Context of Grumet's theories

Grumet places herself in the tradition of experientially-oriented educations who stressed the practical value of knowledge, like John Dewey. Just as Grumet's vision of learning at a mother's side in the kitchen as a practical and memorable way to learn math: "Dewey believed that students should be involved in real-life tasks and challenges" (Neill 2005). Dewey always believed that bringing real life to the classroom knowledge could be accomplished by such schemes teachers using cooking to teach children mathematics. Learning about how people lived today could teach students history. By asking 'why are people doing this now,' children would be driven to learn about the past and read books on topics of personal interest, rather than to simply be fore-fed dates and data. Grumet echoes these sentiments when she says that a crisp New England-like morning when the snow is melting slightly into mud is the perfect day to teach the poetry of Robert Frost: exciting children about the process of education must be done a tactile and multi-sensory fashion and students should have input into the process (Grumet 1988, p. 76).

Dewey intended his philosophy of education to help all children, but his approach has been particularly helpful in dealing with children who have difficulty fitting into the mold of a typical day of classroom education, such as students with learning disabilities. The experiential approach advocated by Grumet is likewise helpful for a special education teacher. Special education teachers are often called upon to play multiple roles in a child's life -- for a child with a developmental disorder, acting as a friend and cheerleader may be required, to ensure the child does not become discouraged. Grumet's kinesthetic, hands-on approach to teaching with 'embodied' nurturing can be useful with children with Attention Deficit Disorder who are highly kinesthetic by nature and have short attention spans.

Reviews

Grumet's book was not extensively reviewed when it was released, although Debrah A. Dooley did give it a favorable review in the Harvard Educational Review. Dooley...

Dooley focused on Grumet's analysis of the hierarchical system of knowledge transmission and power which Grumet says has always been characteristic of male-dominated systems, including the educational system. Women may teach, but that does not mean that the curriculum is disseminated in a fashion that is female-friendly. However, although Dooley's review is positive, she is unclear exactly how injecting such personalized 'women's ways of knowing' can translate into a specific classroom exercises.
Grumet's book is inspiring and encourages teachers to blend more of their personal life with their persona as a teacher. But it is often short on specifics and can seem so passionate and theoretical it is difficult to apply to the classroom. It is refreshing to read a theorist who endorses the need to treat children as individuals, and acknowledges that standardized benchmarks may not be the best way of measuring knowledge for children with special needs, emotional problems, or who are just learning to speak English. But although Grumet chronicles many beautiful moments where her life as a mother and teacher merge, one cannot plan to do this every time one teachers. Often personal life intrudes spontaneously: and this is not substitute for a lesson plan. Grumet's examples, particularly those about refusing to privilege male ways of relating (loudness, for example) are helpful, but the book is not one that a teacher is likely to return to again and again for advice.