Worth repeating: Knicker knots

The following was first posted on 9.22.2011.

Several years back, it caused many a twisted panty and no small amount of teeth-gnashing and hand-wringing when I posted the February 29, 2008 Wall Street Journal article, "What Makes Finnish Kids So Smart?" to a homeschooling message board. The article simply asserts that "well-trained teachers and responsible children" are the key to that country's educational success.

There had been a similarly angst-y flurry a few months earlier, when I posted The Economist's "How to be top," which asserts, "The quality of teachers affects student performance more than anything else."

Begin with hiring the best. There is no question that, as one South Korean official put it, “the quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its teachers.” Studies in Tennessee and Dallas have shown that, if you take pupils of average ability and give them to teachers deemed in the top fifth of the profession, they end up in the top 10% of student performers; if you give them to teachers from the bottom fifth, they end up at the bottom. [Emphasis added.]

Why the knicker knots? you wonder. Because I posited that the same could be said about homeschooling -- that is, for the most part, the endeavor will only be as successful as the parent-teacher.

I was reminded of these two articles (and the irritation my insistence on drawing analogous conclusions about home educators inspired) yesterday, while reading a lengthy discussion about homeschooling and using resources and teachers in co-ops and other settings.

Allow me a related aside, okay?

The priest who led the Pre-Cana group meeting my husband and I attended nearly twenty-six years ago, asked the participants to divide themselves roughly in half. A dozen couples scooched to one side of the room while the rest of us remain seated. "Yeah," he said. "That's about right. That's about how many of you will be divorced in ten or so years."

I am sure each of us smugly believed that we would not fail in our marriage. And now, all these years later, I am just as sure that many did.

Those, quite simply, are the odds.

The reactions to the original post in the above-referenced message board discussion reminded me of the reactions to the priest's pronouncement -- right down to similar points about how discouraging it was, on the cusp of marriage, to be discussing divorce. "Shouldn't you be encouraging us? Why are we talking about failure now, before we even say, 'I do'?"

Um, if not now, then when? After you've failed?

No. At the beginning of the journey is the best possible time to learn that there may be rewards, but there may also be failure. How can you reap the former and avoid (or, at the very least, recover from) the latter? Let's talk about that sooner rather than later, eh?
________________________________

For about fifteen years, I've maintained that I am the opposite of a homeschooling evangelist. In short, I don't think everyone can do this. I don't think everyone should. And I most certainly have met people -- in person and online -- that I fervently wish weren't attempting this since they, their children, and the stereotypes they perpetuate are the reason my family rarely announces that we homeschool.

That's not a popular position, of course, because it's not all daffodils and sunshine and "You can do this!" It's not particularly encouraging or affirming. But sometimes, the kindest thing is the truth, and the truth is not everyone who decides to attempt this thing will be good or even adequate. You see, it simply is not enough to love your children. It's not enough to design a school room, wallpaper your homes in books, buy memberships to museums, and collect curricula. Nope. You must also teach, and to teach well, you must be capable, smart, engaged, and certain.

The wonderful Marva Collins Collins wrote plainly but enthusiastically about the call to teach well:

Many of us can be excellent for a day, but we find a lifetime of excellence to be just a bit difficult. Good teachers leave their egos and problems at the door each morning. They become so immersed in the children they teach that they forget time, problems, who they are, or what they can't do. They believe that they exist for their students. They hear with their hearts, they see with their souls, and they teach with their conscience.

Parker J. Palmer also defined the essence of teaching well:

Good teachers possess a capacity for connectedness. They are able to weave a complex web of connections among themselves, their subjects, and their students so that students can learn to weave a world for themselves. The methods used by these weavers vary widely: Socratic dialogues, laboratory experiments, collaborative problem solving, creative chaos. The connections made by good teachers are not in their methods but in their hearts -- meaning heart in its ancient sense, as the place where intellect and emotion and spirit and will converge in the human self.

Let's face it: Palmer is describing a level of expertise here, isn't he? You can't, after all, "weave a complex web of connections" if you don't possess information and experience -- expertise.

This is, of course, why teaching the upper grades is difficult -- which is why we must introduce our students to other teachers, other learning settings. Many may be able to teach with excellence and heart in the elementary grades, but only some can do so in the secondary school grades, and then, only in some subjects. At that point, it becomes critical to identify resources -- virtual schools, co-ops, dual enrollment programs, community mentors, or, if nothing else is available, the local high school -- for the subjects in which we are unable to weave a complex web of connections. Oh, and by the way? This is a good thing socially, too, since some (not all, but some) homeschoolers and their parent-educators seem to have a tough time adapting to conventional classroom habits and expectations.

So, how are you doing?

Just as the students of the good and wonderful teachers we remember from our own school years did not all enroll in a "big name" college (or in college, at all), did not become prodigious accumulators of wealth or heroes on the battlefield or whatever, our own students may not, either. So if success in this endeavor will not be measured by where / if they attended college or what profession they enter, by what will it be measured?

I thoroughly believe that if you are doing this thing well -- with excellence and heart -- you already know the answer to that question.

Good luck, folks.