Michael Wagner – Page 15

Who Says… There Is A Standard?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-01-12.

Can a standard expectation be applied to a hundred billion unique individuals?

Building on a foundation that God is, that He created the universe and that He ultimately is responsible for our children’s being, should provide ample substance upon which to build our faith. This lengthy series will identify the secular thinking that has eroded that faith.

Bible Reference: Rom. 12:2

How many times have we heard a distraught mother say “am I doing enough?” or “my child(ren) are behind” or “I am not sure they are where they are supposed to be”. Even more disturbing is that we have heard fathers ask these very questions of their wives in their sincere desire to make sure the children are best prepared for their future. These are questions and concerns that unduly pressure moms to perform, but to what end and how will this be measured? By comparing ourselves and the children to the standard, of course!

We are constantly reminded that there is a standard of expected achievement. Educators strive to attain to these standards, but the funny thing is, I have yet to meet a teacher who can define or describe this standard. A standard is defined as “a level of quality or attainment” or as “an idea or thing used as a measure, norm or model in comparative evaluations”. These definitions are somewhat easy to understand when applied to industry, such as comparing computers or cars, where “standards” can be applied to thousands of units of similar inanimate items, but they lose their application when we attempt to make them fit human beings. The reason? There is no standard human being!

Consider this. The world has over seven billion people and no two are alike. We may even venture to guess that in the history of the world, there may have been over a hundred billion people born and each one had a unique fingerprint. How can we apply a standard of any kind to this? Is it possible for all to be able to attain the same level of proficiency in English, math or music? Can everybody attain a certain expected level of understanding of politics, religion or philosophy? Can everybody fix their own broken items? Where is the standard here? There is none! How can there be? Who came up with this idea?

Standards can only be applied to people if we believe that all people are the same and they are obviously not. If we believe that people are all accidental products of nature and as such are all similarly empty containers we can assume they that need to be programmed towards a standard. If that is the case, is a standard a measure of how well a child is doing with a program or how well the program is doing at standardizing the child?

Who says that there is such a thing as a human standard? Those who would have us all behave, believe and become what is expected of unquestioning clones. Stay away from these standards and take your measure of achievement from the Bible. From this perspective, all children are indeed where they are supposed to be.

Who Says… We Need To Follow A Program?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2015-01-05.

When we look at creation, do we see diversity or nothing more than variations on a theme?

Bible Reference: Matt. 15:9

Scheduling and subjects is such a part of the overall education processes that few question the need to ask for a reasonable application in life. It can be argued that scheduling prepares a child for the real world, but we mistake the child’s world for an adult one, and fail to consider how much we feel trapped by the very schedule we subject our children to. Learning the importance of knowing a schedule actually only takes a few seconds. The first day a student shows up late for work should teach a lesson not soon forgotten! Good arguments can also be made for the need to focus on a subject, as long as it is part of a whole and not an end in itself. When schedule and subjects are combined, we get a program, which can and should be questioned.

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear the word program is the schedule for tonight’s performance at the theater. Perhaps, because of my appreciation for technology, the other thing I see when confronted with that word, is computers. It is, therefore, easy for me to see a program as a schedule of events in the school, but what are the events presented? When considering that educational programming assumes that all students of a given age in a certain place should study said topics in a subject, I begin to think of computers. Every make and model of computers such as the one I am presently using, is the same. There may be a few minor differences, such as memory and processing, but essentially they are clones with slight variations. Once purchased, they arrive as empty boxes. They are able to function as computers, but will only be of use to you once you have programmed them to do what you want them to do. Are you getting the picture?

Consider that without God, children can only be accidental products of nature and as such essentially come as empty boxes, able to function as children but incapable of doing anything productive until they have been programmed to do what we want them to do. The bible talks of training and teaching, but does not use the word “program”. Training implies repetition to enforce behavior which can be misunderstood as programming, but it ends once the lessons have been learned. Educational programs, whether secular or Christian, are all based on the assumption of naturalistic creative processes and therefore, common “makes and models” of students and their “common” abilities and interests. Programming built on these assumptions advance “common” goals and objectives, which are based on secularism rather than biblical directives, regardless of statements assuring otherwise.

Who says we need programming? Those who see children as lifeless computers that need to be programmed to think and to do according to the programmer’s agenda. While it should be obvious that God creates diversity, advancing programming based on false assumptions actually insists on a conformity which God does not celebrate.

Who Says… There is a New Year?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2014-12-29.

Taking a short break from our journey through educational strongholds, let’s apply our questioning to other established cultural icons.

Bible Reference: 1 Cor. 3:13

All things, outside of eternity, must have a beginning and an end. Our calendar ends on the last day of December and starts at 12:00 AM, January 1. It is natural for us to see this as a good opportunity to start things over, to purpose to do things differently and to resolve to become a new person at this time since it seems like a good starting point. New Year’s resolutions are, unfortunately, world famous for not continuing beyond a few weeks, at best. Why are these resolutions such failures? Because we use a bad foundation from which to make resolutions!

Faith need not even be applied to the question of human failings. Everybody knows that they are not perfect and those who have failed to make that discovery are usually obvious in this lack of insight, making them imperfect, even if they don’t know it. Something happened at the creation of man that caused us all to simply fall short of perfection and our resolve to fix it at this time of year fails because it is founded on us. A bad foundation cannot yield good results. We make a resolution, to improve our situation, base that improvement on the strength of one who is known to be lacking and wonder why it does not work!

Also at issue here is the notion that something new has begun on January 1. To be sure, it will be January rather than December and 2014 will shift to 2015, but is this a tangible thing? Time, like sand, just slips through the fingers. Children notice nothing new on January 1, just another day in a life. So we base our new years resolutions on an imperfect person, famous for failing and within a concept that is impossible to define. Confused? You should be! I do not want to discourage anybody from making an effort to fix their lives, but even well trained imperfection is still imperfection. Our house may be a fine house but it is really in need of repairs that are far more difficult than imaginable. It does not need to be restored as this would be a restoration of imperfection, which is, as mentioned already, still imperfect. What we need is not a restoration but a redemption, a return to the perfection that once existed, before the world began. In order to do that, we need a little help from He who began the world, who being perfect, can bestow that perfection on us through faith in the redemptive sacrifice of His Son and our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Who says there is a new year? Tradition based the position of the sun. More importantly, who says we can have a new life? God, based on the promise of His Son. A new resolution does not have to start on New Years day. It started the moment you accepted that promise, which is based on a perfect God rather than an imperfect you. This is not likely to fail.

From all of us to all of you, may you all be blessed in the coming New Year and thanks for reading my blogs.

Who Says… There is a Santa Claus?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2014-12-22.

Taking a short break from our journey through educational strongholds, let’s apply our questioning to other established cultural icons.

Bible Reference: Eph. 4:14

What a silly question! Of course there is a Santa Claus! I always thought that he is some incredible fellow, being visible in hundreds of malls, while answering scads of letters and preparing to deliver the loot to every house that made him welcome with milk and cookies. No wonder he is so fat! I am still a bit perplexed by his insistence on descending chimneys that not only couldn’t possibly accommodate his ample frame, but would be sure to heat him up a little in the process, when doors have long been invented. Then there is the tale about the flying deer that move him from house to house at what would have to be incredible speeds to accomplish all that he has do to in such a short time. Supersonic celestial reindeer, one of whom has a cold, denying themselves to give unto others, while Mrs. Santa Claus bakes oatmeal cookies for their eventual return.

Santa is usually a joyful old fellow, although there was a rumor that he lost his composure one year, got thoroughly ticked off and instead of doing what was expected of him on Christmas eve, he stayed home, had a jolly old time with Mrs. Claus, drinking copious amounts of Christmas wassail and enjoying a BBQ of reindeer steak after Rudolph had complained one too many times about his cold. He had apparently taken issue with the taxman over not allowing him to use tax free hay for his reindeer and decided to strike in protest. Christmas was canceled all around the world that year. Obviously no one took note and proceeded on without him. The following year, after declaring his sovereignty over the governing authorities, it is said he beat all odds, to once again deliver more presents than ever, in spite of his advancing age. Some believe that he discovered that his CEO was actually part timing for the Grinch. After dispatching this snake-in-the snow, he proceeded to fire all his elves, who had unionized and reduced production to an intolerable ineptitude, characteristic of most bureaucracies. While doing so, he discovered that one of them was a computer genius called Webian, who unlike the rest, seemed eager to think for himself. Santa encouraged him to create a database and website enabling parents and children to have direct access to Claus Central. Now emboldened by a vision for better efficiency, he went on to replace Mrs. Claus, along with her insistence on using antiquated technology, with Pray, who had a better idea and hired a lady called Aid and a fellow called Research to assume some administrative duties. He went on to find the best facilitators in the world to help him do the job with the least possible paperwork and intrusions. Now, he was ready! Putting his reindeer out to pasture, the newly created, Santa Claus and Company Inc., invented and perfected a way to do all the work digitally, using the world wide web and with Webian’s creative genius, every gift was delivered simultaneously with just a single click of a mouse. Christmas has never been the same!

I trust you don’t believe a word of that yarn! This is just a crazy story composed by someone who never ceases to be amazed by what can be advanced and just how readily people are willing to accept and defend, as truth. Stories are either true or they are not. If they are true, like the birth of the Christ child, we are wise to believe them, but when they are not true, they should never be accepted as such even when “upheld” by “science”, “fact”, or other “supporting evidence”. There are no lack of stories almost as crazy as this one, being advanced as true today. If a story is fiction, we can still learn from it, but it can never replace the truth. It is up to each one of us to question what we are being told to make sure that it is the truth and not some facsimile.

Who says there is no Santa Claus? Sound reason should, but for those who can profit in some way from the perpetuation of such stories, it is “true” even if at the peril of the unfortunate who fall victim to their myths.

Merry Christmas from all of us to all of you.

Who Says… We Need To Schedule by Subjects?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2014-12-15.

We just don’t live or learn by subject in a real life, but live life as an integrated whole.

Bible Reference: 2 Tim 2:15

Have you ever tried to live a subject? As you read this blog, are you considering what subject you might be engaged in? Is it an exercise in English? Reading, maybe? If so, will you get a series of questions to measure your comprehension when done? Maybe it is more social studies or history or math since there are numbers involved! Biology is defined as the study of life, so perhaps this is a biology exercise since we are indeed studying some aspect of life! Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? Is this how we learn or live in the real world?

We simply do not consider life as fragmented pieces, yet we unquestioningly accept that learning is best accomplished when scheduled into components called subjects, which are further broken up into levels of supposed greater complexity, called grades. We do not ask ourselves how someone, completely disassociated from our child, has determined that all our children need to learn the same things within each subject, at certain times and increments, without consideration of what application these things may have to the individual or to their learning as a whole.

We can all understand that there are indeed different things that can and/or should be learned and it is not difficult to see the creation of subjects such as English, math and science as constituting parts of a whole but when we confuse the breakup of learning into parts separated by time blocks, we depart from the reality of life! Consider a homemaker following the example of school. At 8:15 AM she focusses on the subject of laundry but at 9:15 she abandons the laundry and starts the house cleaning subject, only to leave that task at 10:15, at which time she goes into mental neutrality called recess, before engaging again in yet another subject at 10:30, which is left undone like all the other tasks she has worked on today. At 11:30, she changes her focus again, to the subject of making lunch before returning to more hour long segments of unfinished “accomplishments” in the afternoon. No problem! All those tasks can be advanced by another hour of effort again tomorrow, right? Eventually, things will get done, even if there is no real measure as to what that really means. Does this make sense?

Subjects (tasks), broken into segments (scheduled periods), recurring over time without consideration for the dynamic nature of life does not prepare children for the real world. Keeping our children home, to train them in the family environment God provided, introduces a lifestyle of learning where each child becomes a part of this big world in a unique way and lives life as a single, integrated, seamless unit, rather than of separate parts. Breaking learning into pieces may be why most people remember very little of what they learned in school. This is not to downplay the importance of focussing in study, but we should avoid confusing subjects with learning or skills.

Who says that we need to learn by subjects? Only a system bent on conformity would actually believe that such an approach could foster individuality!

Who Says… It Takes Twelve Years?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2014-12-08.

A good education should not be measured by the time spent in school but by what has been learned.

Bible Reference: 2 Tim. 2:15

In spite of the fact that I have spent my entire life in “school”, either as a student, teacher or administrator, I have always been perplexed by this question. There is obviously no scriptural reference we can cite to help us, yet every school, regardless of the philosophical or methodological foundation, has adopted twelve years as the length of time it takes to gain a basic academic education, whatever that means!

What has been accepted as normal, was not always this way. When schools first started, they were mostly attached to the church and involved learning to read using the scriptures on Sunday before the service, which eventually evolved to become modern day Sunday school. When the Jesuits created formal schools during the reformation, they would take post puberty, illiterate children and bring them to university, college or seminary in under three years. What makes this even more incredible in light of modern day “grade school” was that these students were taught to read and write, not just their native language but Latin, Hebrew and Greek as well. In addition to this, they were also taught literature, mathematics, logic, philosophy and more, before advancing to “post-secondary” specialization, all at a level that we would probably consider university graduate work today!

We do not have to go back that far to see that a twelve year basic training was not always the expectation. A hundred and fifty years ago, a student could learn to read at sixteen and still be a lawyer by twenty. In fact, it was not until the establishment of the compulsory schools that a time frame was established for learning the basics. At first it was only a few years. By the mid-twentieth century, a level 8 education was considered very high. I am personally in possession of a Junior High School Diploma, a certificate that entitled me to go to work as I had attained an acceptable level of basic training at grade 9. I chose to continue my education but several of my peers went on to farm, work or business after reaching this level.

So, who says that we need twelve years before we are considered sufficiently trained to go out into the world? I suspect that there may be two reasons and increased time for more rigorous academics is obviously not one of the reasons! Most likely, modern day, publicly trained parents accept and appreciate the baby sitting service provided by the institution who allows parents to pursue careers and other “meaningful” activities while the school works in the lives of the children to establish man as his own god. The second reason is the longer the time provided, the more effective the indoctrination, not to mention the fact that each year a child attends school results in substantial income for that school. Home educators take note. It does not take twelve years to get a good education, nor does it require six hours a day. Prepare your children to learn about the realities of life as life progresses. The basics are, after all just the basics, but it takes a lifetime to learn what life has to offer.

Who Says… We Need To Grade Our Children?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2014-12-01.

Whoever considered a child to be like an egg?

Bible Reference: Phil 3:12-16

You are a failure, I kept telling myself. A loser who can’t even pass grade seven! How this happened, escaped me. I thought that all I needed to pass my grade was 50% and that was all I ever intended to give them. I had gambled and lost, but not really. I had been passed on condition, due to my failing to deliver the 50% and into the next grade while my best friend was failed into my brothers grade to become his friend instead of mine. I nearly lost a year but I did lose a friend. It was traumatic and it forever changed my attitude about school. From now on I would give them 55% to give myself a bit of insurance against… failing my grade!

It is hard to imagine that I should have lost a friend because he was now one grade lower than me, yet this grade based division usually creeps right into the family as well. Siblings separated by grades in school often carry the separation into the home. Older children are not just chronologically advanced but superior to their younger siblings. Another fine example of how “socialization” is meant to works against families!

No one fails their grade anymore unless the parents insist on it and even then, the fight is on. All children are in age appropriate levels, or grades in any system called school. Sunday schools work on the same principle. After over 100 years of using grades, even changing the word “grade” to “level” hasn’t changed the minds of people. Home educated children’s lives seem to be dependent on their being at the right level in their curriculum, in keeping with their grade. That part of school seems especially difficult to change.

I personally don’t believe we should be grading children. We can grade eggs as Grade B or A; Medium, Large or Cracked, but assigning a grade sets children up to pass or fail. In the real world, we actually don’t pass or fail. We have opportunity to advance or to try again. Each option is designed to make us grow. Under this understanding, what the world would see as a failure becomes yet another opportunity and life becomes a collections of such opportunities towards the ultimate goal of being successful in the eyes of the world and wise in the eyes of God.

While we rarely hear parents and students mention being ahead, we often hear complaints about students being behind. We have fun when we ask, “ahead or behind what”? Parents usually stumble at this question, usually being completely indoctrinated with the idea of grades and mistakenly thinking the number on the book they are using as the equivalent to a grade, whatever that means! The numbers on the books simply list them in order of difficulty, not grades. One would expect to progress in difficulty as one grows in understanding, therefore a more appropriate “grading” of children is their age. A six year old should generally know more than a four year old, and one would certainly expect an adult to know more than a child, although one is occasionally challenged by such assumptions! So, the next time someone asks your child what “grade” they are in, instruct them to tell the inquirer their age as they have been learning since the day they were born and to be prepared for a confused look or correction.

Who says we need to grade our children? Unfortunately, we do and we should stop doing so.

Who Says… Everyone Learns To Read At Age Six?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2014-11-24.

We do not cry when we cannot play the piano but because someone makes us feel bad, if we cannot play the piano.

Bible Reference: Psalm 139:14

I was incredulous! Who was so heartless as to put that crocodile tear on the face of that child. The reason? She was ten years old and still could not read. The image of the child was on the cover of a publication by an organization supposedly supporting home education. Privately, the organization claimed a Christian faith base, but publicly made few references to God or anything to do with scripture. This particular article made no reference to God at all but cited certified professionals with high credentials who had developed a scientifically proven method to teach that poor child to read.

I immediately questioned not only who, but what actually caused the child to cry. Was it her concern or frustration at not being able to read, or that someone made a big deal of the fact? Actually, the child probably could not care less about not being able to read which was probably why she was not reading in the first place. A person who cannot play the piano does not cry because they can not play the piano, but because someone made them feel bad about not being able to play the piano. The message, whether we are talking about the ability to read or play the piano is not so much about the lack of ability but that someone thinks the person is lacking sufficiency or is “broken”. Someone made that child to believe that God had left out a part when He created her, which actually exposes the real issue regarding what is generally accepted regarding when a child should learn to read. If there is no God, we are all evolutionary machines and not special beings. Machines are supposed to work and someone has determined that means reading by age six. A machine that does not do what it is supposed to do is broken and that is what the tear on the cheek was all about. The child was broken and needed fixing by professionals who could only profit from doing so. Small wonder that she was upset with a big tear on her cheek. Who wants to be broken and in need of fixing?

If a child is made to read when not ready, we introduce frustration and insecurities about who they are, which often leads to a damaged child with a bad attitude and some consequent level of illiteracy. I believe this is why most people are not able to read properly or do not like to read. Children pushed to read when they are not ready don’t like to read because it brings back too many ugly memories about when they were forced to do something they were not ready or able to do. Let them read when they are ready and you will see remarkable results. It could be as young as four or as old as sixteen or older, for dyslexics. Whatever the age, if children are allowed to develop in their own time without being made to feel there is something wrong with them, they will eventually learn to read. Some will do so for enjoyment and others because it is a necessary academic tool. We don’t all have to read for the fun of it.

Who says a child needs to learn to read by age six? An industry that fixes human machines and simply can not believe that God would create unique children with individual readiness for things.

Who Says… We Have To Be Good At Everything?

Part of the series Who says…?
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2014-11-17.

We cannot be good at everything, but we can be good at what we do best.

Bible Reference: 1 Cor. 10:31

Every once in a while we run into a person who really shines! They seem to be good at everything they do, so much so, we are left impressed and disappointed. Impressed by how they make things look so easy and disappointed in our inability to do as well. However, let us restate that we run into these type of people every once in a while, meaning that they are a rather rare example of humanity. Yet, even those who appear to be good at everything are usually also very good at avoiding the things they are not good at, which leaves us with the impression of their being good at everything. Most people are really good at some things and not that good or very bad at others. Some are more talented than others. Some are gifted in an area while others are not. Some are intelligent and others feeble minded. Some are wise while most are not. To each is given a measure of faith, but what is this measure?

God creates all of us uniquely. He does not make mistakes and He does not favor some over others. Every human being is a special creation of God and every one is loved equally by Him. He has one simple rule that applies to all in every way. Simply put, to whom much has been given is much expected. Christians may refer to this expectation as the “don’t bury your talent” doctrine.

The world obviously has a different perspective of this situation. Starting on a foundation of Godlessness, the world believes that man is simply the product of his genes. Some genes are better than others and so those who are better able should be better survivors in a cold blooded battle called the survival of the fittest. This is the foundation upon which school is built. Since there are inherent weaknesses and strengths in people, it becomes the school’s job to fix weaknesses in order to make them strengths while largely ignoring the strengths. Upgrading weaknesses while downgrading strengths can only result in the mediocrity schools are best known for.

If God made your child to be good at music, they will excel at it. If not, they won’t! We can’t all be musicians, even if we pay professionals to teach our children to play. Those who are gifted in music will demonstrate it while the others will prove they are intelligent enough to do it, not because they are good at it or like it, but because they love their mothers, and will likely quit at the first opportunity. There are voracious readers and those who read when they have to. There are those who have math phobias while others are math magicians. While we all demonstrate strengths and weaknesses in various ways, none can truly be good at everything. Unlike the school, we should encourage our children to soar with their strengths while helping them to manage their weaknesses.

Who says we have to be good at everything? An unrealistic world. A world that does not believe in God will not understand that gifts and talents are God given to make us unique and to keep us humble. It is this broken world that sees students as fixable and while desiring them all to be the same, they attempt to make them good at everything, causing most of them to focus on their weaknesses instead of their strengths.

Who Says… Learning Starts At School?

Part of the series Who says…
Written by Léo Gaumont, published on 2014-11-10.

Are we talking about learning or indoctrination?

Bible Reference: Deut. 6:4-6

Walking with my wife a few years ago, we stumbled upon a windowless, characterless building with a sign that read “Tiny Tot Day Care – Where Learning Starts”. Understanding that preschool children were being incarcerated in that ugly building while their parents pursued careers was disturbing enough, but to claim that learning would start there, simply did not make any sense.

When does learning start? That is a tough one to answer, but it sure does not start in a day care or a school. No one knows the point at which learning starts. It doesn’t actually start at birth, but more likely while the child is still in the womb, where once the brain is fully formed, it begins to recognize sounds. After birth, learning proceeds at a very rapid pace and continues on throughout one’s life. Henry Ford once quipped that you are old when you stop learning, but it is really hard to imagine when anyone actually stops learning. We may be able to slow it down, direct or redirect it, but is it possible to actually stop it? Learning starts when conscience life begins, occurs everywhere, all the time and probably does not even end at death but continues into eternity, as the soul is eternal, which bring us to another point.

Learning is natural. There is no need to learn to learn, as learning is as natural as sneezing, coughing and going to the bathroom. While animals display some capacity for learning, most of their behavior is more instinctive than learned. Humans, on the other hand, are born with a few instincts and a great capacity for learning, which can be either passive or active. Passive learning just happens through experience. It does not take long to learn that a hot stove is not to be touched. Active learning is willfully engaged in to gather information that we want or have to learn. Neither instinct nor passive or active learning starts at school or requires a school. So why do we need that place?

No doubt, things will be learned at school, but learning could never start in that place, unless of course, we were referring to the beginning a process of directing students to think in a certain way. We should not confuse natural learning, which can best be described as gathering what we need to learn when we need or want to learn it, with being directed to learn what someone or something else wants us to learn, which is an involuntary form of learning known as indoctrination. Learning starts with life but institutional indoctrination begins at school, continues for the next twelve years or so, eventually ending with the institutional stamp of approval, the diploma.

Who says that learning starts in school? The institution that wants us all to think the same way, does.