Taught Mother Tongue and the Rise of Compulsory Education

The colonizing effects of compulsory education have been understood for centuries. Ivan Illich often noted how, in 1492, when Antonio de Nebrija published the first grammar of the Spanish language, he also outlined the path for how the rich and powerful can dominate cultural change:

For him [PF: Illich], modern corporate culture begins when a people's vernacular speech, learned within the family and the community, is transformed into a standardized mother tongue taught in schools. The first person in Europe to begin this process was Antonio Nebrija. At the same time that Columbus sailed to America, Nebrija reduced the multiplicity of oral traditons on the Castillian peninsula into standard Spanish, first with a grammar and later a dicitonary.

It is also noted that Nebrija, “dedicated it [PF: his book on grammar] to Isabella I of Castille, the catholic queen. When the book was presented to her, she asked: "Why would I want a work like this, I already know the language?" he answered: "Majesty, the language is the instrument of the empire".

Ivan Illich taught that this lesson is emblematic for many issues modern society faces and it is one he and I often discussed regarding efforts to dismiss or regulate unschooling and other forms of vernacular learning. Manish Jain, a learning activist with Shikshantar Andolan and co-founder of Swaraj University, has written a stirring response to India’s attempt to implement systemic education reform through the Right to Education Act.

The sacred role of parents and community in the child’s learning process has been reduced to their becoming mere chowkidars of the school, as benevolent Big Brother aka the State aka India, Inc. takes monopoly control over the very meaning of education and development.

Thus, we as an extended family, have chosen unschooling as the best form of holistic education for our daughter, Kanku. There are many reasons behind this but after several years of research and experience, we have come to believe that schooling stifles creativity, curiousity, compassion, collaboration, self-initiative, activism, entrepreneurial spirit, wisdom, and self-discipline in children. It fills them with fear, stress, false inferiority/superiority, and vicious competition. Unschooling differs from homeschooling and other forms of alternative schooling in several ways. It does not follow any prescribed government curriculum, norms, or textbook. The topics of study come from life itself and from the naturally unfolding questions, interests and needs of each individual child. Exams are not limited to pieces of paper but rather come from everyday practical challenges that emerge in the community as well as one’s own honest self-assessment. The parents’ role is not as know-it-all teachers but as honest co-learners who are committed to continuously unlearning and uplearning with their children. There is a strong commitment to building healthy and sustainable communities and accessing diverse community knowledge systems. Rather than remaining wedded to an abstract notion of a unipolar, hyper-competitive ‘mainstream’ (driven by the values of the global industrial-military economy), unschooling seeks to validate the profound reality of many streams, many dreams and many alternatives.

When Sweden banned homeschooling earlier this summer, the government claimed homeschooling is unnecessary since the state provides a "comprehensive and objective" education. It isn’t hard to see how other governments seeking to outlaw diversity can implement this logic and India, the world’s largest democracy, now faces this challenge.

At the end of his article Jain outlines four policy concerns that any country could implement so a “dialog on widening the meaning of education and creating many more positive options for the diverse children around the country” can begin. I hope you will read Jain’s article by clicking on the quoted material above and consider his policy ideas.



The Complacency of Sentimental Education

As another school year begins so too are the media stories with their formulaic reporting about homeschooling: Talking heads debating the pros and cons of learning at home; education experts concerned about gaps in homeschooler’s knowledge; “Wife Swap”-types of videos that contrast strict school-at-home moms with loosey-goosey unschoolers; and the common lead to so many articles and TV segments that I’ve heard since 1981, “The school bus drives past the Farenga home but their children aren’t on it. They are part of the growing and controversial homeschooling movement…” There are occasional well-done stories, of course, but I’m struck by the large amount of cookie-cutter reporting about homeschooling that I’ve seen over the decades and am now re-seeing, as I look through my back issues of Growing Without Schooling magazine, my work files, and the current news in print and online.

Why can’t the media, educators, and most parents get past the standard questions about socialization, college and employment for homeschoolers that I, and many others, have responded to with studies, case histories, anecdotes and the evidence of at least two generations of socialized, college-educated and employed homeschoolers? Why can’t we get into the real meat of the issues, such as: How can society/local communities capitalize on such dedicated parental involvement in education? Why do colleges accept homeschoolers without conventional high school degrees and what can that mean for reforming our schools? Do students who have autonomy in their studies and lives become employees who are team players?

Our sentimentality about children often gets in the way of seeing them as real people and we are further bound by our own sentimentality about our schooling and upbringing. It “worked for us” goes the thinking, so it will work for our kids. The problem is, our kids are growing up in a completely different environment than we did. Talk about socialization should not be about whether or not homeschoolers feel hurt because they don’t get Valentine’s Day cards from classmates (this was how the socialization question was phrased to me on a national TV show), but about the sort of socialization our kids experience from bullies in school, Colombine-type threats and experiences, and the “teach ‘em and test ‘em” policies we have that make test scores more important than social experiences in school, such as playing at recess, art, sports, drama, choir and music. Our “lens of sentimentality” limit not only our expectations of what children can do, but also our relationships with children. Can it be that our sentimental memories and expectations of schooling and youth make us ignore the realities before our eyes? When I came across this piece of unpublished writing by John Holt that we printed in GWS 68, I felt Holt had, again, summed up a complicated issue very plainly and neatly and pointed my thoughts in a new direction.

Here’s what Holt wrote:

…I fear and dislike sentimentality because I’ve learned from experience that it is one side of a coin whose other side is callousness, contempt, and cruelty.  The trouble with the people who think that some of the time children are little angels is that when the children are not behaving in ways they like they think they are little devils.  The people who at one minute are ready to shed crocodile tears at the thought of an eight-year-old doing actual work will in the next minute become indignant to the point of rage or panic if I suggest that that same eight-year-old be given some kind of say about his learning or the conditions of his life.  This dainty angelic creature, who at one minute we had to protect, in the next minute turns into some kind of dangerous criminal monster.  In fact children are not angels or devils, saints or monsters, not naturally good or naturally wicked, simply human beings very much like the rest of us, with the additional assets of having rather more energy and hopefulness than we do, and the liabilities of being somewhat smaller, weaker, and less experienced.  If we could only agree not to take advantage of their weakness and inexperience, not actually and positively to prey on them, they would be safe enough making a great many decisions which we now don’t let them make.

Valedictorian Video

I learned that Erica Goldson's speech for the Coxsackie-Athens High School (NY) graduation ceremony was filmed and posted online. I wrote about her speech on July 21, but for those who prefer to see and hear her deliver her indictment of factory schooling I have posted it below.

Celebrity Unschoolers

The good folks at Home Education Magazine—Mary Nix in particular—helped get 25 complete issues of Growing Without Schooling (GWS) uploaded online. The issues were reformatted from text files we stored on floppy disks over the years, with all the ads, directories, and other dated information excluded. I'm currently exploring ways to get the entire archive of 143 GWS issues online exactly as the originals appeared, and am enjoying the process. So I've been re-reading issues from my complete set of GWS and am struck by the timelessness of much of the information, as well as many other things I will comment on in coming posts. However, this little extract from GWS 14 should give heart to many who feel their children won't be prepared for adult work if they don't follow standard school procedures.

CELEBRITY UNSCHOOLERS

From THE BOOK OF LISTS (by Wallechinsky, Wallace, & Wallace):

15 FAMOUS PEOPLE WHO NEVER GRADUATED FROM GRADE SCHOOL: Andrew Carnegie, Charlie Chaplin, Buffalo Bill Cody, Noel Coward, Charles Dickens, Isadora Duncan, Thomas Edison, Samuel Gompers, Maksim Gorky, Claude Monet, Sean O’Casey, Alfred E. Smith, John Philip Sousa, Henry M. Stanley, Mark Twain.

20 FAMOUS HIGH-SCHOOL OR SECONDARY-SCHOOL DROPOUTS: Harry Belafonte, Cher, Mary Baker Eddy, Henry Ford, George Gershwin, D. W. Griffith, Adolf Hitler, Jack London, Dean Martin, Bill Mauldin, Rod McKuen, Steve McQueen, Amedeo Modigliani, Al Pacino, Will Rogers, William Saroyan, Frank Sinatra, Marshal Tito, Orville Wright, Wilbur Wright.

20 FAMOUS PEOPLE WHO NEVER ATTENDED COLLEGE: Joseph Chamberlain, Grover Cleveland, Joseph Conrad, Aaron Copland, Hart Crane, Eugene Debs, Amelia Earhart, Paul Gauguin, Kahlil Gibran, Ernest Hemingway, Rudyard Kipling, Abraham Lincoln, H. L. Mencken, John D. Rockefeller, Eleanor Roosevelt, George Bernard Shaw, Dylan Thomas, Harry S. Truman, George Washington, Virginia Woolf.

13 FAMOUS AMERICAN LAWYERS WHO NEVER WENT TO LAW SCHOOL: Patrick Henry, John Jay*, John Marshall*, William Wirt, Roger B. Taney*, Daniel Webster, Salmon P. Chase*, Abraham Lincoln, Stephen Douglas, Clarence Darrow (attended one year), Robert Storey, J. Strom Thurmond, James 0. Eastland. (* - Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.)

Latest Research: Tests of General Mental Ability are Flawed

Standardized tests in school have long been criticized as very imperfect measures of achievement. Reviews of actual coursework and grades earned in high school provide much better measures of what a student is capable of doing in college, which is why the University of California system stopped using SAT scores for college admissions. Last year at the American Education Research Association conference this was noted:

Especially troubling, the perception of the SAT as a test of basic intellectual ability had an adverse effect on many students from low-performing schools, tending to diminish academic aspiration and self-esteem. Low scores on the SAT were too often interpreted as meaning that a student lacked the ability to attend UC, notwithstanding his or her record of accomplishment in high school. These concerns prompted Atkinson (a former president of UC—PF) to propose in 2001 dropping the SAT in favor of curriculum-based achievement tests in UC admissions.

A thorough study from Indiana State University  now claims that all such tests of general mental ability, including employment and civil service tests, contain significant bias.

Overturning more than 40 years of accepted practice, new research proves that the tools used to check tests of "general mental ability" for bias are themselves flawed. This key finding from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business challenges reliance on such exams to make objective decisions for employment or academic admissions even in the face of well-documented gaps between mean scores of white and minority populations.

The study, published in the July issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, investigated an amalgam of scores representing a vast sample of commonly used tests, including civil service or other pre-employment exams and university entrance exams.

..."Test bias" means that two people with different ethnicity or gender, for example, who have the same test score are predicted to have different "scores" on the outcome (e.g., job performance); thus a biased test might benefit certain groups over others. Decades of earlier research consistently found no evidence of test bias against ethnic minorities, but the current study challenges this established belief.

Many homeschoolers and alternative schoolers know that standardized tests don't truly reflect what they learned, but in order to make their nontraditional learning fit into conventional college slots they often take test prep courses, study test taking guides, pay for testing tutors, etc. so they can gain admission. Decades of research by Alfie Kohn and others, wonderful books such as "None of the Above" by David Owen, and the work of organizations like FairTest have fallen on deaf ears in the testing and schooling business. Perhaps, I hope, this will now change in light of this large study. This new research shows how unjust the sham "scientific and objective measurements" of our personal abilities and achievement are that we have been subjected to over the years.