Organic Learning

Child-centric, child-directed, unschooling, free learning, speed learning, … there are so many names which try to explain what we do, when not coercing children to fit into preconceived curricula and plans. I’ve never been fond of terms which include “school” – even unschool – because what we do isn’t about school or not-school. It’s like “driving a not-Ford” or un-Fording. Who defines an automobile, bicycle, or horse as the negation of a Ford? “Natural learning” or “organic learning” or “self-directed learning” or “child-centric learning” come closer to what I intend. These all emphasize working with the nature of the child, as opposed to coercing the child into unnatural behaviors.

Some of these terms may seem passive. It helps to recall the early days and months of infants’ lives – when they are so obviously, so joyfully, so actively engaged with and learning from their world. It helps to remember that parents, too, are learning. I recently learned of the Reggio Emilia Approach, which emphasizes something important: teachers (and parents) as co-learners, as partners; as people who work with, rather than on the child. You as a parent, if you are attentive and observant, will learn more than you can imagine from your child.

Why do it this way? Why not the simple, direct, step-by-step linear approach favored by most schools? Won’t this ensure that “nothing is missed?” I can almost say that the reverse is true. If we’re trying to push “today’s lesson, page 24 in the textbook,” it is quite possible that the child learns almost nothing, because “today’s lesson” almost never fits that child on that day. It has already been mastered, or is too far ahead, or is incomprehensible because the prerequisites were not well-understood. So many children struggle more than they ought, because the assembly line does not recognize them as unique individuals, does not match them, does not adapt to their particular resources and needs.

By contrast, we wonder how it is possible for some children to graduate from college while still prepubescent, or for others to be math or chess prodigies at extremely young ages. How can a child cover “years” of arithmetic in 20 hours, or before the age of 6, except by running full speed at their own pace, rather than the snail-like pace of the typical assembly line? Maybe we should emphasize the positive: what we do is “speed learning.” Or, as another post of mine put it, the slow way – playing with and absorbing and enjoying the foundations – is the fast way.

As a recent comment on the Whole Life Unschooling FB page remarked, “We’re ninja learners. Learning just pops out of nowhere.”


2 thoughts on “Organic Learning”

  1. Perhaps schools with planned daily curriculum work to the extent they do because children and teachers learn to cope with the regimen. I would have learned more if we all did not have to cope with a regimen, and every student in the class was there because they wanted to be. All the things that really stuck with me were the things that the teachers were passionate about, and would have taught anyway: the power of rational thought; humor and other literary devices; writing well; making and appreciating art; human rights and freedom, to name a few. If there is a teacher involved, there will always be something the teacher wants to teach, and will be what is taught regardless of the lesson plan.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s