Learning in any Atmosphere

Education is an Atmosphere.

What does that mean? When you think of atmosphere do you think of breathing space, or astronauts floating around (that'd be outer space actually), or perhaps about the pollen count??

Perhaps if it were worded as Education is an Environment...would that make more sense? Or when you think of environment do you think of tidepools, smog and/or switching to reusable bags?

Each of these conjurings can be considered accurate for both 'atmosphere' and 'environment'. What does it mean however when you put Education in there with either atmosphere or environment?

I've been trying to understand Charlotte Mason's meaning of education is an atmosphere and I must admit, I've not got it figured out. In fact, I would direct you to other bloggers who do have it figured out (namely Amy, Michelle, Barb, Jimmie or any of a number of others) than to say that I have it down.

Here is my take on Education is an Atmosphere (feel free to correct me, admonish me, agree with me, disagree with me):

Atmosphere is the very substance (although I do not mean that in just a physical way) that we are enveloped in on a daily basis. Whether it is in our house snuggled in a chair, or in a traffic jam during rush hour. Environment is precisely where we live- at all times- and those people and things that live there with us.

Dictionary.com defines atmosphere as the air, a surrounding or pervading mood, environment or influence, and a distinct quality of a character or place. Environment is defined as the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions or influences and social and cultural forces that shape a person.

So how does this fit in with Charlotte Mason's philosophy of education?

Interestingly, the definitions do not say that it is what we have made it. The atmosphere and environment are and we go with it. Many preschools and kindergarten classrooms (and higher up grades also) are 'set up', to the point that it seems that they are 'perfect'. School teachers are taught that order is necessary for learning (and it is, I'm certainly not disputing the importance of order), that shapes and colors need to be put at the level and at the forefront for the children. There need to be stations for certain subject learning. How else can they possibly learn these things if the atmosphere and the environment are not created for them?

But really, is this for the best interest of the learning of the children? What does it teach them? It would seem logical that this environment, to the child, is the place they learn. Nowhere else (at home, in the kitchen, at the store, in the garden) can they learn as they do in the fabricated classroom. Even in Charlotte Mason's day grades (marks) were taking over the actual learning in schools. She says:

"But a school may be working hard, not for love of knowledge, but for love of marks, our old enemy; and then young faces are not serene and joyous but eager, restless, apt to look anxious and worried. ...The fault has been in the atmosphere and not in the work." Charlotte Mason Vol. 6 pg 97 *emphasis mine.

Children do learn in a classroom just as they do anywhere but it was Miss Mason's view to not cater to the opinion that an atmosphere be created for the child- let the children thrive in the environment and atmosphere that is already. If they are taught to learn wherever they are, especially when it is not set up specifically as a learning station, then education becomes an atmosphere.

Even after reading Charlotte Mason and others who follow her, I cannot say that I've even come close to perfecting this in our homeschooling experience. I continue to try to foster learning in and through reality. It takes time and effort on my part- tremendous effort I think. It'd almost be easier to only teach and talk about things that would be on a test in a classroom. Easier to teach to the test for marks. Easier indeed- but in the long run it wouldn't be of a benefit to my children.