children how to become their own teachers and thus, grow to their greatest potential. For, the true role of a parent is to be a mentor, not a professor. We should guide, suggest, and encourage. We should not require, pull and coerce.

I fear that this is all clear as mud. But alas, such difficulty in being able to form connected and cohesive thoughts has been the fruit of my public education.