Charlotte Mason tells us that the teacher is not to be the “showman of the universe”, and that there is no education but self-education. These principles are interdependent in (at least) two ways. The first is obvious. The teacher who is taking over the room with personality and offering incentives overshadows the student’s opportunity to develop a hunger to learn on his own. The second connection, however, is more complex and subtle. One of the most impactful methods of transferring knowledge and ideas is by modeling. Students are always assimilating knowledge of what is in front of them. This includes the behavior of the teacher. Humble teaching encourages humble learning. And it might even be said that learning is made possible by humility. How can one learn if they believe they have nothing to learn? And how can the students become humble enough to be learners if they’ve never known anyone of the sort?
The bombastic nature of showy teaching is a bit like junk food for the student: not the best thing for them, they begin to feel they need it, and everything else starts to seem dry and tasteless in comparison. And at the heart of it, the personality of the student, so valued in the theory of a Charlotte Mason education, becomes drowned out by the insistence of the teacher to display and exercise their personality. And in the case of incentives and prizes - perhaps another type of teacher could receive gratification by the immediate approval and engagement of the student? Incentives, games and prizes can certainly deliver that. But is the most riotous classroom, in which the students "love" their teacher, the litmus test for the student's own ultimate good?
There is a beauty in the teacher holding back the full expression of their personality so that the student can develop hers. This is especially respectable in the classroom environment, in which the teacher has full opportunity to exert a power-over. She cedes that power…. For the children’s sake. The more naturally extroverted, the more talented, the more well-spoken, the more knowledgeable on the subject matter – in other words- the more capable the teacher is of spoon-feeding and yet refrains – the more honorable is the act of becoming less so another can become more.
There is also a humility in rightfully believing that, for instance, Shakespeare said it better than me. In fact, he did, and the student can tell whether the teacher believes that or not.
As a bombastic, loquatious type myself, (not to mention a nerdy type that gets excited and wordy about my interests), I am constantly needing to re-think – to literally “re-pent”, a word that originates from the Latin “paenitere”, to forcefully cause to regret or be sorry- for making their learning so much about me. For the teacher, and perhaps for the Christian life in toto, it is a lifelong exercise in “down, lower down!” as Andrew Murray says in his classic book, Humility. He also explains why it seems some individuals do bring blessing to others, yet seem to lack humility. He posits that they indeed have special gifts, but that ”in that very blessing the work of their faith is hindered, through lack of humility. The blessing is often superficial or transitory, just because they are not the nothing that opens the way for God to be all. A deeper humility would without a doubt bring deeper and fuller blessing.” If a lack of humility can impede the path for God himself to be all, how much more easily could a lack of humility in the teacher block a child’s personality in its initial, fragile expression and development? Could we make a way for that process to be “deeper and fuller”?
Humility is a way-making by the teacher. It is, by nature, an act of love. For our expression of personality and ability is, in a sense, our art – our vitality-our essence. It is a way of scattering our giftedness around…the dopamine flows, doesn’t it? But greater love has no man than this – that a man lay down his life for a friend. We lay it down. We lay down the pursuit of self-expression because it is best for our friend, the student. We refuse to hinder their Desire of Knowledge (curiosity) which Mason says is “the chief instrument of education; that this desire might be paralyzed or made powerless like an unused limb by encouraging other desires to intervene between a child and the knowledge proper for him; the desire for place,-emulation; for prizes-avarice; for power-ambition; for praise-vanity, might each be a stumbling block to him. It seemed to me that we teachers had unconsciously elaborated a system which should secure the discipline of the schools and the eagerness of the scholars,-- by means of marks, prizes and the like,-and yet eliminate that knowledge-hunger, itself the quite-sufficient incentive to education.” .(Philosophy of Education, p.11) In making my second point about modeling for the student, I might add here to Mason’s statement with my own observation, that we can also paralyze a student’s ability to humbly receive knowledge, or have a taste for it, by consistently demonstrating our own delight at, well,…… hearing the sound of our own voice. To put it simply, they can see us enjoying impressing ourselves and others. It looks attractive and satisfying. They are at risk, by watching the “showman”, to be more attracted to demonstrating the colors of their own personality to others than they are to learning anything about anything. What a dangerous habit to cultivate.
So we lay it down. We learn alongside. We do “set the table”. We do select the books. We do organize the day. We do set up experiments. We can point – to the literature, to the nature, to the Creator. But we understand that the most powerful tool we have to point a student to the knowledge available for the taking in the universe – is our own sense of wonder, and our own desire (and need) to take in knowledge.
Let it be our desire as teachers for our students to learn to be learners. Let us be humble –making ourselves "the nothing that makes the way"- for them to learn, and to walk in the path of self-education.