麻豆传媒AV

David is the father of three children. While pushing his kids on the swings at his local park in Ottawa, he confesses to other parents at the playground that he鈥檚 concerned about putting his kids back in school because of COVID-19.

However, he鈥檚 also worried about keeping them home in case they fall behind.

The idea of parent-led home education has become markedly 聽in the pandemic. But it鈥檚 still an uncomfortable idea to parents steeped in the view that going to school is the gold standard for their children鈥檚 development socially, emotionally and academically.

Parents struggling with these questions might be relieved to read a recent article from one of Canada鈥檚 preeminent developmental psychologists, Dr. Gordon Neufeld. Published earlier this month, , provides evidence that school isn鈥檛 actually a developmental need for children.

I followed up with Neufeld to understand his work better.

鈥淚 have spent the majority of my professional career as a developmental theorist studying these issues and attempting to isolate the conditions that are conducive to the spontaneous unfolding of human potential,鈥� Neufeld writes.

His four-decade career spans clinical practice and research, including co-authorship of the bestselling book . offers courses for parents, professionals and educators on attachment, separation, anxiety and bullying among other subjects.

So why might the traditional school setting not provide the ideal environment for some kids?

Neufeld explains children have four irreducible needs in order to grow up into emotionally secure, independent adults. These needs are often poorly met in schools, making learning at home an attractive option.

The first need is for children to be attached to the adults responsible for them. Attachment, Neufeld writes, 鈥渇osters socialization 鈥� predisposing [children] to emulate us and empowering us to impart our values to them, shape their learning, or inspire them to assume a contributing role in our society.鈥�

Learning is at risk when curriculum precedes relationship. Where once the teacher-student relationship was paramount, this relationship-based understanding of the role of the teacher is less accepted today.

The second need, he says, is for children to feel. If you think of Mr. Rogers, the children鈥檚 program creator, , we may begin to understand what this could look like.`

Feelings for students of any age are more easily expressed in safe relationships with caring adults. If attachment to teachers is on the wane, feelings are also less likely to be met appropriately.

鈥淭he reality is,鈥� Neufeld says, 鈥渢hat many children find school stressful and our culture is less likely to provide the safe spaces for our children鈥檚 feelings to bounce back.鈥�

The third need is rest. A silver lining to COVID-19 has been the minimizing of hectic schedules. Children need rest to learn, says Neufeld, particularly rest from competition and outcome-based activities.

Those who believe going to school is necessary are often more likely to believe work is essential to learning, 鈥渉ence the constructs of schoolwork, homework, and the centrality of tests,鈥� writes Neufeld.

The centrality of outcome-based learning in school contradicts the fourth and final need of children, play.

鈥淲hat has been discovered is that true play is a form of activated rest, bringing all the benefits of rest to our brains and bodies. We also know now that play is truly 鈥榥ature鈥檚 school,鈥� that learning is optimized in the play mode, that play is the leading edge of maturation and that play is the womb of socialization,鈥� he writes.

鈥淚t could well be argued that the superiority of the Finnish school system is due not to its curriculum or its teacher training, but to the fact that it incorporates so much play into its daily structure.鈥�

How well students can rest in school remains a question. Of course, some parents aren鈥檛 thinking through outcomes at all. They鈥檙e thinking of the family finances, the need to work and the need for children to be watched. This is understandable.鈥淚t isn鈥檛 hard to understand that children need to go to school for the economy to recover,鈥� Neufeld writes. 鈥淣or is it hard to understand that some children may need to go to school to give their parents a break, or if coming from troubled homes, to find some safety and stability.鈥漈his reasoning, however, is neither condemnation nor praise for schools. It鈥檚 rather a recognition of reality, not what鈥檚 ideal. Some parents are on autopilot, going forward with schooling because there鈥檚 historic precedent for it and it鈥檚 paid for by our taxes. Here, COVID-19 provides an opportunity to be more deliberate in educational choices.

鈥淗ome education shouldn鈥檛 be seen as parents having to teach something if that is not what they want to do,鈥� Neufeld tells me. 鈥淗ome education is about taking back the responsibility of one鈥檚 child鈥檚 education. It should be an exciting opportunity for all to think outside this box we have built for ourselves.鈥�

An exciting opportunity may not be what parents are thinking when a pandemic thrusts the idea of home education on them out of the blue. But for those who are considering it, it鈥檚 helpful to know there鈥檚 no developmental reason why going to school is better.

David, the father in the park, decided to take some additional time off work and keep his kids at home. How helpful for him to know, then, that this decision need not keep him up at night.

Andrea Mrozek is a senior fellow with Cardus Family.