To Teach or Not to Teach?

There’s been some discussion on one of my message boards this week about the teaching of high school science in our homeschools.  The general consensus seems to be that at least three, preferably four, upper-level science courses should be required of every student, regardless of need.  (For instance, if the student has no intention of attending college, or if the college only requires two science credits, three or four are still required.)

I disagree.

Apparently I’m the only one (well, my husband, my parents — who educated/graduated me — and I), but the real issue, to me, is not “science,” and I believe it’s an important one.

Why it Matters

There’s a radical difference in philosophy between the two perspectives.  Science requirements are merely an application of the perspective.  (Just to be completely clear, I am by no means opposed to teaching science — or even lots of it.  I’m opposed to requiring every student to study the same thing to the same degree, regardless of aptitude or interest.)

With the possible rare exception here or there among radical unschoolers , by the time a student is in high school, all basic skills will have already been covered.  Anything necessary, at a fundamental level, to function in society, is done.  Our students can read and write, they know how to figure, etc.  Even informal logic, which I consider essential for everyone, can readily be taught to most students well before high school.

Where our basics probably looked very much alike, high school should be a time of specialization. There are a limited number of hours in a day, and any time spent studying “A” is necessarily time not spent studying “B” (unless, of course, “A” and “B” are closely associated).  These facts provide the background for the philosophical differences I’m going to present.

The First Philosophy

The first philosophy says (whether by verbal acknowledgment or simply through action) that every student (or at least every student except those with severe mental disabilities) should have a cookie cutter education.  The sprinkles on those cookies might be different colors, but the cookies are essentially the same.

In other words, every student should study the same things.

While I appreciate that most of these parents are striving for excellence, and I understand that pushing our children to study things they don’t enjoy is sometimes necessary and can be a good opportunity to teach them to pour their full effort even into things they don’t like, I believe this communicates several undesirable things.

1. It communicates that they should do things just because they can, that a “good thing” should always be done when an opportunity is present.  At first glance, this is a positive, but it’s actually a major downfall for many adults.  How many people do you know who can’t say “no” to anything?  These individuals have never been taught to be selective, to differentiate between “a good thing” and “the best thing” for the circumstances.

2. It communicates that we should all invest our time, energy, and efforts in the same things.  This denies the uniqueness with which God has made us, and assumes that the preparation which will best serve one person is the preparation which will best serve every other person.

3. It often communicates that the standard of measurement we should be using is the same one the world is using.  Do you have a degree?  Did you take “A,” “B,” and “C” classes?  Can you check the right boxes?

That’s not the standard God uses.  God wants to know what we did with what we had.  He tells us to develop our gifts, not to get the best college-prep education available.  (For some people, an excellent college-prep education may be part of developing their gifts.  But what if it isn’t?)

A Different Philosophy

I prefer an alternate philosophy, one that may not be visible as different for a science-minded student, but which would become readily apparent with a non-science-minded student.

See, I believe that God has beautifully created us to each be unique.  He has a specific plan for each one of us, that uses each one’s particular combination of gifts, strengths, abilities, aptitudes, and interests. 

He has given us passion for different things.  If we are to fully develop these unique gifts, then each student’s education must necessarily be different.  I’m not talking about “the sprinkles on the cookie are a different color” different.  I’m talking about “the difference between a Fig Newton, a ginger snap, or a chocolate-chip cookie” different.

When I asked why my friends require so much science, part of the answer many of them gave was, “The time is now.” I agree — the time is now…to help that young man or young woman blossom into exactly who God created him or her to be.  Not to force him to pour hundreds of hours into something he has no aptitude for and/or interest in.  Those are hours that can never be regained for things he does have interest in and/or aptitude for.

Tailored Education Communicates Godly Principles

Tailoring a student’s education — by what it includes as well as by what it omits — to the unique abilities and passions planted in him by God, communicates several things:

1. It communicates that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, that God has a plan for each of us, and that He has gifted us perfectly to complete those plans.  We are to seek to identify those gifts and develop them.  Just as the exercises that will best develop the lungs are not the exercises that will best develop the biceps, the education that will best develop one set of gifts is not the education that will best develop another.  (As with exercise, there may be some that are “okay” for both, but we don’t want “okay,” we want “best.”  That is, we don’t want to settle for mediocrity; we want excellence!)

2. It communicates that we each have a limited amount of time available and we cannot do everything.  Just because something is a “good” thing, that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the “right” thing for a certain person at a certain time.  We should be seeking to invest the majority of our time in things that fall into our area(s) of strength (as well as those things that are purely needful).

3. It communicates to our children that we see them as individuals.  (I don’t believe those educating by the first philosophy are communicating the opposite of this, necessarily, but I do believe that educating by this second philosophy communicates it more effectively.)

The beauty of homeschooling is that we can tailor the course of study to be a perfect fit for each child.  What a shame to fail to take advantage of that!  May we all be counted faithful at training up each child in the way he should go, so that we might ultimately have a fully-functioning Body and not be missing arms or legs or have weak lungs.  (1 Cor. 12:14-22)