Shady Hill in Essence

     Sometimes, when thinking of issues of the moment, we tend to lose the longer perspective, and this longer view is what I would like to consider today. Whenever I begin to ponder on the things of basic importance about Shady Hill, I am struck by the fact that, though detail and interpretation change, the underlying principles-“forces” you might call them--stay the same. I refer to the qualities that make this school what it is, and unlike any other school.

     I am sure you remember that the school was founded by a group of Cambridge parents, mostly Harvard faculty, for their own children. The cast which they gave to it is sill very apparent and determines much of what we are and the decisions we make. They were a unique group. They believed fiercely in what Mr. Hocking called the “primitive mental hunger” of young children. He knew that you could not abuse a child’s mind and curiosity and then expect him to come to higher education with the spirit of inquiry undulled. A child’s mind was active, ready to participate in learning, not a passive receptacle. Children were supposed to think, to question, i.e., they had good minds, child-like in character if you will, but keen and needing to be treated as such. Children and teachers alike were chosen with these beliefs in mind. From the start it was felt that both groups must participate, must question.

     The original parents (who also taught) loved their subjects and wanted to pass them on with all their richness, not have them watered down by secondary or second-rate material. From the start there was insistence on the use of primary source material. Teachers who could create their own curricula were hard to find and had to be carefully picked. The themes of music, art, and poetry were a vital part of the program for all, from the youngest to the oldest children.

     Central Subject was brought to Shady Hill by Katharine Taylor in 1921. It followed this line of thinking and extended it. One must be selective; opt for depth, not coverage. Each teacher has to make this curricula his own, even though he works with hooks used by his predecessors. Our children will not have had completed world history or geography. The idea of Central Subject is to know from all sides, in many ways, to be able to understand a people from a view of their literature, myth, art, politics, games, music, houses, etc., to know how they thought, what their problems were and how they solved them, to know some of the people intimately to be able to ask the significant questions, to predict about the future. We encourage children to feel a oneness of knowledge.

     We choose significant people to study, but beyond the specific subject we are looking for longer-range learning. We seek an approach, a way of thinking and looking at a problem, of seeing comparisons with other peoples and times. We expect to have children know what it is to be involved and interested. It is this involvement we want a graduate to have. We wish him to know he has a stake in his own learning. He must learn to ask the right questions—the important ones have the tools which to approach a new subject.

     We attempt to teach basic concepts in any and every field, history or science or art. This is becoming increasingly important as we watch the world and knowledge change so fast. We cannot be sure what particular knowledge will be important for these children 10-15 years from now. The illustration of mathematics is significant here. In ten years content and approach have undergone a revolution which is not over yet. The computer will probably have to be taken into account at the elementary level in the hear future. Specific knowledge unrelated to the whole, will be worthless.

     Change like this implies the necessity to experiment. And, if it is real experimentation there will be some failures. Those who have been around the school a while have no doubt seen some, but we are free to change quickly. In this day of educational hardware—literally—the daring thing maybe to resist change, not change or resort to gimmicks in the name of experiment or newness.

     To be free to experiment we have to be able to move things around and frequently to teach things neither at the same time nor in the same way as other schools. For instance, formal grammar is taught much later here than at most other schools. But at the end of the ninth grade our children should be ready and well prepared to enter their next schools.

     Shady Hill also teaches skills, the tools of a good workman, but skill is always kept subordinate to the thing for which it is needed. Therefore with us the stress on skills may come later than in some other schools. First the child must feel the need for a skill; he will then learn it faster. Our obligation is to see that he acquires that skill, for without it he is crippled.

     One question that has prompted these remarks, is, “What do we attempt to achieve by the end of a Shady Hill education?” Some of the answers have already been mentioned—interest, questioning, experience with first-class material. If we believe in these things we then have to be prepared to deal with inquisitive minds and high standards. Children in our own upper grades are of an age which can be pretty exasperating, at times anyway. We expect that they will also be satisfied with stereotyped answers to their questions about all that they see going on around them. This is a difficult age for parents and teachers alike. We do not want to impose our thinking on them (and it would not work anyway), but we do want to lead them to make up their own minds, not to be sloppy about responsibility for that, or to thing that ”anything goes”.

     What does this mean? In history this means not to look at all the sides of a question and never take a position or have a strong feeling. The excuse that because there are good arguments on both sides, one cannot feel strongly about any one position is not enough. One needs to take a stand and make a commitment. In society, this means to feel a responsibility to be constructive, not just to criticize and destroy; not to say: “It’s not my business. So long as I do not hurt anyone else, what does it matter?”; not to realize that such withdrawal does hurt society as a whole.

     There is a definite need on the part of adults to be committed and not afraid to say what they think. They must make their position clear to the children; this stand certainly is not the same as imposing their own view on them.  We hear so much today about teenagers and teenage rebellion that we often tend to forget that these years are also a time of fierce idealism. I do not think that we are devoting as much attention to this side of their nature as we should.