July 2024 – Stewards.ONE

I want to return to the subject of Charlotte Mason and home-education, I was wondering if we could go through her twenty principles and if you could give your thoughts on them as a home-schooling mother who’s seen some of her children through to adulthood? I’m not looking for a detailed, research-based critique, just your thoughts.

Sure.

Her first principle was that each child is a person, meaning they have a distinct personality, proclivities, strengths and weaknesses from infancy.

Every parent will tell you this is true and one huge advantage of home-schooling is that you can offer your children a bespoke education.

Mason’s second principle is that children aren’t wholly good or wholly evil, which sounds odd to most modern parents.

My feeling is that stems directly from Mason’s Christian background; she’d have believed the concept of Original Sin, but I think she personally observed children aren’t wholly sinful creatures inclined only to evil. Remember, some Victorians taught that children literally needed the sin beaten out of them; she refuted that.

I agree the work of parents to bring out the latent good in their children. However, as a Muslim, I believe babies are born innocent of any sin.

Next, there’s a principle about authority and obedience being natural?

Which I’d also agree with. So far, Mason has, very usefully, elucidated universal facts to work with.

Hierarchy is natural; we innately seek it out. From what I’ve seen, children naturally want to please their parents and want to respect them, they might push their boundaries, but they’re more secure and happier when they know their parents are in charge and there are clear rules and routines underpinning their lives.

With the fourth principle, Charlotte Mason puts limits on the third and relates it to the first; because the child is a person, the authority figures shouldn’t use force or the like to get obedience.

Meaning?

Meaning parents shouldn’t use means like shouting, love (or guilt), inflicting physical pain, rewards etc to control their children.

I’m certainly guilty of telling my children off, shouting, using censure, bribery and rewards. If my children disobey me or refuse to cooperate, which is normal in my view, then they know there’s a consequence. If they help out, then I will reward them, and they know that too.

Moving on from your un-Masony parenting… Mason then expands on other techniques she recommended in place of the ones you’ve used.

I’m all ears.

In place of rewards, punishments and other manipulative devices, Mason believed that the parents should create an external environment conducive to education, instil positive habits in their children and expose them to ‘living ideas’.

Those sound like brilliant starting points. My ideal home would be a hub of enthusiasm, thinking and learning. If the parents fill the family home with resources, if there are always ongoing projects, stimulating discussions, trips, activities and hobbies are encouraged and supported – then of course children will absorb that.

Likewise, good habits are vital. If they’re ingrained, then half the work is already done for you.

When Mason wrote of ‘living ideas’ she meant ones that had an impact on children – emotional or otherwise. Living ideas are those presented in such a way that the child is fully on board and absorbs them. Of course, I agree with her and that’s what I try to achieve in my children’s primary years. However, by the time my children are 13, their education looks more mainstream as they prepare for exams, college and adulthood.

I get the impression you were following a lot of Charlotte Mason’s ideas without realising it?

I’m sure a lot of home-educators will be.

It’s clearly easier to begin formal studies when your child is ready to learn than when the National Curriculum dictates. It’s more fun to study something your child loves. It’s obvious that children remember more poking about in a pond for insects than they will from finding ‘larvae’ in a wordsearch. It’s equally obvious children learn more from short, focussed lessons where they’re concentrating, than from long dreary hours of tuition they dislike. Charlotte Mason correctly observed all of the above and incorporated them into her methodology.

Mason used the analogy of presenting children with a rich, varied range of subjects, like a nutritious banquet laid before them to take from.

You’re sounding very poetic.

Mason has an eloquent, archaic style of writing. If you dip into her work, and there’s a lot to dip into, it’s hard not to emerge sounding like a Victorian gentlewoman.

If you say so.

Of course, she’s right; children crave stimulation, activity and occupation. The more resources on offer, the better for their educations and your sanity.

However, I know Mason did have very high, traditional ideas of what an educated person is. I haven’t given my children the wealth or variety of traditional subjects Mason advised, though I’d be interested to speak to people who have.

Have you taught your children about the interconnectedness of their studies, which is what Charlotte Mason described as “the science of relations”?

I’ve heard two versions of what she meant by the science of relations.

One is that all subjects interconnect and relate to each other, so understanding of one improves understanding of all – an example would be studying psychology, Tudor history and society, and then relating them Romeo and Juliet. The student will have a much deeper relationship with the play if they understand the context, for example.

Another is that the child must understand how their lessons relate to them, such as where they are in history and how their bodies work. It’s about connecting their lessons, which might seem abstract, to their being. I’ve felt this is a natural process that hasn’t required formal tuition.

Mason wrote she expected children to narrate back what they’d understood from their lessons, activities or books – but she was emphatic this should be done once to a high standard to discourage laxness or laziness.

There isn’t one hard and fast rule I’d apply to all my children all the time and I don’t expect them to summarise their lessons to me once, and only once. Sometimes I might question them about something to guide them or open their minds to other perspectives about, as an example, a character in history. I might notice nuances my child hasn’t, and I think it’s beneficial to offer guidance or ideas to deepen their thoughts.

Mason also said children should keep a nature journal where they draw pictures and write their observations.

She was passionate about the benefits of being outside in nature, which I also agree with – going outside, playing freely, hiking, swimming and observing the natural world are all wonderful activities. I can understand the benefits of keeping a nature journal, but it’s not something I’ve ever done with my children. I’m open to trying it though.

We’ve nearly covered all twenty principles laid out by Charlotte Mason. The next ones concern the development of a moral code, such as restraint, patience and grace, by learning from good example and sage advice rather than personal logic and reasoning (which she implied could be egotistical).

This is the realm of religion and I wouldn’t want to comment too much on it. We’ve got our children to religious habits at home when they’re little (we’ve given them the building blocks, I suppose). However, the deeper, higher understandings of the religion are best taught by specialists when the child is ready.

By specialists, you mean good examples and sages?

I suppose so, yes.

Finally, and I think I know what you’re going to say here, Mason stated that there shouldn’t be any separation between secular and religious studies; the two go hand in hand.

Absolutely. For example, science is essentially a study of the created, known universe – I can’t see there’s a point where religion leaves it or where science undermines religion. I’m not advocating an awkward preaching at every turn, but that religion is treated as a way of life rather than a mere belief.

Katie Holden

Katie is a mother of nine, none of whom have been to school. She holds a degree in Biology from Imperial College. The eldest five gained GCSEs with her before starting college at 16. She is still home educating her other children.

I want to talk about Charlotte Mason, some swear by her methodology – have you used any of her philosophy in your home-educating journey?

I didn’t know anything about Charlotte Mason when I started home-schooling, by the time I’d heard of her I had found my groove. By the time I researched her, I didn’t want to change my formula.

You wouldn’t recommend her to other home-schoolers?

I’d recommend, as with other philosophies, that her ideas are worth researching and reflecting on – especially if you haven’t found your personal formula. It’s good to look at different ideas and methods, then take what’s useful and ditch the twaddle.

Twaddle is a word that pops up a lot around Charlotte Mason.

It is a wonderful word. If we get another cat I’d like to call it Twaddle just so I can say it more often. Charlotte was dead set against twaddle, by which she meant unliterary books and low-quality educational fodder. She was a firm believer in excellence. One of her twenty principles was that parents should provide an education akin to a fine banquet of nourishing foods that would feed their minds, souls and bodies.

Define excellence

Mason’s curriculum has elements of Classical Education in it, such as the study of music, art, poetry, biology and languages. However, she advocated children learning in nature and the real world rather than the artificial space of a classroom filled with dull textbooks. She also recognised the superiority of lessons learned in connection to an emotional or positive experience, an in-depth and engaging study of a subject or person, or a practical experience in the real world.

I can understand why she’s popular with home-educators who want a bit of unschooling as well as high academic standards. I also know your children read twaddle.

Yes, they do. They like twaddle; it gets them reading independently for fun. I’d rather have well-thumbed twaddle scattered around the house than a library of classics my children avoid.

What do you like best about Charlotte Mason?

I think many educationalists and parents will have hit on the same universal truths she did. Conveniently, for us, she encapsulates them in her writing. She understood that when children are engaged, they’ll absorb, that time in nature is important and education should be holistic; every aspect of their beings should be stimulated by rich and varied experiences.

Why is Charlotte Mason’s work still so popular?

Many reasons, one being that she wrote about home-education rather than devising a system for schools – which makes her a natural choice for home-schoolers. Secondly, she was a devout Christian and many of her adherents are Christians who, like her, believe there shouldn’t be a division between secular and religious subjects. There are Muslims who use Charlotte Mason too. She believed all subjects return to God and should strengthen the student’s relationship with Him.

When you’re home-educating it can be a relief to find a method or curriculum that takes some of the thinking, philosophising, experimenting and creating off your shoulders – there are so many Charlotte Mason based resources, it’s unsurprising she remains popular.

Although some of her critics accuse her of being vague and she tried to refute this with her twenty principles, I personally find the fact she gives broad ideas to follow rather than prescriptive commands is a strength of her philosophy. If you delve into the Charlotte Mason tribe, you’ll discover a host of techniques, styles, books, podcasts, clips and curricula produced by modern authors. Some of it’s even free.

I think another reason for her popularity is that she wanted excellence from children, but didn’t approve of ‘dry’ teaching methods. She wanted children engaged and enthused, active, outside, flexing their creative muscles and emotionally connected to their educations. I think most parents want that for their children, especially those dissatisfied by modern, mainstream schooling.

What criticisms do you personally have of Charlotte Mason’s philosophy?

When she was writing the education system and job market were completely different to the ones we are raising our children in today. She might have looked on modern textbooks as twaddle, and modern-day followers of her system may find GCSE syllabi unengaging, but I’d argue they’re necessary if you want your children to do any nationally recognised qualifications, such as GCSEs. I’d also argue that having GCSEs opens up so many options for young people, that it’s better for them to have them in the long run.

Her writing, while beautiful, is very dated and she was absolutely writing for the British, Victorian middle class. Considering what England was up to at the time and what it was like for most of its subjects, that may make her work uncomfortable reading for some.

I thought she wanted all children to have a good education?

Even in Mason’s lifetime, her work was out of reach for most children. It’s hard to keep a nature journal if you’re working in a coal mine for twelve hours a day, living in a slum or trapped in a workhouse.

When you get off your Marxist soapbox, can you name other ways her writing has dated?

Nowadays we know a lot more about child development than before. For example, Mason writes about the formation of good habits being fundamental to children’s learning, which I do agree with. However, she gives an example of a very young child disobeying his mother in a small way, which Mason suggests is because she is weak and doting and has failed to instil good habits in him. In all honesty, young children will push their boundaries which is just a natural stage of development; it’s something every mother will encounter repeatedly if their children are anywhere close to normal and not a sign of dire parental folly. If your child eats sugar (the example Mason used) then hide the sugar, don’t cut yourself up needlessly about his/her educational habits or the poor atmosphere you’re providing.

Of course, she couldn’t possibly have taken into account how different the modern world is from hers. For me, this means her methods can only be taken as a rough guide and they need to be adapted by modern educators and parents for use today. We just can’t turn the clock back and raise our children in historical bubbles.

You’ve mentioned her Twenty Principles. What are they exactly?

Mason published a list of principles underpinning her ideas and advice for parents towards the end of her life. They’re a good starting point for anyone wanting to understand Charlotte Mason’s philosophy, but she wrote a huge amount (think great tomes filled with ideas and observations) and it’s impossible to summarise it all in a few bullet points.

Can you briefly outline a few that you agree with and would advise others to reflect on?

I’d urge anyone who’s interested to read into her philosophy, do some research and decide for themselves what would work for them, what they agree with and what they really don’t want to incorporate into their lives.

That’s a cop out answer.

No, it’s treating people like adults who can think for themselves.

You don’t know enough to give a straight, detailed answer, do you?

No.

Katie Holden

Waldorf Steiner – who was he?

Rudolf Steiner was an educational philosopher who was sponsored by the Waldorf factory (which made cigarettes) to design a school for their workers’ children. He came up with an alternative educational system which continues to inspire, with some home-educators applying it in their homes.

The guy wasn’t called Waldorf?

No, it’s an easy mistake to make. He was Rudolf – as in the reindeer.

What is at the core of Steiner education?

At a cursory glance it is another school-based system which recognises children should be given time to play and explore, encouraged to be creative and taught through things they naturally love – such as storytelling, art and movement. However, if you probe more deeply, the education is just one aspect of a quasi-religion Steiner invented called anthroposophy.

Is it fair to say that Steiner was another educationalist who discovered children do best if they can play and be children instead of being forced to behave like trainee accountants from pre-school onwards?

Absolutely. The common thread running through most alternative education systems seems to be they advocate for children learning through play and exploration rather than books. It’s deeply concerning to me that this is now ‘alternative’ rather than an accepted norm. Like others, Steiner realised children should be educated holistically and he was against standardised testing. Another concept of his I like is that children keep the same teacher for years rather than months, allowing them to develop a closer relationship – which is something I enjoy home-schooling my children.

However, unlike other educationalists, Steiner didn’t restrict himself to education, his philosophy extended to spiritual beliefs, astrology and fields such as social Darwinism. His work has a very uncomfortable feel for me personally and I’m sure it’s the same for others. I suspect this is why Steiner schools aren’t nearly as popular or common as Montessori schools – while there are a few Montessori schools within driving distance of my house, there aren’t any Steiner schools, for example.

What do critics of the Steiner system dislike most?

There’s a spectrum of opinions out there. The most difficult for me to read was a blog by a man who’d been through the Steiner schooling system and who considers it cultish. He elucidated how his education had left him angry, depressed and brainwashed; it’s taken him years to overcome its legacy. On an equally terrifying note, is Steiner’s quasi religion (anthroposophy) which contains horrifically racist views and some strange ideas on spirituality that put my teeth on edge.

Have you known anyone who’s used Steiner?

I’ve met some people who went to Steiner schools, one who trained as a Steiner teacher, as well as home-educators who’ve incorporated some of his techniques into their home-schooling.

How did it go for them?

The people who went to Steiner schools were only there for their primary years and they reported it was a fun experience. I found them nice, friendly, open and balanced. The Steiner teacher and home-educators didn’t seem to know anything about Anthroposophy; they’d picked up on a few good ideas which worked for them and hadn’t delved deeper.

In other words, they’d taken the good bits and left the bad bits?

I suppose, but having investigated the system, I wouldn’t want to incorporate it into my home-schooling. If anything I’m doing resembles Steiner, it’s a coincidence and nothing more.

Katie Holden

I want to talk about Maria Montessori because Montessori is a popular alternative education which some home-educators use. Have you ever studied her work and has it had a place in your home-schooling?

I know a little about her methodology as some of my children went to a Montessori nursery when they were little. The one school I’ve ever fallen in love with was a Montessori school – it had a wonderful, organic feel and the kids had lots of time in nature and time to play. If we’d had the resources, we’d have seriously considered putting our children in that school.

So, you’re a fan?

There are some things I really like about the Montessori approach. She and her colleagues observed children in a scientific, logical way and developed a system and tools to facilitate their learning in something approaching a holistic, empathic manner. I think she wanted to understand children and work with them rather than overpower them.

What aspects of her methodology have you used?

A couple of her observations have helped me over the years. One was that children go through sensitive periods of learning and it’s best to wait for them to happen and then run with it, rather than pushing children to learn before they’re ready. This is why I’ve never made my children learn letters or reading when they’re little, but have left them to play and waited until their brains were ready.

Another observation she made, along with other educationalists such as Charlotte Mason and John Holt, is that children naturally want to learn – educators shouldn’t need to fight children or bully them to learn as it’s an innate drive. If we do it properly, we can work with our children and not battle against them.

The modern, mainstream education system doesn’t take either of those into account, does it? It seems like educationalists spend a lot of time trying to make children learn, either through rewards or punishments. And all children are expected to learn according to National Curriculum guidelines.

Absolutely. I’ve observed some of my own children were far behind their friends in school, until they hit a sensitive period and then they caught up and often overtook the children who had, I think, been prematurely pushed. I’m convinced that a lot of the rebellion and reluctance young people have for structured learning, and their resentment of authority, is due to them being pushed too hard, too young, in the wrong ways.

Did all your children catch up after they’d fallen behind?

Some of my children have special needs (dyslexia, dysgraphia and/or dyscalculia) and they will never be as fluent as other people without those issues.

Have you ever had a child who just hasn’t wanted to learn, a refuser who’s needed a push to get them going?

My children sometimes need to be told that it’s now time to sit down and do some bookwork – it’s natural that they’ll want to push their boundaries. In the same way they might not want to brush their teeth or change their socks. A bit of structure and direction (in my view) are beneficial. Just as clean teeth and socks are good, so is doing some maths.

However, where a child has persistently shown deep, insurmountable dislike of a subject or lesson, then we’ll listen.

Why haven’t you adopted Montessori wholeheartedly in your home-education?

Maria Montessori and her colleagues began working with children in an asylum. Later, she opened a school for children in a neighbourhood when their parents were working; the children were running wild and needed controlling. The point is that she was designing a system for children in an institution, a school, without their parents around. Her system is not designed for children at home with a parent.

How so?

For starters, the learning space is important in Montessori. It needs to be calm, neat, organised; a space where certain rules are followed and children’s behaviour is controlled – this is normal for a school where the purpose of the whole building is children learning, but it wouldn’t work in my home, which is not a school. With so many of us in the house, all with our own lives, hobbies, pets and work to do, it isn’t realistic to have a ‘school space’ set aside for Montessori activities only where the rules and atmosphere are different from the rest of the home. I haven’t ever aimed to control my children to the degree children are controlled in school (that’s partly why I’m home-schooling) and I definitely don’t want to turn my home into a mini-Montessori school.

The apparatus Montessori designed for children to manipulate and learn through need to be used in a specific way and Montessori teachers are trained to facilitate that. I’m a mother at home, not a Montessorian; I haven’t been properly trained in her methodology.

Additionally, when my children went to the Montessori nursery, I found the rules around children’s behaviour, learning and handling equipment, could verge on dogma and that isn’t what I want. Finally, the equipment (while very clever) is generally expensive to buy or time-consuming to make and it takes up space.

At this point, I have to question if your children would be better in school, where they’d have trained teachers, designated learning space and the proper equipment?

Well, if you want your children to go to a Montessori school then that’s fine by me. But I am a home-educator and I’m not trying to replicate any school in my home, including Montessori; that isn’t what I’m about. I’m not looking at schools, even alternative ones, with the eyes of longing and regret.

How did your children do in the Montessori nursery?

It was a mixed bag, though overall it was good for them for a while. I put some of them into nursery when I was certain they had needs I couldn’t fulfil at home. An example is that my first son went to nursery to play with children his age when his younger brother was a baby.

Can you give an example of a Montessorian principle you disagree with and explain why?

Well, one is the idea that young children can’t differentiate between fact and fiction, so they should only have books and stories grounded in reality. However, I’ve observed my children (even at a young age) love fictional stories and they quickly learn to differentiate between fantasy and fact. A child who reads Peter Rabbit, for example, doesn’t expect rabbits to hop around the countryside in little blue jackets and drink chamomile tea from little rabbit sized tea cups. Children like fiction as it is fun and stimulates imagination.

I also found that certain principles, which make sense if you want a calm, quiet, learning space for a class, aren’t ideal for individual children all the time. Children in a Montessori class might be stopped playing a make-believe game with maths equipment, for example. I’d prefer my children mostly be left alone to explore freely and play. But, if you’ve got a class of children, all working in the same space, the smooth running of the group and control necessarily take priority.

Any last thoughts about Montessori and home-schooling?

As with everything else, the best person to ask is going to be someone who is both successful and experienced; a Montessori home-schooler who’s got tangible results and has made it work for years. I’m not that person!

Katie Holden

You’re a home-educator. What is education in your opinion?

What do you think it is?

I hate it when you answer a question with a question! But I suppose the main purpose of education is to gain skills and qualifications.

You mean skills like reading and writing, and qualifications like GCSEs?

Exactly that. Skills you need for life and qualifications to give you options in the workplace.

Can someone be educated but not have any qualifications?

I suppose they can, but they’d have a job proving it in this society today. Being good at maths isn’t likely to get you a job in accountancy, but having a qualification in maths might begin to open that door.

Qualifications aren’t a new thing, it was the same in times past. The Islamic system of ijazas dates back hundreds of years, for example, while in Britain there was a tradition of apprenticeships and guilds to acquire a trade, then monasteries and universities were centres of book learning. In ancient Greece, philosophy was a pillar of life – Plato was sold into slavery (albeit briefly) and Socrates was a soldier, yet their work is studied by the most educated academics today. There hasn’t always been school for every child, but the tradition of learning and becoming educated is ancient.

If you look at the government’s agendas for education (invariably acquiring skills and qualifications) it seems there’s a clear advantage to school over home-education. Children in school spend years preparing for GCSEs, they have specialist teachers, the equipment they need, their exams are free and the whole system is designed to get them qualifications.

Yes, in a way schools can be looked at as exam factories where every child moves along the same conveyor belt of lessons and exams until they get jobs. However, home-educated children can still gain qualifications, while some children leave school after eleven years without qualifications, and I am certain there is more to education than basic skills and certificates.

Like what?

I suppose education also prepares children for adulthood. It teaches them how to live in society, how to go to a shop to buy food, or how manage money and pay bills, how to talk to others, how to make sensible decisions and how to negotiate issues.

And that’s part of your home-schooling?

Absolutely. There is a lot of educational value in normal, day-to-day life. Simple things, like a trip to a shop can be part and parcel of home-schooling. You can talk to your children about your life and explain why you’re making certain choices, so they’re better prepared to traverse life when they are independent adults.

Come on! That’s ridiculous. Going shopping isn’t education!

It’s not ridiculous. For children, especially young children who don’t know the norms and behavioural expectations of society, a trip to a shop where they get to watch people interacting normally is a necessary learning experience. Though I have to admit it would be odd if I tried to convince the Local Authority that taking my fifteen-year-old to buy bread in Aldi was an educational experience, I’d argue it was educational when she was five.

Surely children in school are learning basic skills too?

A common argument home-educators use against schooling is that it’s literally teaching children how to behave in school but not in the ‘real world’. The onus of teaching children how to behave in the real world falls on parents’ shoulders, even if they go to school full time. Home schoolers have an advantage as their children can spend more time in the ‘real world’ rather than cooped up in a classroom learning to be school children.

What else, aside from life skills, does an educated person have?

I think one advantage an educated person has, is clarity. They’ll understand things they wouldn’t have understood before.

Can I have an example?

Sure. Imagine someone goes to a football match and they don’t know anything about football. Nothing. They’ll just sit there and watch people running around, apparently kicking the ball randomly or just standing around at one end of the field waiting for someone to kick the ball straight at them. It wouldn’t make sense.

However, if the same person is taught there are two teams, both trying to score goals by kicking the ball into the net, and the goalie’s job is to stop that happening – well suddenly the person understands what’s happening. They have clarity.

Now, apply that to everything – from archery to zoology – the more educated you are the more understanding you’ll have about the world. The world will make more sense.

Anything else?

Well, I’d say that education gives you depth, it makes life more interesting and fun. It increases your enjoyment and satisfaction in life.

How is this different from your point about clarity?

If we return to the football analogy… Understanding the purpose of a football game is one thing, but to deeply enjoy football and to fully appreciate moments of brilliance and excellence, to get immersed in the game, you need to know football. A true fan of the game will know its history, rules, tactics, skills etc. They’ll be educated in the beautiful game.

If you go through life becoming more educated, you’ll find you enjoy things with more depth – whether that’s watching an anthill, climbing a hill yourself, reading a poem or appreciating art.

Is perspective another aspect of education?

What do you mean?

I mean that if the definition of education and its benefits go beyond functional skills and certificates, then educated people will be less vulnerable to manipulation. They have a broader perspective of life, they will be able to think independently to work things out for themselves.

I think you’re right. There’s a saying that for a man who always eats at home, his mother’s the only cook. It means that if you don’t expand your horizons then you’ll never really grow up, you’ll never try new things or taste the fruits of exploring the world but will remain a dependent child.

A huge complaint about the current state of society is that people have become very cut and dried in their thinking, they can’t hear or tolerate other opinions without attacking or trying to shout the other side down, and they certainly can’t adapt, change or compromise – even when they’re wrong.

100%. The more you know, the more nuanced the world becomes, the more aware you become of your own ignorance but also the more confident you are in any opinions you hold that are rooted in facts and that you’ve reflected long and hard over. It’s much easier to sway and control an uneducated person, whether they’re up to their eyeballs in qualifications or not. If you are trained in critical thinking, then you won’t passively accept any rubbish you hear, and you’ll be more confident about your own opinions as you should have thought about them from all angles.

Education is the work of a life-time then, we can all become more educated throughout our lives and it goes much, much deeper than mere schooling.

Absolutely. Everyone can become educated, whether they’re in school or not and regardless of their age.

Katie Holden

A while ago I read an article on the BBC about a home-educated kid who seemed to spend most of his life playing computer games or watching TV; what do you have to say about that?

I’d say that too many children whose parents take them out of school to be home-educated nowadays aren’t passionate about home-educating their children or they don’t have the necessary time to devote to it – they don’t want their kids in school, but they don’t really want to home-school either. It’s the fault of the education system and the government, not of home-schooling.

So, do your children spend their time playing computer games and watching TV?

Quite the opposite. When I started home-schooling, I was very strict about having no screens; my eldest children didn’t watch anything, they didn’t play computer games, they didn’t use the internet and they didn’t have mobile phones.

Oh, my giddy, podcasting, google-addicted aunt. That’s horrific.

Thank you for your feedback. You aren’t the first to react like that.

I’m not surprised. Have they ever recovered from the trauma? Did they have any friends? How did they learn about anything?

Books. Going out. Museums. Activity days. Conversations. Home-schooling activities and meets. After-school clubs. Lessons. Playing games. Role-playing. Meeting friends. Keeping pets. Gardening. Hiking. Sports. Audiobooks. You know; the numerous and varied ways children can learn without being addicted to lights flashing on a flat screen.

Isn’t it a form of social abuse, to deprive children of screen time?

As a society, we’ve only just begun the conversation about screens in childhood; the jury is still out about what is the ‘right’ amount of screen time and what ‘good’ screen time is and as parents we can only do what we feel is right for our families.

Surely there’s room for balance though? There are excellent resources online, like…

You’re going to say nature documentaries, aren’t you?

I was. How did you know?

Whenever anyone wants to sell the idea of screens, they bring up nature documentaries. I must mention, that I do now use screens in home-schooling and my younger children do watch DVDs (including nature documentaries, you’ll be happy to hear), YouTube, and they play the odd computer game.

Phew. Why did you change? A guilty conscience? A sudden attack of sanity?

Neither. It was a mixture of things. Firstly, as my eldest children grew up they needed phones – they were heavily into road cycling and I wanted them to be able to call if they needed help. As their educations moved away from play, activities and exploring, to studying and exams, the internet became an invaluable resource that I’d have been a fool to ignore. When they started college, they needed the internet to take part in lessons. And, finally, they wanted to watch films, sports, podcasts, documentaries etc. and some of them wanted to play games online; I couldn’t control their choices when they were adults.

So, you didn’t have a choice?

No, not really. Of course, once my younger children saw their older siblings with screens, they joined in and I couldn’t stop it. But, in all honesty, I wouldn’t want to go back to having no screen time at all.

Another home-schooling U-turn?

Absolutely. What we do now is have restricted screen time and I think my children have benefitted from it.

Do you have TV?

No, we don’t have a TV license because we don’t need one, and we don’t have Netflix, Disney Channel or whatever else it is people watch now there are more than four channels and TVs can be hung on the wall.

Computer games?

Only educational ones for my younger children, where there is some benefit – like Typer Island, Word Shark or Typing of the Dead.

DVDs?

Yes, educational ones, clean films and cartoons. When they do watch DVDs, I make sure it’s a social event – so we’ll all sit and watch together. I want watching a DVD to feel like a treat rather than being routine; something they take for granted.

The internet?

Yes, for education. My children have watched Shakespearian plays online, or clips for their GCSEs, as examples. They like playing chess on chess.com. Also, they need to be able to use emails, Office etc. and some of them have taken courses online.

How do your older children feel about their screen-free years?

Their years in a cultural and social void of my making, you mean? Their abnormal childhoods of digital poverty?

Yes.

One son has kept it up. He does his own thing and is not afraid to stand out. Another does, in my opinion, watch too many TikToks and the like, although social media has helped him strengthen his relationships with his close friends who live in other cities – so that’s been a positive. My older daughters have a lot of self-control and only use the internet for learning – which is their decision. I know my eldest sons stood out when they started college, and I wouldn’t want my younger children to repeat that experience, so I’d give them smartphones when they are 16, but I’d want them to leave them downstairs and switch them off most of the time.

Do they have anything good to say about their screen-free years?

Surprisingly; yes. As they’ve moved through life, they’ve realised that their peers who had unrestricted access to screens aren’t better off – the reverse. They do recognise that having hobbies and being active are better than wasting years in the rabbit hole of screens. The lure of screen-addiction is always there, but it’s infinitely stronger for children who were raised with daily screen time.

One final question – would you recommend other parents give their children screens or not?

I’d say, as I say with just about everything else, it has got to be a personal judgement call and something every family has to reflect on and decide for themselves. I’ve seen so many cases now where older children have rebelled against very strict parenting, perhaps resenting parents whose favourite word was “no”. Especially if the child felt isolated from their peers as a result. By having a large family, my children’s social needs were largely taken care of at home and we managed to build a network of like-minded parents so they didn’t stand out, but if my children had gone to school, or if I’d had fewer children, I probably would have given them screens to help them make friends and fit in.

Katie Holden

Charlotte Mason 2

Charlotte Mason 2

Charlotte Mason

Charlotte Mason

Steiner

Steiner

Montessori

Montessori

Purpose of Education

Purpose of Education

Screen Time

Screen Time

Subscribe to our mailing list