As I wrap up this series of reviews, we turn to Students as Persons: Charlotte Mason on Personalism and Relational Liberal Education by Deani Van Pelt and Jen Spencer. One of the key tenets of Mason’s pedagogy is the statement that “children are persons.” This book delves deeply into this foundational philosophical concept by looking at personalist theory and differentiating personhood from individualism. This is an important book that covers a lot of ground in just over 60 pages.

Deani Van Pelt has been a leading voice in Charlotte Mason education, championing school choice in Canada and adding to our knowledge of Charlotte Mason through her research. The is the current board chair for the Charlotte Mason Institute and is Scholar-in-Residence in Charlotte Mason Studies, University of Cumbria, England. Van Pelt is not only the series editor of the 18 monographs in the Centenary Series, this book is one of two volumes she has had a hand in writing in the series. Co-author Jen Spencer has likewise been a leader within the Charlotte Mason movement, having led study groups and founding a school. Her work includes the digitization of Mason archives at the Armitt Museum in Ambleside, England as well as serving as the program director for the Alveary, a curriculum created by the Charlotte Mason Institute. Spencer was recently appointed as a Visiting Research Fellow in Charlotte Mason Studies at the University of Cumbria, Ambleside.

Situating Personhood

It can be difficult to differentiate Mason’s concept of personhood when there are many theories about childhood and learning that surround the work of Mason. A number of key figures and concepts are therefore helpfully presented at the outset of Students as Persons to establish what exactly personhood is and is not. Blank-slate theory as set forth by John Locke views the child as an empty vessel to be filled. Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed in the inherent goodness of the child, meaning that the child should be left untampered. Frederick Froebel viewed the child like a plant to be tended in a Kindergarten. John Dewey viewed education as a socializing process making them fit for democratic society. Maria Montessori considered that children are individuals “who should be left alone to explore specially created apparatus so that their creativity could flourish” (14). Beyond these individual theorists, the industrialists of North America viewed children as a work force and learning as training for a role in the industrial system. In Mason’s own Victorian context, children were viewed as “personal property, better seen than heard” (14).

Through this broad set of ideas, Mason’s statement “children are persons” takes a very different direction. Originally delivered through a series of evening “Lectures to Ladies” in Bradford, England, the ideas Mason set forth were a philosophical alternative to a host of insufficient views of the child. Even more today, this idea has found resonance:

“When education increasingly places emphasis on credentials to be attained and employment to be secured, thoughtful, searching parents, teachers and educational leaders are finding resonance with educational ideas that focus on the child’s whole wellbeing” (Students as Persons 14-15).

The wellbeing of the child is a grand vision that sets forth an educational enterprise that raises up the child “not only for a useful life but also for learning how to live this life in all its fullness” (15).

The Contours of Personhood

Van Pelt and Spencer ground Mason’s concept of personhood in her career working with children. She set forth her thoughts in the Bradford lectures “having had nearly a quarter-century to observe children and work out her thoughts about teaching and learning” (16). It is interesting to note that Mason’s career as a teacher and then as an educational philosopher occurred between that of Friedrich Froebel (1782-1852) and Maria Montessori (1870-1952). In the philosophies of both these figures, children were viewed as requiring special treatment through the use of carefully developed learning tools and environments. However, for Mason, she took the view that “children are not that different from adults and do not need for everything to be specially organized for them” (17). This conception of the child garners an amount of respect toward the child that finds what the authors describe as a “middle way between ‘despising’ children and worshipping them” (18). In other words, our view of children can tend towards an inaccurate view of the child when we do not grant them the respect of personhood due to them.

The British industrial revolution brought children into the workplace, which meant that society was well prepared to afford them the responsibilities of adulthood but had not really granted them their rights as children. Mason’s concept of personhood was connected to the rights of children in her third book School Education. These rights called for children to enjoy the freedoms of childhood, including the rights “to play freely, to work by their own initiative, to choose their own friends, to decide how they would spend their own money, and to form their own opinions” (18). Issuing these rights within the Victorian milieu was something of a crusade for Mason and the PNEU. However, unlike the child-centric models of education proposed by figures such as Rousseau and Montessori, Mason proposed that there is a burden of responsibility upon parents and teachers to “instruct the child’s conscience and help him to train his will and consider ideas carefully, so that he may grow to live with intention and continually work towards becoming the best version of himself as he conceived is” (19-20).

Considered in this way, the personhood of the child assumes that the child has their own will that must be given strength to choose what is good and right. There is a sense that the child will be self-directed and ought to have a diet of living ideas with which to populate a vision of what it means to live a good life.

Personhood Today

The study of personhood today interacts with insights gained from sociology, philosophy and theology. Van Pelt and Spencer bring to bear a number of recent authors to spell out how personhood has developed in our contemporary setting in ways that are consistent with Mason’s original expression of personhood.

They begin by drawing up on the work of Christian Smith, a sociologist at the University of Notre Dame, in his 2010 publication What is a Person? Amongst several points worth consideration, Smith concurs that personhood is on full display from the start of life:

“Persons do not emerge out of capacities and bodies at some chronologically delayed time, only after some crucial development has taken place. Persons exist at the start of life and are their own agents of development and emergent being across their entire life course” (Smith 457, quoted in Van Pelt and Spencer 29).

This agency on the part of the child is something worthy of respect, even though we as grown ups have a burden of responsibility to nourish and train the young person. Personhood also entails a sense of purpose “to develop and sustain our own incommunicable selves in loving relationships with other personal selves and with the nonpersonal world” (Smith 85, emphasis added by Van Pelt and Spencer 30). This is consistent with Mason’s concept of the science of relationship whereby the child develops three kinds of knowledge—knowledge of God, knowledge of man, and knowledge of the universe.

Based on this understanding of personhood, in distinction from individualism, our authors explain the implications of what this means pedagogically.

“Indeed, it is not to liberal individualism that Mason turns for her anthropology but to relational personhood. Had she rooted her anthropology in the child as individual rather than the child as person, child-centeredness could become a concept leading to license rather than to liberty of the child. It would also have brushed over the relational nature embedded in personhood and it sets one up at best as autonomous and at worst as isolated, free-floating, untethered, and alone” (32).

Thus, the child is a responsible agent learning how to relate as a person with other persons, instead of somehow trying to get off the grid, so to speak, of dependence on other individuals.

Personhood, then, is distinct from individualism, but it is also distinct from collectivism. For this distinction, our authors turn to the philosopher Juan Manuel Burgos, professor at the University of San Pablo in Madrid, in his 2018 publication An Introduction to Personalism. The person, according to Burgos, is a “subsistent and autonomous but essentially social being” (Burgos 32, quoted in Van Pelt and Spencer 34). Burgos goes on to differentiate personalism from that of collectivism and individualism:

“It was distinguished and separated from the egocentric individual by stressing the moral obligation to serve others and the community, but it did not fall into the collectivist orbit because, due to his intrinsic dignity, the person possesses an absolute and noninterchangeable value and a series of inalienable rights” (Burgos 32).

In this understanding of personalism, each person is able to experience true freedom while also maintaining a sense of connection to others that is morally responsible.

Grounding these sociological and philosophical insights is the theological concept of the divine image. Van Pelt and Spencer bring alongside the aforementioned Smith the bioethicist John Kilner, founding director of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, in his 2015 publication Dignity and Destiny. Human dignity stems from God’s creation of humanity in his own image (Genesis 1:26-27). For Kilner, the imago dei, or being created in the image of God “has played a significant role historically in freeing people from the ravages of need and oppression” (Kilner 7, quoted in Van Pelt and Spencer 36). This is the central claim of the theist ground for human dignity. Kilner also notes how oppression and exploitation stem from what he “would call a non-biblical understanding of God’s image” (Van Pelt and Spencer 37).

There is a sacredness to human personhood based on the special relationship all humans have with their Creator. Instead of the autonomous individual or collective humanity, personhood implies the value and dignity of every human being while also promoting the ability people have to relate to their Creator.

Personhood and Self-education

Mason’s view of the personhood of the child is foundational to a constructivist approach to learning, according to Van Pelt and Spencer. To put it simply, constructivist theory posits that the learner actively builds knowledge through their own experience of and interaction with information. John Mays in his 2022 article “Thoughts on Teaching” pits constructivism against essentialism, which helpfully provides categories for us to consider. In essentialism, there is a body of core knowledge and skills delivered to the learner by the teacher. Mays, while spelling out the differences, finds that these philosophies of learning are a false dichotomy. One of the benefits of Van Pelt and Spencer’s book is a fuller understanding of this central debate in education. As classical education untethers itself from conventional education to promote a love of learning, there is a need to engage the learner in ways that Mason directly connects to the dignity and agency of the learner.

The constructivist ideal is best expressed by Mason in her final volume, Towards a Philosophy of Education, where she wrote, “The children, not the teachers, are the responsible persons; they do the work by self-effort” (241). So even someone committed to a teacher-centric approach should recognize that the dissemination of information only goes out into the blank void unless a responsible and motivated learner is there to capture what is sent. Van Pelt and Spencer compare Mason’s constructivism to that of other models. In particular, they review the cognitive constructivism of Jean Piaget, the social constructivism of Lev Vygotsky, and the radical constructivism of Ernst von Glasersfield. We can see, therefore, that the categories are fairly nuanced. Our authors critically examine these three models and conclude that Mason’s “aligns most comfortably among the social constructivists” (46). In this social constructivist model, children learn “by interacting with others, with our culture, and with our society” (45). Again, the personhood of the child in this sense is responsibly related to others, not as an autonomous individual nor as an indiscriminate part of a collective.

An important point made by Van Pelt and Spencer is that knowledge is made personal by each learner. When the personhood of the child is honored as something sacred, then the very form of our assessment must account for the personal. For instance, when listening to or reading through students narrations, we are looking not simply for an accurate record of what the author has said. We are also accounting for the ways in which the child has personally assimilated this knowledge.

“Factual accuracy was not the sole important thing about assessment to Mason. It was equally important to her that each child had engaged with people, places, and ideas as best they could and according to their personhood. In this way, each student’s response contained originality” (49).

Not the both-and within this statement. It is important for students to have an accurate understanding of the information that they have assimilated. But for those of us who deem it important for this education to be formative, we must also take into account how knowledge has shaped character, moral reasoning, spiritual insight, and human understanding.

In all, I found this book to be a fine representation of research into Charlotte Mason. It furthers our understanding of her philosophy by bringing to bear good exemplars of modern thinkers so that we can gain insight into how her methods have relevance and utility today. I could see many benefitting from the thoughtful and engaging prose in this volume, even though some of the ideas are challenging to grapple with. Thankfully, Van Pelt and Spencer have done most of the heavy lifting, so that we as readers can wrap our mind around so many of the key elements of Mason’s philosophy surrounding the personhood of children.

The post The Personhood of the Child: Book Review of Deani Van Pelt and Jen Spencer’s Students as Persons appeared first on .

One of the great joys of being a teacher is summers off. This may be one of the chief compensations, more important to teachers than healthcare or retirement accounts. I for one love the rhythm of the schoolyear and delight in the summer downtime. Working as an administrator for several years now, the joy has somewhat diminished since there’s still so much work to be done. But even in this case, the nature of the work is different, and therefore enjoyable in its own way.

As I reflect on the dynamic of summer vacation, I wanted to inspire our readers with an opportunity that lays before us. During the school year, when it is our responsibility to teach, we rarely have the time to be learners ourselves. It’s true that quite a number of teachers take continuing education courses. Many of my colleagues over the years have worked towards their masters degrees during the school year. I myself had finished all my degrees before teaching full time. So these educational warriors have my admiration.

Two of my colleagues, one in St. Louis and another here in Chicago, caught my attention by taking what might be considered special interest classes. They weren’t working towards a degree. Instead, they took classes sheerly from their interest in the subject. My colleague Rachel at Providence took a pottery class, making beautiful pieces that she eventually gifted to our graduating seniors. My colleague Nathan at Clapham was caught carrying a cello down the road. When asked what he was doing lugging such a large instrument, he said he was taking cello lessons. Both of these examples epitomized for me the value of lifelong learning. If you are like us at Educational Renaissance, then you value lifelong education. We often consider this concept in light of our students. But what about us?

Therefore, when a professor at Wheaton College – who also happens to attend my church – offered a basic pottery class this summer, I jumped at the chance to learn a new skill. Here are some thoughts that emerged through the process. As I reflect on my experience as a learner, hopefully it will inspire you to find something to learn this summer, and then you can experience the joy of learning by taking a summer class.

The Basics of Pottery

First, for the uninitiated, here is an outline of basic pottery. You grab a clump of wet clay. You work it around in your hands until it becomes a ball. Take a small part of the ball, and flatten it to the size of an iPhone, marking out a round portion for the base of, say, a mug. Then you roll the rest of the ball between your hands to form it into a snake. You probably remember doing something like this with Play-Doh when you were a kid. You continue to roll the snake on the board until it is long enough to form a coil around the circumference of the base. You then squish (not being very technical here) the coil, working it into the base and upward slightly. You can add on more coils; I did three. You continue to squish the sides, forming a flat surface on your cylinder. After letting it set for a day, I added a handle. And, voila, a mug ready to be glazed and fired.

There are definitely other levels to pottery. For instance, I didn’t do anything with a wheel, which is what many people associate with pottery. One can learn about different kinds of clay, or different tools of the trade. I didn’t go into this aiming to set up a home studio. Instead, I wanted to try something new. I wanted to get my hands working with something. And I wanted an activity that would serve as a stress reliever during one of the strangest ends to a school year I had ever experienced.

Learning Means Confronting the Fear of the Unknown

Fear is an interesting emotion. We learn in 1 John 4:18 that “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear.” From this we might surmise that fear is a bad thing. Yet we are called to fear God, by which we understand fear to mean respect or worship. This seems to be a good thing. Fear of the unknown is a very real aspect to our existence as human beings. If God is unknown to an individual, the fear that person experiences would be substantially different than that of the individual who knows God and is known by God. I believe I have a healthy fear of my wife, but not the kind of fear one has when one’s life is threatened. Love has cast out that kind of fear. All that remains is the niggling kind of fear that somehow my imperfections will collide with her imperfections in some way that causes sparks to fly. But we’ve been through enough of those, that fear really isn’t the right word for it anymore. Forgive my tangent into fear, but it does relate, I promise. (Perhaps I am causing you the fear of the unknown right now).

When we learn, there is a genuine fear of that which is not known or only partially known. We have an entire neurological system devoted to processing fear. The limbic system helps our bodies scan for danger. A small, almond-shaped part of our brain called the amygdala is ready to initiate the fight, flight or play dead programmed response to danger. There were reasons our ancestors were scared to leave their caves. And yet without overcoming those fears, there would have been no food, no exploration, and no learning. You see, when we learn something new, there’s a part of our brain that is afraid of this new thing. Will it hurt? Will it change me? Am I any good at it? Will everyone make fun of me if I fail, or even if I succeed?

With pottery, there is the fear that whatever it is I’m making will look terrible. I might try to make a mug, but end up with a clumpy, amorphous blob that isn’t even good enough to be an ashtray (and who uses those anymore anyway?). Another fear is that I’ll make something that I’m pleased with, but it cracks when it is fired. That’s a real risk. Why take the risk, one asks oneself. Better not to begin at all than set oneself up for failure. I find it helpful to face these fears as a learner. How many of our students face these fears with multiple subjects every day? We are working with true heroes.

Learning Ought to Humble You

Learning is not only about gaining intellectual courage, it is also about acquiring intellectual humility. The expectation on all teachers is that they are the experts in the classroom. We prepare ourselves through careful study to deliver content and guide students to knowledge based on the fact that we know substantially more than our students. Now it ought to be the case that despite our teacherly expertise, we have simultaneously cultivated intellectual humility. Pride should not get in the way of us admitting areas where we lack expertise. Intellectual pride can trip us up when students ask questions. We want to mask our fallibility by seeming omniscient. Telling our students, “I don’t know,” or “I need to think about that more,” goes a long way towards being rigorously honest with our students. Not knowing everything is not a sign that we are not experts, it just shows that we are aware of what we know and what we don’t know. This can enable greater connection with our students, as we establish an atmosphere of learning together.

With these thoughts in mind, I was so happy to enter an environment where I had no expertise. Like my students, I had to submit myself to teacher who would guide me based on his expertise. David, my teacher, has a calm voice and a positive attitude. His advice to novice potters is based in years of working with clay and producing lots and lots of great pieces. The clay itself is a teacher as well, and the clay will humble you. There were several projects I started that fell apart in my hands. All I could do was ball the clay up and start over. Even the pride one feels in a finished project has in it the flaws or unrefined areas that become evident the more you learn and grow.

One aspect of the joy of learning is addressing this concept of humility. As human beings, we are limited, frail and fallible. Frequently we attempt to cover this up, to hide what we truly are behind the smoke and mirrors of our expertise and accomplishments. True human growth, though, only occurs when we uncover our true nature and deal with it. As an individual confronts an area of lack, there is a transformation that can occur, whereby something about us becomes strengthened. For instance, my hands are completely unpracticed in the art of pottery. I compared one of my rolled coils with that of my teacher, and it fell way short of his standard. In owning that self-assessment, I continued to practice rolling the clay, getting a little bit better feel for it. Learning some subtle techniques to more evenly roll out the clay. I’m certainly not there yet, but I can see growth that occurred through honest self-evaluation and acceptance of personal weakness.

Learning is about Process rather than Product

Often our thinking about learning focuses too much on the end product, whether it’s a grade, an award or entrance into some college or career. In one of my previous articles, I challenged our thinking about using end product as the measure of success. We tend to measure success based on end product rather than process largely because it’s often easier to measure. Does Johnny meet the objective or not? There’s a place for summative assessment, to see where things stand at a key moment in time. But the most important work of learning is setting up good processes that will last a very long time, most often beyond the timeframes we set up for measurements.

Working with pottery was a chance for me to see the process of learning at work. You keep working at the clay, shaping it and refining it. For several days I would set aside the piece I was working on to take it out and work it some more. Each time I could feel that my hands were becoming more used to the clay. I was gaining more insight into the techniques being taught. New ideas emerged for what direction I wanted to take this project as well as the next one. Imperfections were evident each new day that weren’t as obvious the previous day. I’m looking forward to the end product, don’t get me wrong. I will use my handmade mugs with pride. But the process is so alluring that I find myself more looking forward to the next time I can work the clay.

There seems to be a lesson in this for us. Learning should entice us to enter into the process again and again. Our students should be encouraged to rework and refine whatever it is they are learning. Yes, there will be moments where we celebrate the work we’ve finished, but our learning comes in the moments when we are working through the process. We should create an atmosphere in our classrooms where we celebrate the moments when we are metaphorically or literally getting our hands dirty in the work.

Learning Brings True and Lasting Joy

There is a profound difference between true and lasting joy and the trifling hits of dopamine on offer in today’s world. We are tempted to think we have been productive or done something meaningful after a morning of reading through email, scrolling through a Facebook feed, and watching a few YouTube videos. Yet we all know that feeling of wondering where the day went and whether we actually did anything of any worth. We really need moments of true and lasting joy, but they almost always occur as a result of concerted effort. This was a point I made in my review of Josh Waitzkin’s book. Learning places us in a position where we are able to engage in something that will help us to grow, and in that growth we will find true and lasting joy.

In speaking about educating children, Charlotte Mason connects the dots of a holistic education. She writes:

‘Education is the Science of Relations,’ is the principle which regulates their curriculum; that is, a child goes to school with many aptitudes which he should put into effect. So, he learns a good deal of science, because children have no difficulty in understanding principles, though technical details baffle them. He practises various handicrafts that he may know the feel of wood, clay, leather, and the joy of handling tools, that is, that he may establish a due relation with materials.

Charlotte Mason, Towards a Philosophy of Education, 31

This quote is packed full of ideas. What I want to draw from this for now is that student aptitude is drawn out and promoted through effort. This effort is a joyful experience not only in the moment of learning, but that joy also gets compounded at later points. One aptitude enhances another. Different areas of learning begin to influence each other. The whole person is deeply impacted by this “science of relations” whereby a student gains mastery of multiple and varied areas of knowledge. And notice that these areas of learning are not just intellectual. She sees how intellectual learning and handicrafts work together, giving students transferable skills.

In the introductory video, my teacher mentioned how working with clay could be a stress reliever. I have been reflecting on this, because he’s right, it is a stress reliever. I think that’s another way of saying that when you work with the clay, you will experience true and lasting joy, which is an antidote to stress. For us as educators, there is a lesson here. The subjects we teach are full of potential joy that comes through deep work. Students sometimes confuse the effort of deep work with the stress of life today. We need to help them to understand this difference, and the way to do this is by tracking joy. Our classrooms should be places where we celebrate the effort of deep work and the accumulation of aptitudes in different areas.

I hope you’ve enjoyed my reflections on learning pottery. Maybe this will inspire you to sign up for a class this summer. If you are plan to learn something this summer, let us know in the comments. The Educational Renaissance community is one that promotes life-long learning, so we’d love to hear what you’re learning. Having mentioned the concept of joy, allow me to promote Jason’s new book, The Joy of Learning: Finding Flow through Classical Education. Learn more about it on our webpage promoting his book.

The post Summertime, and the Learning is Easy appeared first on .