Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling Society. Cuernavaca, Mexico: CIDOC. Downloadable from: http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.html
p. 93 “The inverse of school would be an institution which increased the chances that persons who at a given moment shared the same specific interest could meet–no matter what else they had in common.”
One of the important defining characteristics of school and schooling is age-grade segregation. Age-grade segregation is justified on grounds of socialization and child-development theory. It is argued that children need to be exposed to peer-relationships so that they can learn how to relate to a cohort of children their own age. It is also argued that all children pass through development stages at the same time, and therefore they need to be related to, in an age-appropriate manner.
These two presuppositions are fallacious at several points. Firstly, God placed children into families. In most cases, families grow at the rate of one child at a time, with significant age intervals between each child. God is wisdom personified. The only wise God, our Saviour, would not ordain a process that is fundamentally flawed. Therefore, I argue that the best learning environment is not age-segregated, but multi-generational, with a broad range of ages represented in the learning environment. I have worked in schools for 25 years. I can speak with a measure of authority. I have worked in Christian schools, state schools, private schools, schools for Aboriginal children, and the common factor between all these schooling contexts is that age-segregated children degenerate to the lowest common denominator. Children crave attention. If they cannot get it from the overworked teacher, they will look for it in their peers, and the peer that they usually crave attention from is the coolest dude–the naughtiest kid in the class. Their socialization is downwards through the pressure of wanting to conform to be accepted–even in the case of a good family, good kids are dragged down, in the school context, and many good families have lost their children to the pressures of socialization in schools. In an inter-generational, multi-age learning setting, the child will look for attention from the strongest role model–their socialization is upwards, into the lifestyle of the patriarch of the learning environment.
Secondly, children are not equal. There may be general growth phases, but not all children reach the same milestones at the same time in all areas of growth. To presuppose equality of development, will lead to holding back of those who are ready to move on in some areas, and forcing outcomes from those who are not ready in other areas, and generally trying to squeeze the cohort of children into a teacher-determined mediocrity. In this context, none of the children are fully developed in any of their strong areas, many of the children are crushed because too much is expected of them in their weak areas (and as a result of the crushing they lose confidence to learn in their good areas) and every one has the desire to learn taught out of them.
Home-based education that is firmly grounded on unschooling principles, with a discipleship emphasis, is the best means of establishing individual learning needs in children. If there were local Flexi-Learning Centres scattered around the country, then a register of learning opportunities could be kept so that children could be connected with an appropriate local custodian of specific knowledge sets, skills, and experiences. Those who gather around this local expert will be there because they want to learn, not because they are of the same age. Such learning contexts may include multi-generational learners, and a distribution of a wide range of ages. No one should be excluded from learning simply on the basis of age. Older learners will be there to help younger learners, and learners who teach other learners will enhance their own learning–a fresh look at peer tuition.