The Menu & the Kitchen
Just because it’s not on the menu, doesn’t mean the ingredients are not in the kitchen (or on the farm…)
When trying to explain the process of self-directed education (SDE), I like to use the metaphor of a menu and a kitchen.
For most of their lives, children are given a menu that has been generated by others; on the menu of their lives, there might be different chores, classes, activities, projects, camps, sports, and museum visits.
Children who live in trying circumstances, or attend an oppressive school, might be given a very limited menu, with few choices. Children who have more privilege or attend a progressive school can be lucky enough to receive a large, full menu brimming over with options.
In both cases, whether limited or full, it’s still a menu: a menu designed by others, mostly adults and often by adults from a far-off time or place.
The menu, even when brimming with options, reflects many outdated and unchallenged assumptions and practices that society holds about children: about what, when, how and with whom they should learn, what they should do in their free time, how they should be assessed and what they should aspire to.
The menu does not reflect the multiplicity of ingredients available in the kitchen, let alone on the farm – the choices young people might make about their lives if allowed to look beyond what they are offered when school is the gravitational force at the center of their universe. And yet beyond the school’s physical walls, and the mental walls that have led to “schoolish thinking” about young people and education, lie countless and untapped opportunities to learn and live. (On the idea of “schoolishness” see Akilah Richards, who has developed the concept in her wide body of work on unschooling: see her podcast Fare of the Free Child, her book Raising Free people, and her website schoolishness.com).
Rather than choose from a preset menu, SDE allows young people to sneak into the kitchen and onto the farm and explore, touch and taste, grow their own food, make new recipes, and re-imagine the menu entirely…
The call for diversity is muted when it comes to children
Isn’t it surprising that as society we place great value on deepening our discussions and practices around diversity in so many areas, yet we deny diversity in one of the most important populations – children?
An enormous number of schools claim interest in the individual and cultivating the “whole child,” and that may often be their true intention. As a former teacher myself I know that teachers are deeply devoted to this idea. They spend inordinate amounts of time trying to know, care for and respect their students, as well as exploring ways to allow them to express their diverse selves. That was a central core of my work as an educator, and it was a deeply meaningful and transformational experience for me.
But even “progressive” schools follow the same pattern as more conventional schools, following the 7 “sames”: children must learn the same topics, at the same time, in the same way, at the same place, from the same teachers and with only same age peers. We persist in this approach although it has repeatedly proven to be an ineffective, counterproductive or even detrimental to the learning process and well being of young people.
And when we encounter struggles, student loss of interest, challenges in the classroom, we try to diagnose, “fix” or medicate children so they can conform to a narrow understanding of what learning can be, rather than addressing the root causes: recognizing that schools are fundamentally structured in such a way that the space within which children can explore or express their individuality is constrained. As long as the 7 “sames” persist as the core of educational drive, our ability even to explore what “embracing the whole child” means will be limited.
SDE takes seriously the fact that children are all diverse – not only diverse in their personalities or preferences but diverse as learners. We believe that there is no one way to learn, that children’s bodies were not all meant to sit still in a confined space for hours at a time, within one institution and learn only with one slice of their beings, their “academic” minds. SDE approaches learning as something that happens in the head, with the hands and body, in the heart and spirit, and within (rather than separated from) the community.
The Menu and the Kitchen: School and SDE version
Pursuing the menu-kitchen metaphor further, we can imagine how a group of children would go about making their own menu – exploring different foods and food sources, experimenting with recipes, and collaborating on a variety of menus.
First imagine children in a school learning about the menu. Together they might all read about the different ingredients in each dish, learn something about various cooking methods, and practice how to make the given recipes. Some would be distracted, others skillful but uninterested, others excited and passionately engaged. Regardless of which part of the process each was drawn to or enjoyed, they would all learn the same things in the same way and experiment only with the same pre-set menu.
In contrast, imagine how six different children might approach the re-creation of the menu in an SDE setting.
The first child loves the feeling of touching vegetables and only wants to chop, chop, chop, day in and day out. They are uninterested in fashioning a recipe;
The second is fascinated with the art of recipe-creation and wants to explore how different flavors work together;
The third wants to organize the kitchen and lead the cooking process;
The fourth is drawn to farming; they want to learn how food grows and discover the best ingredients and sustainable farm practices;
The fifth prefers to study the physics and chemistry of cooking;
The sixth explores the ways that different cultures approach food and wants to bring a variety of tastes and cooking methods to the kitchen.
The seventh is passionate about food justice and wants to imagine how the group can share their food with the those in need in their community.
In this case, it is likely that all of the children will be excited and engaged, feel accomplished in what they do, propelled to do more learning, become naturally interested in the work of others once they realize it is intimately tied to their own, and work together to support each other toward the shared goal.
In order to collaborate and devise a brilliant menu, one that not only has great tasting dishes but is richly inspired by different cultures and methods of cooking, each child does not necessarily have to devote equal energy to each of these tasks. And if each child did what they were drawn to and were good at, what would the process of working and learning together feel like, what recipes would end up on menu, and what would the food taste like?
In SDE spaces, we try and find out…
Won’t they be “left behind” if they only do what they are drawn to?
One legitimate concern that parents often have when they hear about this kind of approach, which considers learning outside school and the pre-set curriculum, is that their child will be “left behind.” The fear is that if children do “only what they are interested in” and do not cover each of the subjects that schools have identified as necessary they will miss out on the fundamental building blocks of knowledge. And if they miss out on those fundamentals, how will they graduate high school, go to college, earn a living, thrive in life?
Proponents of SDE have many answers to these questions! Check out our resources page for some of these, and I’ll be posting more articles soon with some of my responses.
The point relevant to this discussion is that alongside questions about being “left behind” are questions about what children are left “without” when they learn within the limits of a conventional, preset menu.
In order to discover what young people might be left without, we ask questions such as:
Who determined what is on the menu – the list of subjects that schools have determined students should learn – and when was this menu devised? Has the menu evolved according to the needs of very diverse young people facing the particular challenges of the 21st century where many believe that what they need most are skills such as radical creativity and adaptability, empathy, a collaborative spirit, the ability to hold ambiguity, an understanding about their role in nature and the environment? What are they left without when their menu excludes so many topics, experiences, embodied forms of knowledge, life skills that might help them engage with their community and find meaning and purpose and a resilience needed to face challenges ahead?
Who determined which ingredients go into each dish – the sources and information that are on each syllabus? Do these sources come only from one particular historical tradition or culture, are they culturally responsive and inclusive? What sources, knowledge systems and wisdoms have been left off the menu, leaving children without a broad understanding of their world and themselves?
Which individuals have been chosen to convey what’s on the menu, and when and how did it come to be that we consider only some people (school teachers) capable of imparting the basics necessary for children, excluding the massive amount of life learning, wisdom and skills that can be transmitted through mentors within families, communities and across ages and generations? What are children left without when they lose access to the myriad educators in their communities?
Who determined how the recipes are made – which methods of teaching are offered? Have these adapted to our continually evolving understanding about the learning mind, heart and body, to children’s diverse ways of learning, the role of technology in children’s lives and the future they face? What are children left without when they are not allowed the autonomy to choose their own learning paths, various ways to explore their interests, their own learning pace, and which mentors to learn from?
I’ve been an educator my whole life and I know that teachers are on the front lines, supporting, caring for and sometimes literally saving the lives of young people. My own experience as a teacher for over 30 years has led to the most beautiful and profound connections, creativity and inspiration.
But teachers are also given a menu, and little choice over whether they think it’s the best menu to offer children. They are sometimes allowed to be creative in terms of how they design the menu, change the offerings around, and focus on the needs of individual children. But the menu is preset, and they too are restricted by the structure of schooling.
While school offers many things, and as a society we have not yet created an alternative to it that is viable for working parents, it might be helpful at least to be mindful that the choices children are given through school (and the social norms that are deeply influenced by a school-based approach to life, learning, socializing and out of school activities) are a menu rather than the totality of what is available in a child’s learning journey: one that includes some interesting and valuable offerings but was devised a long time ago, to fit a different time, and, as many historians of education have shown, was at its inception guided by the goal of limiting and controlling as well as expanding the learning and life experiences of young people.
If we recognize the menu as something we can choose from but also set aside, we might allow our children to explore a host of topics, ideas, knowledge systems and experiences that are ‘off’ the menu but might suit their bodies and spirits, their communities and the planet, and help them thrive. Children today are overloaded with schoolwork, overscheduled with after school activities, overwhelmed by social pressures, and highly restricted in the choices they are allowed to make for themselves. The risk of being “left behind” from one or two topics that they will likely forget after school and never use in their future might present less of a peril than being left without experiences and learning opportunities that can offer them a life raft of passion and meaningful pursuits to escort them into their future.