If we lived elsewhere, we might not homeschool. But we live where we do: Montgomery County, Maryland. The picture is from a brand new (very expensive) public library that recently opened. The section of the library in the photo (beginning at the carpet pattern change) was supposedly made and designed for children. We live in a county in which decisions are made and money is spent in such a way that the “artwork” above is the end result. Next to the children’s section. Of a public space. As one of the members of the book group I sometimes attend recently summarized: “This art work draws you in while it simultaneously rejects you.” Which is an apt metaphor for this county as a whole.
My first response to this question is usually a firmly wish-washy: not really. When I am asked this question (as I often am these days), it makes me recall a conversation I had in the pediatrician’s office on a visit with a newborn A. When it came to the “do you have any questions time,” I said sheepishly, as if the grey-haired woman sitting across from me was my confessor rather than a medical doctor, “we don’t really have a ‘routine.'” Her response was, “You probably do, you just don’t know it.” In other words: don’t worry about it. I would be wise to have the same response to this issue of a schedule these days: don’t worry about it. But, I’m not wise.
But, in truth, we really do have a homeschool routine, we just don’t always realize it and it’s not really based around subject areas the way a more traditional classroom is. In fact, it’s not based around subject areas at all. It’s based, in part, around Eric’s work schedule. It’s also based around the girls’ “extracurricular” schedules which right now include rehearsals for the Christmas play “Angel Alert” which our parish is putting on, their “Little Flowers” meetings (which is a little like Girls Scouts and a little like informal play dates), and their music lessons. But it’s also based on the mass schedule at our church, which affords 9 yo A and I two daily masses a week and 6 yo Z one a week, and also 19 mo M’s daily naps. Other times of the year, they might also have sports practices and games.
So, yes, we have a routine and schedule when it comes to activities that involve other people, but, by and large, their “academic”/ subject-based learning is directed by what their own interests and skill levels are. For a short period of time this year (maybe six weeks?), we tried to follow a more structured academic schedule but it felt like all the down-sides of school (externally directed structure and control) without any of the upsides (socializing with peer and easy access to resources).
So, yeah, we have a schedule and a routine. We just don’t realize it.
Earlier this week, we had to run an errand to an art store to pick up a mat for a picture we wanted to hang up. While we were there, (6 yo) Z found some plasticine that she decided to buy with her allowance money. On the drive home, she noticed a note on the box mentioning a stop motion app that can be used to make animated movies.
Over the next two days, Z and (9 yo) A worked together to make two stop motion movies. Above is a picture of them working. And learning. They are basically the Wachowski sisters.
Other than periodically offering advice, pointing out resources, or troubleshooting a tiny bit (it was the first time they had heard of “green screen” and so I helped them figure out how to create a green backdrop), Eric and I had very little to do with their process and their end products, which are charming and delightful, unlike the photograph that I took of them working above. Which brings me to the title of this blog post. Authentic, good, real work, learning, and play make for really bad photographs. They aren’t looking at the camera. If I had asked them to, I would have disrupted their flow. In fact, they didn’t even know I had taken any pictures until they saw them later on. The composition is a mess in this picture. They lighting is a disaster because they were trying to light the claymation figures and had I tried to light them, it would have created shadows on what they were doing. There’s no real “subject” at the center and it’s impossible to tell where the viewer is supposed to be looking. In short, this photographer is very much not one of the Wachowski sisters. But maybe this is a picture that their mother would have taken of them working?
So part of the point is this: I’m wary of any institutions of learning that use high-gloss, well composed, beautiful pictures that claim to show students (or anyone) learning or working. But also: we aren’t trying to sell you anything here at this blog or trying to sell you on anything. Yes, we do homeschool our children and we have spent a lot of time figuring out how to do this successfully and we’ve found some resources and ideas and ways of thinking about it that are helpful. And we’d like to share some of those here. But we don’t necessarily think that homeschooling is for everyone in every context. It’s not a cure-all.
In short: it ain’t pretty, but it sure can be beautiful.