Anything School Can Do You Can Do Better Marie Mullarney Marie Mullarney taught all eleven of her children at home until they were eight or nine. Neither she, nor her husband had any teaching experience when they began but, influenced by the writings of Maria Montessori, they and their children discovered the delights and rewards of learning at home. This book is not only a unique and charming record of the early learning experiences, achievements and later careers of Marie Mullarney’s own children; she also gives practical advice on the methods, books and aids which worked for her so that other parents can teach their children at home. ‘Her book should be an inspiration to all parents’ – Irish Independent ‘Essential reading for all those contemplating new parenthood.’ – Irish Times Acknowledgements To offer thanks or acknowledgement to Sean, my husband would be rather like thanking myself. Naturally, without him there would not have been any children to take part in our unintentional experiment. More important in the context of this book, it was he who found the book by Professor Culverwell on which the whole affair depended, he, too, who made the geometrical insets, the ‘long stairs’ and much else. If the word ‘we’ in the early chapters becomes ‘I’ later on, it is because he was so much engaged in sustaining the whole enterprise that he had to miss much of the fun of ‘lessons’. My first thanks, then, to the half-dozen publishers who said such amiable things; about the first draft of the book, but sent it back again. But for them, and for Nuala Fennell, who put me in touch with Arlen House, I would not have had the satisfying experience of working with and for a team of Irishwomen who understood me, and whom I understood. Second thanks, then, to my constructive editors, Terry Prone and Janet Martin, and to directors Catherine Rose and Dr Margaret MacCurtain, OP. The latter had nothing directly to do with this book, and will be surprised to find herself here, but a brilliant lecture of hers on children and mathematics, given maybe fifteen years ago, did a great deal to give me confidence. Marie Mullarney, Dublin 1983. Introduction In the late 1940s, when our family began, ‘early cognitive learning’ was not supposed to be possible. It was taken for granted that real learning happened-in school, and that school was a good thing; the more of it everyone could get, the better. Now, in the early 1980s, many people, though not all, have come to change their minds radically on both questions. It happens that our experience cuts across both trends. Our children began to learn early, and they learnt at home, not at school, until the age of eight or nine. Now that the youngest of our eleven children has just finished school, it seems that the learning they did in those few years at home has been much more relevant to their later careers than anything they did in primary school. As for post- primary school, some gained some benefit, when they were lucky enough to meet a good teacher with a small class; two at least were harmed; on the whole, the experience was irrelevant. The first part of this book tells about the early learning; how it was prompted, and a general survey of how we all went about it. Anyone who wants to make use of our experience will find more detail in the chapter called Resources, towards the end. The next section gives a short account of each of the children, just to tie up the beginnings with their life after school. It might be easier to keep track of the people moving through the first story if you turn to these chapters if confused. Then comes ‘The Debate about Reading’ with a chapter to itself. This is a subject, which, in the English-speaking world, generates vast amounts of argument. There are those who think reading is too delicate a matter for parents to meddle in and there are others who think that parents should be enlisted to help the school. There are those who think it should be taught in kindergarten, and others who vehemently disagree. I have just come across this judgment, made in 1970 by Dr Hans Furth, a psychologist at the Catholic University of America, Washington, DC. Mark well these twin conditions: learn reading and forget your intellect. The average five to nine year old, from any environment, is unlikely, when busy with reading and writing, to engage his intellectual powers to any degree. Even to copy that sentence makes my blood pressure rise. And on top of the disagreement about when reading should be taught, and by whom, there are entrenched views about the best methods. We used four different methods; though each did well enough one of them seemed decidedly more satisfactory than the others; it is appropriate only to the home. In the first draft of this book I found that while I was trying to describe our experience I was also getting caught up in arguments on all fronts at once. This time round I have tried to give a straight account of the different methods in the first part of the book and keep all the arguments and references to research which I discovered later on safely shut up in a chapter of their own. Children learning at home need one or two parents at home as well. The changes in attitude towards school are small compared with the changed view of women’s role. It should be evident from the first part of the book that I found staying at home with interested children much more fun than either of the ‘jobs’ that I had had beforehand. This is a view that many women will find most unwelcome. Here I will say no more than that everything would have been quite different if I had just been minding the family, keeping them clean and fed; it was the learning together that gave rest to the days, even though it took only a little time. But this solution has so many implications that it also needs a chapter of its own-Reflections. I have just written, in the opening paragraphs, that attitudes both to school and to early learning have changed radically since the forties and fifties. There is no reason why readers should have to take this on faith. In the matter of early learning, I can produce most telling evidence from Professor J. McVicar Hunt of the University of Illinois. He was speaking to assembled psychologists when he said, in 1963: Even as late as 15 years ago, a symposium on the stimulation of early cognitive learning would have been taken as sign that the participants and members of the audience were too softheaded to be taken seriously. Now, if you go back fifteen years from 1963 you find yourself in 1948 - the very year in which we had begun to busy ourselves with showing an eight-month-old baby how to fit squares and triangles into matching spaces. There hardly seems to be any need to prove that ‘early cognitive development’ is now a focus of interest. I suspect that professor Hunt’s book Intelligence and Experience, published in 1961, may have set the ball rolling. By the 1970s millions of dollars were being invested in America in ‘Head Start’. I have read in the last few months of the most astonishing, even alarming campaigns for early stimulation being launched in Venezuela in Bulgaria in Japan and China. The Venezuelan one, at first, is based directly on the findings of the Harvard Pre-School Project, reported on by Dr Burton L. White in 1972, funded by Head Start. I have beside me Child Alive (Levin), published London in 1975, a collection of articles published in New Scientist during the previous year. Two significant sentences from preface and blurb: All the researchers agree on one thing, however: that the newborn human infant has been grossly underestimated, and that we are now beginning to learn just how wrong the old ideas were! ... Interestingly, some of these results back up the intuitive beliefs of parents, who turn out to have been responding to their own children far better than the older findings of psychology would have led them to. That school was assumed to be a good thing can be seen from the laws that compelled attendance at age five in Britain, six in the USA, seven in Finland, and efforts to make similar laws realistic in developing countries. At the same time there seems to have been a more easygoing attitude to those who avoided attendance. The great New England artist Andrew Wyeth mentions in a published conversation that as a child he was frail and never went to formal school; when he goes on to tell how his father taught him to paint he describes, it seems to me, the very ideal of education (The Two Worlds of Andrew Wyeth, Boston 1978). Nowadays the time spent on school going gets longer and longer and escape seems more difficult. John Holt’s newsletter, Growing Without Schooling, demonstrates that many parents in the USA who want to teach their children at home have to fight for the privilege. It is not surprising that while emphasis on the importance of school increases reaction against it should be more evident. It was only in 1971 that Ivan Illich wrote Dcschooling Society but three or four years later there had been enough debate on the topic to give material for a collection of papers published by the Cambridge University press under the simple title, Deschooling (see bibliography under Lister). Even more recently, in 1979, The School in Question shows that there is a more impressive convert to the counter- school movement. The author, Thorsten Husen, is Professor of Education in the University of Stockholm, founder of the Swedish comprehensive school system and director of worldwide research. As recently as 1970 he saw the need for change but still believed it would come through schools; in this book he indicates that bureaucracy, inertia and the conflicting demands made on teachers combine to make it impossible for the school system to cure itself. If those inside cannot repair the system it is up to those outside to move. Anything school can do, you can do better is my contribution. After some eighteen quiet years of child- watching I had come to realize that school was a time- wasting and inefficient attempt to enable one generation to share knowledge with the next. When the elders felt the need to subdue the young by beating and humiliating them that went beyond mere inefficiency. It had not dawned on me that sharing knowledge was only a minor purpose of the system. I began to write an occasional letter to the Irish Times, the articles sent here and there. When I ventured to send one to the Irish Times, it was published within a few days and I was asked for more. Marvelous. I went on to write about other things but with so many children growing up I could hardly forget the question of schooling. I have found that it is impossible to give a balanced account of my views and my experience in short articles, hence this book -which could really be twice as long. Who do I hope will read it? It must go without saying that I would like to provide support for parents who are disillusioned with the school systems that exist. It would be better still to find readers among young people who see their own schooldays not far behind, their role as parents not far ahead, and who would like to make some changes. Is it startling to recognize that in our society schooling of one kind or another is now likely to be a dominant preoccupation from the age of four or five until the age of forty-five or fifty when one can hope to see one’s youngest child over most of the hurdles? Even now it is extremely encouraging to find that mothers who campaign for natural childbirth and breastfeeding seem to move on spontaneously into, taking a more active responsibility for their children’s learning. Fathers and children as well come to meetings of La Leche League; when I was asked to speak to them on this topic I found them the most casual, agreeable audience I had ever met. There is an affinity also between environmentalists, those interested in self-reliance and healthy living, and de-schoolers. I should not be surprised if quite a few readers turn out to be parents who did much the same thing themselves but never said anything about it. Still, taking everything into account, I do not believe there is anyone to whom this book could be more valuable than to a Minister of Education who is running short of funds, as they all are now. Part I 1. The Beginning It would be difficult for beginner parents to be more ignorant of children and children’s development than we were. Sean was an only child. I was not much better; for five years I had had a little brother, but he was a Down’s Syndrome baby, loving and lovable, but misleading as an example of how ordinary children learn. Not only were we short of brothers and sisters, and consequently of nephews and nieces, we had no neighboring children to observe either. Worse still, I had qualified as a State Registered Nurse at a time when junior nurses were trained to keep children quiet and neat in their little beds and to look on parents as a disturbing influence. We began our life as a family in a small cottage some twelve miles to the south of Dublin city. It was two steep miles from public transport. Our only neighbors, just above us on the hillside, were the two bachelor brothers from whom we had bought our house. This isolation enabled us to live, unawares, twenty-five years ahead of our time, to experiment with early education without having any intention of experimenting. If we had been able to settle for a family of two or three I daresay we would have forgotten all about these activities; I certainly would not have thought of writing about them. But instead of two or three we ended up, unintentionally, with a family of eleven, five girls and six boys. Instead of having a passing glimpse of what is now called ‘early cognitive development’ I was wrapped up in it for twenty years, and found towards the end that it was beginning to become a respectable subject for research. This, then, is not a scientific report; it is the story of ordinary parents who had unusually prolonged and varied opportunities for own- child-watching. If we had been qualified to make scientific reports we would not have been ordinary parents, would we? Since we had so little notion of what anyone else was doing, it did not occur to us for a long time that our habits were at all unusual. Indeed, I suspect that formal learning at home is both more usual and more useful than the authorities like to admit. Once we came to recognize how heavily people relied on school, we began to stack away a few workbooks, so that if some powerful inspector should call we would be able to show, that the children were mastering the basic skills. Many, many drawings and paintings were preserved also, and we began to put names and dates on these once we had learnt how surprisingly easy it is to get mixed up. When Barbara, the eldest, was twelve, she organized a Birthday Book for Sean’s birthday, with contributions of some kind from each of her brothers and sisters, right down to the current baby. This she brought out again each year and even when she had left home we carried on. This volume helps to keep memories in sequence. So do some of the articles that I began to write for newspapers and magazines towards the end of the ‘experiment’, when the youngest baby was about two. The small house where we began to learn from our children was neither old enough to be picturesque nor new enough to have piped water or electricity. It consisted of four small square rooms in a block with another little room tacked on the south end. This last sheltered a corner we called the patio, which was as much used as any room indoors. The house could be found at the end of a narrow lane, in a half-acre garden, just on the border between gorse and bracken and some struggling fields. In our time there were few trees; our bachelor neighbors saw trees simply as firewood standing up. It was the boast of the brothers that we lived in ‘a great place for drying turf.’ (Turf, or peat, is very wet when it is cut out of bog land and it has to be dried in the air before being used as fuel.) True enough, the wind used to whirl through our house from back to front so that you could almost dry turf indoors. Boiling, including nappies (diapers), was done on a primus stove; I baked in a pot-oven on the turf fire. Along with the turf we used dried branches of gorse from the hillside. Lighting was by candle and oil lamp. Water came straight from heaven into barrels placed around the house. For drinking we preferred water from the spring some fifty yards away. The road was so rough that it was difficult to have anything delivered; turf was left half-way up the hill and collected by one of the brothers with a horse and cart. Anything else, including timber and paint for renovations, came up in our own arms. Life was not simple, but it was delightful. If I had to lug buckets of water from the spring, I carried them past Mulberry hedges, through fields thick with corn-marigolds and wild pansies. Looking up from the flowers I would see Killiney Head with Dalkey Island sailing away from it, Howth lying in the background on the far side of Dublin Bay. In the mornings the sun used to come straight out of the sea into our bedroom window, and by mid- morning it was warming the sheltered patio and the small, bookshelf- lined sitting room. We learned to grow our own vegetables on the half-acre. Never before or since those days have I had more fresh peas than I could manage to eat. We found that we loved nettle soup and fairy-ring-mushroom omelettes. The soil produced wonderful strawberries too. True, one winter storm washed away the road completely; strange cars were at intervals bogged down in the mud at the bottom of our lane and I would have to go and help to dig them out. Whenever there was snow it stayed with us so that I had to bathe the children’s feet in warm water every few hours in order to ward off chilblains. Sean bought Canadian lumberjack boots to get down to the train, and his colleagues at the office - he is an accountant - naturally found them diverting. That such isolation was possible, just twelve miles from Dublin, seems all the more unlikely today when the rugged hillside lanes have been properly tarmacadamed, the bare mountainside covered in Forestry Commission trees, there are smart houses everywhere and the wilderness has been driven back. But at that time it was a lonely cottage with a minute, and therefore suitable, mortgage. It took four years for electricity to reach us, six for the telephone to be connected. We never bought a car. Yet we seemed to manage without going near a shop for weeks on end. The first thing people ask when they discover that the children learned at home is, ‘How did you find time?’ In fact, my share of the activity did not take any extra time. I moved the baby around with me, either on one arm or in the Moses basket. Gardening, sewing, cooking and reading fit-in with paying some attention to a baby. We would lie on a rug together, indoors or out; baby on tummy, a mirror to reach for; on her back, kicking at a sheet of colored paper held by parent; or parent on back, arms straight up, holding flying baby. It was when each child was able to get around independently, crawling and walking, that time spent in shared activity showed itself to be an investment. Babies who have had a solid chunk of full parental attention feel confident enough to potter around and explore for the rest of the day, making contact from time to time. By the time the early members of our family were reaching the age of four or five, my involvement was greater, especially as there were more little people around, but the older ones were doing most of their planned learning on their own while I was saved the time-consuming task of getting self, child and baby (or babies) dressed up for escort duty to and from school or nursery school. There were other gains. Instead of the gap, which begins when the school going child is five and unable to answer fully the question ‘What did you do in school today?’ and which widens into a gulf between home and school later on, there were shared areas of interest and knowledge. Conformity was kept to a minimum. It bothers me to hear a five- year-old wanting to wear the same kind of T-shirt everybody else is wearing. Eliminated, too, was the inevitable postponement of the learning of skills which happens in nursery and primary schools, when it is necessary, before skills can be learned, for the children simply to come to terms with the relatively large numbers involved and to develop a ‘substitute parent’ image of the teacher. In schools for young children much time also goes in developing ‘group consciousness’. But hear much group consciousness do are need? In later life, unless we join the army or a large religious community, we hardly ever need to think of ourselves as one of a group of thirty. It is, on the other hand, extremely valuable to be able to do things by yourself, even to be comfortable alone, without company. It is possible that too much group consciousness too soon may result in adults who cannot be alone. Each baby lived out in first fifteen months in a Moses basket, large enough to lie down in, light enough for carrying. In good weather it was parked where there were people or plants to be looked at and in bad weather basket and baby were popped into a large packing-case, arranged with its back to the wind. The basket served the purpose of a playpen as well as that of a pram or cot. A baby lying down could kick crumpled sheets of brown paper tucked into the end and make a satisfying noise. Propped up, he or she could lounge or sit, join in conversation, play with items on a cord stretched across the top, or chew an apple. There was also the possibility of falling asleep in comfort at any moment. Of course, they also wanted to be picked up, and I became quite accomplished, like so many before me, at sweeping or stirring or mixing cakes with one hand while holding baby on my hip with the other arm. All of these habits arose naturally. The idea of developing them into a home-education system came later. 2. Enter Montessori Ever since he was a small boy Sean had been haunting the Dublin bookstalls. Indeed, it was because he always had a book under his arm when he used to come as an out-patient to the hospital department where I was working that I first took note of him. When our eldest daughter was a few months old he bought for four pence a book that was going to make quite a difference to the future family. This book was The Montessori Method by Professor E. P. Culverwell, published in 1912. The author was Professor of Education in Trinity College, Dublin, therefore an informed as well as an objective observer. He visited the ‘Children’s Houses’ in Rome and saw how the method worked in its early stages, before any practices had become rigid; he could distinguish the essentials in the new approach and he even made some very good guesses about the kind of adult it might produce. For us, to whom the whole idea was quite new, this book, written in decent English, was much more attractive than Dr Montessori’s own books, translated from the Italian, would have been. However, anyone who is prompted to take an interest in discoveries should certainly go back to the source and read her own story, told by herself. (See bibliography.) Maria Montessori, born in 1870, was the first woman to qualify as doctor of medicine in Italy. It is interesting that she had first planned to be an engineer! She won the gold medal for her year. The first job found for her was the care of retarded children. She noticed that the children, for whom no occupation was provided, used to play with breadcrumbs rolled into balls. She proceeded to read everything written about such children and to invent materials, which would help them to learn. By the age of twenty-eight she was director of a state school.