School Schedules Done

I'm getting an early start on our planning for next year. Tim will be in college, and we'll be involved in two co-ops, a high school co-op for J, and a CM co-op (field trips, nature study) with L and Miss M. This past year, J struggled with the amount of schoolwork he had, and I didn't want to repeat that, plus we'll be having four-day weeks (we'll be losing a day to co-op). The recent CM Conference got me thinking that we need to re-focus on relationships, and start fresh with narrations. I had all of these thoughts rattling around in my brain, so I thought the best way to deal with that was to go ahead and have our plan on paper so I could tangibly see what our year will look like, school-wise.

I like to have a daily schedule (because when I don't, it's too easy to get nothing done at all). So I've made up J's and L's daily schedules for next year.

I also did a daily schedule for a student who's new to homeschooling and will be preparing for Year 7 next year - this is a version of Pre7 based partly on her reading level, and partly on the books they already had.

Miss M is four, and will be starting AO Year 0 a year from now.

Unconditional Parenting: 5. Pushed to Succeed

Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason
by Alfie Kohn

This chapter didn't grab my attention much because I don't know people who really pressure their children; this is something I hear caricatured more than I actually see it happen in real life. Jack Beckman said that Kohn tends to caricature parents to make his point, and I can see that. But I think most parenting writers do that.

5. Pushed to Succeed

Kids can feel stressed and depressed when their parents are more concerned about their future success than their well-being. It can drive kids to be competitive to win, rather than focusing on the more important purpose of doing well. They may assess their worth based on how they rate in class, or sports, or whatever. Sometimes those parents are after their own glory - the honor of being the parent of a success.

In school, rewarding children for good grades makes them less interesting in the learning itself. The focus on succeeding may make them choose the least challenging assignments. Not only is the grade their focus, but the fear of failure is too much of a risk to take on a challenge. They also tend to skim for answers instead of tackling tough questions and reflecting - so they don't learn to be deep thinkers. In school, just like in discipline, control tends to backfire. Worst of all is when parents offer acceptance and affection based on school grades.

In sports, parents sometimes pressure their kids to win, to be the best. Although parents may claim that they just want their kids to enjoy themselves, saying, 'we only want our son to do his best,' is a different message than telling him to have fun. It carries an implied pressure to win. Competitive sports can bring out the worst in parents.

Does competition motivate people to do their best? If children know they have our unconditional love and don't need to earn it, won't it make them lazy? Isn't it human nature to do as little as possible?

Children who know they're loved unconditionally will probably accept themselves and have positive self-regard without being arrogantly self-satisfied. Such a person isn't inclined to sit around and do nothing. They'll be more willing to take the risks of challenging projects because their self-worth isn't riding on the outcome.

Unconditional Parenting: 4. Punitive Damages

Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason
by Alfie Kohn

Before I go any further, let me say - Jack Beckman recommended reading Unconditional Parenting along with Shepherding a Child's Heart, so I've had that one next on my list. I'm having second thoughts, though, after hearing reviews like the ones posted at GCM here and here.

I was also surprised to learn that Alfie Kohn is revered by TCS parents (Taking Children Seriously/non-coersion at all costs), although Unconditional Parenting, which I'm enjoying and mostly agreeing with, at least in theory, is considered less extreme than other books of his. I may try to find something somewhere in the middle - unconditional, "working with" instead of "doing to," but that has no problem recognizing the parental need to set limits and teach boundaries.

4. Punitive Damages

The concept of punishment is to make kids suffer to teach them a lesson. But "how likely is it that intentionally making children unhappy will prove beneficial in the long run? And: If punishment is so effective, how come I have to keep doing it to my child over and over?" A 1957 study showed that punishment was ineffective at curing aggression, clinginess, bedwetting, and other grievances. Newer studies show that kids who are punished for breaking rules tend to break rules more when they're not home. Spanking makes children more aggressive and imparts the lesson that "you can get your way with people who are weaker than you are by hurting them."

But spanking isn't the only way that parents inflict suffering on their children to teach them a lesson. There's also depriving children of affection or privileges, humiliation or isolation. These 'new, improved' forms of punishment may be re-labeled as consequences and justified because they're 'logical' or because they're spelled out in advance. But that's really just a way of threatening: 'If you do this, I'll do that.' Natural consequences--allowing a child to go hungry if they're late for dinner, or to be wet if they forget a raincoat--carries the subtle message that 'Mom could have helped me, but she wouldn't be bothered.'

When kids rebel against punishment and control and become defiant, the usual advice is to use *more* punishment and *more* control - which leads to a vicious cycle. Parents assume it's the child who's the problem, and never challenge whether the whole concept of punishment itself might not be at fault. "Misbehavior and punishment are not opposites that cancel each other out; on the contrary, they breed and reinforce each other."

Kohn lists probable reasons why punishment is counterproductive:
- It makes the child mad because he's helplessly controlled
- It models a misuse of power
- As kids get older, it becomes less effective. What then?
- It erodes our relationships with our kids
- It puts the child's focus on his unfair treatment instead on the real issue.
- It impedes moral thinking by putting the child's focus on himself (avoiding punishment) instead of others

Punishment doesn't work, and *more* punishment won't make it any more effective. Adding warnings and explanations doesn't make it work better - if a child doesn't share, then explaining why they need to share, and also taking the toy away, will cancel out the explanation and direct the child's focus to the loss of the toy rather than the misdeed.

The "doing to" approach to parenting (including spanking, consequences, rewards and even verbal praise) is based on a faulty premise. As long as a parent has these in their parenting toolbox, the less likely they'll be to try the "working with" approach.

CM Conference Notes: The Relational Paradigm of Christianity

[These are my notes from a two-part lecture by Jason Fletcher about moving to a model for life that's based on relationships rather than self-service or capitalism - Tim]


The Relational Paradigm of Christianity: Part 1

Social isolation is growing. A quarter of the people in the US say that they have no one to confide in. Because people are busier, because people move more, because of TV, and because of a strongly individualistic worldview, society is becoming more fragmented. We can call this the "I World". Studies show that materialism is also a problem: our GDP is increasing steadily, but happiness with life hasn't changed.

So we need a new paradigm. It's the quality of our relationships that determines our happiness, and Christianity is a relational religion.


1. Christianity is a relational religion

Christianity is unique in that it sees God as a triune being with relationship built in. Taking that further, we could say that an isolated person is an oxymoron--true personhood can only exist in a relationship. We have needs that can only be met by relationships. But only in the Trinity do we see a relationship in which each individual's needs are met perfectly. Good relationships (including the Trinity) are others-centered. Sin is a failure of relationships. It is becoming less than a full person.


2. The Nature of a Good Relationship

Christianity promises that in the end we shall have perfect relationships with God and men. But in the meantime we are becoming more Christ-like. (See Micah 6:8.) Matthew 22:32-40, "Love the Lord...love thy neighbor." This is what Christianity is all about. God wants us to culture good relationships.

Good relationships have two things: relational values and relational conditions. (Keeping in mind that all relationships are imperfect.) Relational values, taken from a study of the Old Testament, include steadfast love (which could also be called loyalty or compassion); righteousness, which means fulfilling the duties of a specific relationship; justice, seeking to right wrongs; faithfulness and truthfulness (in Hebrew the two words are almost interchangeable); mercy, compassion; forgiveness; and generosity (which is linked to loyalty, but goes beyond it).

There are five relational conditions (gleaned from Old Testament law). 1) Directness. Face-to-face encounters and communication. This is important because we communicate so much non-verbally. Emails, phone calls, letters, etc. lose that part of communication. They are also focused on information rather than interaction. Directness means close and attentive presence. 2) Continuity: the amount of time we invest in relationships (including our relationship with God). We can think of a 24-hour period like a box: you can squish it one way and make it long but thin; or you can squish it the other way, which will make it cover less but will make it deeper. "Quality time" isn't as important as simple quantity time. 3) Multiplexity: the depth of knowledge we have about the other in a relationship. The number of contexts we know a person in. We should avoid one-dimensional relationships. 4) Parity: managing differences in power between people in the relationship. The proper use of authority (not to be confused with equality). 5) Commonality, purpose. A relationship is strengthened by a shared vision or shared interests.

Good relationships have all of the qualities described above.

Charlotte Mason taught that children should be treated as human beings, full persons in their own right. The teacher is a mentor in the student's quest for knowledge. There is a relationship between the teacher and the child. There is also a relationship between the student and the ideas. Because relationships are so pivotal--to education as well as to being and knowing--the character of the teacher is extremely important.


3. Relational Agenda: the explanatory power of the relational perspective.

(Part 2: A Christian Perspective on the Environment)

The wider realm of relationships. Social action (immediate aid) and social reform (changing laws, addressing causes rather than symptoms). The vision is not capitalism but relationism. Any judgment of an act must measure its wider relational impact.

Jesus said, "Love God, love neighbor," not "love earth". Our "relationship" with earth is distinct from person-to-person relationships. But there are several reasons why we should care about (for) the earth. 1) Because God does. 2) Because He has told us to (Genesis 3:15). 3) Because we have dominion over the earth as God's representatives. We are to be servant-kings (shepherd-kings) like Him. 4) Because we are connected to and dependent upon the earth. Even Man's name, "Adam," comes from the word "earth". The failure to care for creation is a failure of love. When we harm the environment we harm our neighbors through it, and our relations that extend into the future. 5) Because God has promised to restore creation as part of His salvation plan. And we, as Christians, should proclaim and demonstrate redemption in all its forms.

Two ways to care for the earth: rest and roots. Rest: keeping the Sabbath as God did. The need for rest is built into creation. Land produces best when it has fallow years. So we should limit our take, not squeezing every last drop out of the earth. We're supposed to take a shared day off; only in this way does a day of rest do what it's supposed to do for our relationships. Roots. (See Leviticus 25, about the Year of Jubilee.) In ancient Israel the outright purchase of land was forbidden. And every fifty years all leases ended and the land was returned to its original family. This created a connection with the land, because the same family kept the same land, and also a connection within families, because members of a family lived near each other. As communities weaken, our reliance upon centralized government increases. (There was also a ban on usury in ancient Israel, which helped to prevent a sharp class distinction from arising.)

Further research: www.jubilee-centre.org and www.relationshipsfoundation.org

Unconditional Parenting 3. Too Much Control

Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason
by Alfie Kohn

3. Too Much Control

"The dominant problem with parenting in our society isn't permissiveness, but the fear of permissiveness." Parents fuss and nag and yell and reprimand in an effort to restrict children unnecessarily out of a fear of being too permissive. That fear drives us to overcompensate by controlling too much. But our demands show a lack of respect for the child, as if parents don't think kids deserve as much respect as adults do. How would we treat an adult friend if they forgot something, or didn't whisper in the library, or accidentally dropped and broke something? If something is innocuous when our friend does it, then why is it punishable when our child does it?

In some studies, it was children who had less controlling parents (those whose parents talked with them, tried to accommodate them, and considered their side) who were more likely to do as they were told. Yet when controlling methods don't work and the child rebels, more control is instituted. Overly controlled children will either lose their self-reliance and allow themselves be bullied into submission, or they'll be behaved in public but sneaky, or they will be angry and defiant.

When parents have too much control over food, limiting food to their mealtimes and using food as a reward, children lose the ability to regulate their own hunger cues. When parents don't give children chances to choose to do right for themselves, children may not develop a strong internal conscience. When parents direct their kids' play and activities too much, kids lose interest.

"...with teachers: Lean on them to 'raise standards' and they turn into drill sergeants. The ironic result is that their students end up acieving at lower levels than their counterparts in classrooms where there's less top-down emphasis on 'accountability.'" (How does this compare with John Thorley's talk on Relationship vs Examinable Results?)

Children do need structure, but not control. "As a rule, reasonable structures are imposed only when necessary, in a flexible manner, without undue restrictiveness, and, when possible, with the participation of the child." That's not the same as coercing your own will on a child. Parents need to be "in control" (providing a safe environment, guiding, setting limits) without being "controlling."

"The goal is empowerment rather than conformity, and the methods are respectful rather than coercive."

One More Conference Thought: Habit

This was typed at the bottom of a page of discussion questions for people to consider during scheduled group "processing" sessions. I think I've heard this from Karen Glass before, but this is the first time I've seen it in print. I'd love to hear any and all thoughts on this.

In a letter written towards the end of her life to Henrietta Franklin in the fall of 1922, Charlotte Mason said:

"What a time you had among the Alpine flowers! I know something of the joy of it, for many years ago before you were born or thought of, I spent some early spring weeks at the Kaltbad (Rigi) with some friends. After forty years I see and smell and luxuriate - but I did not see the Soldanella . . . Science has done nothing to confirm the "rut" theory in all these years, and Brother Body seems to me much the inferior partner. I think all that I have written is still true but I would emphasize habit and so on less. Child mind - no, because a child has as much mind as the rest of us."
(Typed by Elsie Kitching)

In the above letter, written towards the end of Mason's life, she de-emphasizes habit and emphasizes the child mind. Share your thoughts about how habit formation fits within a rational paradigm.

Unconditional Parenting: 2. Giving and Withholding Love

Unconditional Parenting:
Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason
by Alfie Kohn

2. Giving and Withholding Love

Parenting can be either harsh (yelling, threatening, hitting) or not - but even when it's not, less harsh methods are often used to gain power over a child, usually by withdrawing love or using postive reinforcement (reward/praise).

Withdrawing love might mean acting cold and withdrawn when a parent is displeased with a child. They may make a point of ignoring the child, relaying the message that attention is earned with obedience. The parent might verbalize, 'I don't love you, or want to be around you when you act like that.' Or they might put physical space between them by either walking away while the child begs them to come back, or by banishing the child to forced isolation (known as 'time-out'). This can be perceived as abandonment by the child, especially if they're too young to grasp the temporary nature of the separation.

When children are sent away to time-out/solitary confinement against their will, it's love withdrawal. But giving the child the option of cooling off in an inviting place, like his room, to spend time alone when the time limit is under his control, can be helpful. Kohn says that the term and concept of 'time-out' came from BF Skinner's lab experiments to control animal behavior (I've always thought it came from sports, where a player is benched for time-out to regroup or rest; I'm not sure I believe it came from Skinner.)

The problem with negative reinforcement is that it forces the child to think about how their actions affect themselves--'How can I avoid being punished?' But it's more important (and trickier) to get children to consider how their actions affect others. In fact, time-out might be more harmful than spanking because it lasts longer. When love withdrawal is used as a continual way to control children, those children may become anxious, afraid to express anger, and fear failure. They may fear attachment and be distant as adults, perhaps because they don't want to be abandoned again.

Children who are sent to time-out to think over their wrong-doings and repent are more likely to seethe and harbor resentful thoughts as they stew in time-out - which is hardly what most parents want to foster.

Rewards are also destructive. Rewards might gain immediate compliance, but will never motivate the child to make the action a permanent part of himself. Children who are rewarded for being nice think of themselves, not as nice people, but as people who only act nice for a price. Reading a book has its own reward; reading a book to get pizza can spoil the whole thing. "The more people are rewarded for doing something, the more likely they are to lose interest in whatever they had to do to get the reward."

Verbal praise acts on motivation just like a reward. It makes a person less interested in the task itself. Do we want children to share in order to hear Mommy say, "good job sharing!" or to make their friend feel better, even if Mommy doesn't notice? Why/when do we praise our kids? When they make our lives more convenient, or when they show a really impressive trait? "Children's sense of their competence, and perhaps of their worth, may come to rise or fall as a result of our reaction." They look to us to see if we approve, like a toddler who falls and looks to his mother to see if he's hurt.

Everyone needs praise, but it's exploitive to use praise as a means of control. And the more we praise, the more we make a child crave praise, and the more we undermine their perception of their abilities.

Kohn goes into the concept of self-esteem - he disagrees with both groups, those who think high self-esteem is good, and those who think that focusing on "feel-good" self-esteem makes people unmotivated. He says that the key is how variable a person's self-esteem is - does a person feel worthwhile depending on how successful they are or what people think of them? People whose self-esteem fluctuates may feel worthless when their lives aren't going well, or defensive and aggressively protective of their esteem. They may have a competitive need to win. They may go to unhealthy lengths to look good, or succeed - because their self-worth as a person depends on it.

People who feel loved unconditionally spend less time thinking about their self-esteem, less time evaluating how good they are, and less time deliberately trying to feel good about themselves.

Unconditional Parenting 1. Conditional Parenting

I want to think more about CM and parenting techniques, and my first step is reading this book more thoroughly. I wish I had Jack Beckman's charts and outlines, as they did a great job of summarizing the book, but I don't have them. I've actually read the first six chapters (half the book) but I wanted to go back and read it a second time.

Unconditional Parenting:
Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason
by Alfie Kohn

1. Conditional Parenting

All parents love their children, but not all children feel loved. Children need unconditional love that they don't have to earn or measure up to in order to thrive. If our preschooler is naughty and difficult all day, do we still snuggle and read stories with her that night, or do we refuse to reward her bad behavior by depriving her of that fun as a consequence? Unconditional parenting means that we deal with the behavior by talking about it and teaching, but then we snuggle and read our bedtime stories as usual. "Whatever lesson we hoped to impart was far more likely to be learned if she knew that our love for her was undimmed by how she had acted."

Conditional parenting is closely related to behaviorism (B.F. Skinner: if good behaviors are reinforced/rewarded, then they'll be repeated; if bad behavior is associated with negative results, it will cease. We can't do anything about a person's motives, we can only deal with their actions.)

Behaviorism is forcing a child to apologize, even if they don't feel sorry. It's making a child cry it out at night with no regard for why he's crying. It's ignoring a toddler's desire not to go potty and bribing him with M&M's or stickers. Behaviorism is "concerned not with the thoughts and feelings and intentions that give rise to a behavior, only with the behavior itself." Behaviorism assumes that if the little girl who was naughty in the previous paragraph gets her snuggle and story, she'll be encouraged to be naughty again because her bad behavior was reinforced.

"Unconditional parenting assumes that behaviors are just the outward expression of feelings and thoughts, needs and intentions. In a nutshell, it's the child who engages in a behavior, not just the behavior itself. Children are not pets to be trained, nor are they computers, programmed to respond predictably to an input." We need to find out why, not just stamp out the way the child is expressing his feelings.

Unconditional love doesn't reinforce bad behavior. Those who fear that it does are cynical and think the worst of human nature. A misbehaving child probably isn't being malicious or deliberately trying to make us miserable. She may be expressing her own misery in the only way she knows how. She needs to learn better ways of expressing herself, but she'll be more teachable in an atmosphere of love and acceptance. Love and acceptance should be a child's birthright, a gift, not a privilege to be earned.

Conditional parenting focuses on behavior, has a negative view of human nature, views parental love as something to be earned, and does things to the child - reward/punishment - as its strategy.

Unconditional parenting focuses on the whole child, including his thoughts, reasons, feelings (this sounds CM). It has a balanced or positive view of human nature, considers parental love a gift, and uses problem solving to work with the child as its strategy.

All parents love their children and want the best for them, but when children perceive that they have to earn their parents' love by doing well, they may have trouble accepting themselves, may create a false self as a result of trying to please, and may resent their parents as they get older. Children who felt unconditionally loved had a better relationship with their parents into adulthood and a more balanced view of themselves.

CM Conference Notes: Piquing Interest in the Arts

Lori Lawing gave this talk, and this is another one that I listened to without taking notes. There are some notes in the handout, though, and there was something that struck me that I wanted to remember. Since I can't say it any better than she did in her hand-out, I'll use her quotes.

Lori used the modern paraphrase of CM's Series, which was a first - it's the first time I've ever heard it quoted out loud, and I kept expecting to hear something off in the translation, or a typo said out loud. But it sounded fine (although I think I found a place where I need to add a comma . . .)

Lori said that CM wanted us to pique children's interest in the aesthetics of art, music and poetry. Those things move us "because they present truth and goodness in a context of universal beauty." Art isn't always beautiful, and it sometimes displays the effects of sin. But great art "can be beautiful even when it presents some aspect of the fall. As Christians, we see glimpses of paradise even in our fallen world. We have hope that our Redeemer is returning to restore all of creation back to the paradise that was lost . . . God's Word has a story to tell, a story of Redemption through the blood of His Son. That is the grand story of redemption. In a smaller yet still significant way, the aesthetics can portray stories of the hope of redemption in this fallen world."

Sometimes the question comes up, "What makes great art great? And who decides?" I think that the answer has something to do with what Lori is saying about the redemption story, although I haven't got it quite clear in my mind.

Then Lori showed us an example of art (Domenico Ghirlandaio's Old Man and His Grandson), music (Mussorgsky's Pictures at an Exhibition; she showed the corresponding pictures as the music was playing) and poetry (Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Lessons from the Gorse) to illustrate how the beauty of redemption comes through in the aesthetics. See if you can see redemption illustrated in the examples.

Lessons from the Gorse

Mountain gorses, ever-golden,
Cankered not the whole year long!
Do ye teach us to be strong,
Howsoever pricked and holden,
Like your thorny blooms, and so
Trodden on by rain and snow,
Up the hill-side of this life, as bleak as where ye grow?

Mountain blossoms, shining blossoms,
Do ye teach us to be glad
When no summer can be had,
Blooming in our inward bosoms?
Ye whom God preserveth still,
Set as lights upon a hill,
Tokens to the wintry earth that Beauty liveth still!

Mountain gorses, do ye teach us
From that academic chair
Canopied with azure air,
That the wisest word man reaches
Is the humblest he can speak?
Ye, who live on mountain peak,
Yet live low along the ground, beside the grasses meek!

Mountain gorses, since Linnaeus
Knelt beside you on the sod,
For your beauty thanking God, -
For your teaching, ye should see us
Bowing in prostration new!
Whence arisen, - if one or two
Drops be on our cheeks - O world, they are not tears but dew.

E. B. Browning


(This is the last of my notes, although Tim has one to post; a complete list of conference posts is here.)

CM Conference Notes: Science of Relations vs. Examinable Content

John Thorley's first session was a talk about Charlotte Mason's early years as a teacher, with a few people reading letters from the time period from and to CM (Deani Van Pelt read the letters that CM wrote.) That was fascinating, but I listened to that session without taking notes. So, if that sounds interesting, you should watch the childlightusa.org website, as they will probably be making CD's or audio available.

These notes are from his second session. John Thorley lives in England and has was the Principal of the Charlotte Mason College at Ambleside. When I met him three years ago, he was working part-time at the Armitt Museum, which houses CM's library of letters and books.

Two movies, the Dead Poets Society, and History Boys, illustrate the debate in education, pitting a charismatic teacher against the educational establishment. The public is aware of this debate, and when it comes to movies, they sympathize with the teacher (but when it comes down to it, most parents are only concerned with test scores). In England, the public is rebelling against the testing system (England has mandated tests at age 7, 11 and 14). The debate is against policies that include testing, and the thinking behind that approach to education. CM is child-focused, but this kind of system is about government control. Can there be a symbiosis where both exist together?

Education is the Science of Relations. A child has natural relationships with a number of things, so we give him lots of things to help him make valid as many of his potential interests as possible by exposing them to him. Knowledge isn't data, knowledge is our relationship with the world. All that there is, all that there was, all that will ever be - that's what should be included in our curriculum. That's a concept that's dynamic, not static. Children aren't vessels to be filled, but beings who will develop relationships with the world. Every child is entitled to a full curriculum. Math shouldn't be the focus of a curriculum, science shouldn't be the focus; the child should be the focus of the curriculum. Children need to be actively involved in making knowledge 'their own.' (Children can't learn passively; that's why lectures and TV don't teach well. The child's mind needs to be engaged and participating. That's why narration is part of the CM method.)

1967 - the Plowden Report on primary schools said that education was good, especially in the early years. It said that the style of educational system was working very well, and was providing a full, comprehensive education. By the 1970's, reaction against child-centered education resulted in Black Paper studies, which reported that standards were slipping and recommended a focus on the 3R's. In our era of discoveries, they said, science and technology need more focus and kids need to be better at math. Thus, school was extended from age 14 to 16 to teach more science and math. This movement has progressed as society gets more technical. Trends in government policy that started innocently enough took on a life of their own and snowballed, becoming interlinked as one policy led to another. But all of them are based on questionable theories.

1987 - there were nine subjects in England's national curriculum, and specified methods saying how they were to be taught. In this new policy, curriculum would be reviewed and updated regularly. With the advent of a national curriculum, there was no more educational freedom. As a new policy, parents were given the option of choice to decide where their children attended school. (The truth is, parents had always been able to choose before.) This sounds good in theory, because nobody will choose to go to a bad school, so bad schools will close while good schools flourish. But in practice, people who live in small, rural towns have only one school to choose from unless they want to move or commute long distances to have city school options. And how can a parent know which school is better? So - new policy - it was decided that schools needed to have a Standard Attainment Test (SAT) so that parents could make choices based on objective test scores. League tables published scores and rated schools based on those scores. A new policy determined that math, science and English comprehension would be tested. These six-hour tests would need to be easy to grade, so they needed to be objective: fill-in-the-blank. SAT's required that certain skills (the testable ones) should be taught since skills, not knowledge, would be tested. Geography, history, culture are neglected.

This new system had undesirable results. Narrow tests mean that school teach narrow "skills" and leave no time for anything besides English, math and science. Now the government wants all schools to adopt a "synthetic phonics" program which improves individual word recognition without helping comprehension or writing. They don't understand that phonics isn't a magic pill to teach reading.

Does all of this help parents to make a school choice? Schools that have special needs children might be great schools, but they will test badly because the special needs students will bring the score average down. Small schools suffer when results are averaged out, because one child's low score carries more weight. Parents can't even make sense of the SAT results. So why is it still used? And what would happen if a small school tested well and then suddenly had a bunch of new students enrolling? What if small village schools decline and die? Where will village children go to get educated?

The fact is, even with new, scientific improvements, test results for reading are the same as they were in 1957. But today's children are stressed and labelled based on their test scores at age 7. The system of testing is expensive - 50,000 pounds per school per year. An entire industry (the test writers) lobby for more tests. But children don't benefit from these tests or from more government control.

Scotland doesn't do SAT's, and their students do better on tests than British children. Wales rebelled against the testing system and doesn't do them.

But schools do need to be accountable. If SAT's aren't the way to be sure that students are learning, then how do we show that schools are doing their job? Can Charlotte Mason's vision be combined with public accountability?

Maybe existing policies could be used, but according to methods that teachers approved of.

Governments have a right to know that a broad curriculum is being offered, and that the quality of teaching is good. Perhaps a national curriculum could have guidelines that are reviewed, with teachers involved in the reviewing process. Teaching inspectors need to be experienced teachers themselves who are specially trained to recognize good teaching even when it differs from their own style. They should be allowed to offer advice to help teachers teach better. Test results shouldn't be publicly published; schools should be the ones to publicize their scores along with explanations about any extenuating circumstances that might have affected their results. Tests should be brand new every year. Schools should have a broad curriculum, and then test themselves against national standards. Then schools would be able to experiment with different teaching methods and find something that works.

(complete list of conference posts here.)