C Johnson
I just thought I would share this with everyone. I found this article on a TCS web page.
Chrissie
Taking Education Seriously
This editorial first appeared in TCS 24.
One characteristic that TCS shares with conventional educational theory is that both take education seriously. In both cases, education is considered to be important enough to take precedence over virtually everything else in the life of a child or family: schoolchildren have to attend all day, every day, whether this is convenient for the parents or not. Citizens, whether they have children or not, have to pay a substantial proportion of their income to maintain an �educational� system. If parents have been working all night to fulfil an order from their most important client, they nevertheless have to get their child to school on time, one way or another. If they want to punish the child by �grounding� him, or depriving him of TV, or making him do extra chores, or wear a beetroot on his head, or any other nasty fantasy that they wish to devise � that's fine � provided that it does not deprive him of even a single minute of �education�. Thus nothing outside the sacred sphere of
�education� is allowed to interfere with anything inside; but �education� is allowed to encroach, wherever necessary, on the rest of life: for instance, a school can impose homework or detentions as an absolute requirement, without reference to the importance of whatever other activities they may be displacing: education takes priority.
This is good. Indeed, there is only one thing wrong with this conventional view: it classifies as �education� things that are largely irrelevant to, and often tragically destructive of, the genuine growth of knowledge and creativity in the minds of the young. But while rejecting those errors, alternative styles of education (such as non-coercive ones) must continue to assign education that same overriding priority if they are to be effective. All too often they don't, and aren't.
Take the idea that instead of going to school every day, children should �follow their own interests�. Well, if this is the idea the parents are following then they must be serious about it; they must make every effort to facilitate this interest-following all day and every day, because if the children are not given the means and the freedom to follow their own interests, then what exactly is going to be the driving force of their education?
At first glance, perhaps, this is obvious. And yet a little reading of any �unschooling� literature or discussion forum reveals that many parents who ostensibly take the interest-led approach to education are simply not taking their children's education seriously enough.
Some of them are simply neglectful � leaving their children to their own devices without offering them enough attention, ideas, resources, encouragement, and so on. But a much more frequent mistake in �alternative� forms of education is for parents to draw an artificial line between activities which constitute Education and those which (they think) don't. They are willing help their children to follow their interests in such areas as mathematics, geography and history, but they have no qualms about making their children do chores, preventing them from watching TV, or making them wait for help if the parents are �busy�.
All the wonderful things such parents say about interest-led education mean very little unless they actually do help their children to follow their interests wherever they lead. If the children are going to run into a wall of parental intransigence every time their interests take them over the artificial �Education� line, their learning will be curtailed and their intellectual development sabotaged at every turn.
Consider the following example, from an article on learning to read, by Marnie Ko, editor of Nurturing magazine: [Parents] need to be willing to let go of all the ideas they have about how children should learn to read and just let them read because it's enjoyable. Above all, when the children finally do want to read, they need to let them be to read. The dishes and chores can wait!One can almost hear unschoolers cheering in agreement! So far, we are cheering too.
But how committed is Marnie Ko really to her idea that �children should learn to read � because it's enjoyable� and �Above all � let them be to read�?
For if the dishes and chores can wait for however long it takes for the children to complete the sacred activity of reading, but chores are nevertheless compulsory, it follows that chores cannot wait for anything that the children would prefer to do instead: only reading (or other Education) gives them that privilege. But then it also follows that children who are currently reading are faced with a coercive choice: if they continue to read, they will be spared chores, but if they go to play with Lego, say, they will be forced to do them. Similarly, if chores are imminent, the children can avoid them by starting to read, but not by saying that they want to do some Lego. Presumably if they read until well past bedtime, they will be spared the chores until tomorrow. Thus, since they can escape bedtime, chores and other unpleasant things by reading, they are being pressurised to read. Contrary to the parents' intentions, the children are now under coercion in the sphere of reading.
Our point here is not merely that such parents are inconsistent or hypocritical. It is that they are switching off the very engine that they are relying on to power their children's education, namely the children's intrinsic motivations. A �child-led� system of education that suppresses intrinsic motivations can no more produce results than could a conventional �curriculum-led� system that abandoned the extrinsic motivations of reward and punishment.
It follows that freedom in the matter of academic study is inseparable from freedom in the matter of chores, bedtime and everything else. If parents want their children to be free to follow their interests, this can only be achieved by adopting the TCS approach: the children's interests must be given encouragement, priority, and a genuinely free rein.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time you have been given." Gandalf
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Chrissie
Taking Education Seriously
This editorial first appeared in TCS 24.
One characteristic that TCS shares with conventional educational theory is that both take education seriously. In both cases, education is considered to be important enough to take precedence over virtually everything else in the life of a child or family: schoolchildren have to attend all day, every day, whether this is convenient for the parents or not. Citizens, whether they have children or not, have to pay a substantial proportion of their income to maintain an �educational� system. If parents have been working all night to fulfil an order from their most important client, they nevertheless have to get their child to school on time, one way or another. If they want to punish the child by �grounding� him, or depriving him of TV, or making him do extra chores, or wear a beetroot on his head, or any other nasty fantasy that they wish to devise � that's fine � provided that it does not deprive him of even a single minute of �education�. Thus nothing outside the sacred sphere of
�education� is allowed to interfere with anything inside; but �education� is allowed to encroach, wherever necessary, on the rest of life: for instance, a school can impose homework or detentions as an absolute requirement, without reference to the importance of whatever other activities they may be displacing: education takes priority.
This is good. Indeed, there is only one thing wrong with this conventional view: it classifies as �education� things that are largely irrelevant to, and often tragically destructive of, the genuine growth of knowledge and creativity in the minds of the young. But while rejecting those errors, alternative styles of education (such as non-coercive ones) must continue to assign education that same overriding priority if they are to be effective. All too often they don't, and aren't.
Take the idea that instead of going to school every day, children should �follow their own interests�. Well, if this is the idea the parents are following then they must be serious about it; they must make every effort to facilitate this interest-following all day and every day, because if the children are not given the means and the freedom to follow their own interests, then what exactly is going to be the driving force of their education?
At first glance, perhaps, this is obvious. And yet a little reading of any �unschooling� literature or discussion forum reveals that many parents who ostensibly take the interest-led approach to education are simply not taking their children's education seriously enough.
Some of them are simply neglectful � leaving their children to their own devices without offering them enough attention, ideas, resources, encouragement, and so on. But a much more frequent mistake in �alternative� forms of education is for parents to draw an artificial line between activities which constitute Education and those which (they think) don't. They are willing help their children to follow their interests in such areas as mathematics, geography and history, but they have no qualms about making their children do chores, preventing them from watching TV, or making them wait for help if the parents are �busy�.
All the wonderful things such parents say about interest-led education mean very little unless they actually do help their children to follow their interests wherever they lead. If the children are going to run into a wall of parental intransigence every time their interests take them over the artificial �Education� line, their learning will be curtailed and their intellectual development sabotaged at every turn.
Consider the following example, from an article on learning to read, by Marnie Ko, editor of Nurturing magazine: [Parents] need to be willing to let go of all the ideas they have about how children should learn to read and just let them read because it's enjoyable. Above all, when the children finally do want to read, they need to let them be to read. The dishes and chores can wait!One can almost hear unschoolers cheering in agreement! So far, we are cheering too.
But how committed is Marnie Ko really to her idea that �children should learn to read � because it's enjoyable� and �Above all � let them be to read�?
For if the dishes and chores can wait for however long it takes for the children to complete the sacred activity of reading, but chores are nevertheless compulsory, it follows that chores cannot wait for anything that the children would prefer to do instead: only reading (or other Education) gives them that privilege. But then it also follows that children who are currently reading are faced with a coercive choice: if they continue to read, they will be spared chores, but if they go to play with Lego, say, they will be forced to do them. Similarly, if chores are imminent, the children can avoid them by starting to read, but not by saying that they want to do some Lego. Presumably if they read until well past bedtime, they will be spared the chores until tomorrow. Thus, since they can escape bedtime, chores and other unpleasant things by reading, they are being pressurised to read. Contrary to the parents' intentions, the children are now under coercion in the sphere of reading.
Our point here is not merely that such parents are inconsistent or hypocritical. It is that they are switching off the very engine that they are relying on to power their children's education, namely the children's intrinsic motivations. A �child-led� system of education that suppresses intrinsic motivations can no more produce results than could a conventional �curriculum-led� system that abandoned the extrinsic motivations of reward and punishment.
It follows that freedom in the matter of academic study is inseparable from freedom in the matter of chores, bedtime and everything else. If parents want their children to be free to follow their interests, this can only be achieved by adopting the TCS approach: the children's interests must be given encouragement, priority, and a genuinely free rein.
"All you have to decide is what to do with the time you have been given." Gandalf
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
eriksmama2001
Yes, TCS espouses that 'education' takes priority over any compulsory
activity. Thus, any compulsion or coercion interferes with learning.
And, if education is a priority than it must be a priority for
parents to facilitate learning in a non-coercive manner. And that non-
coersion must be utilized in ALL spheres of life or else the
compulsion used at any time damages the intrinsic motivation that
drives child-led learning.
The TCS philosophy maintains that it is a contradiction to embrace
that education and child-led learning are a priority but utilize
compulsion in other spheres of life because learning can only occur
intrinsically. Only one process can occur at once: either an
intrinsic priority or extrinsic priority.
Thus child-led learning must presume that the child is intrinsically
motivated ALL OF THE TIME. Any compulsion is extrinsic. One can not
learn while being force to do something they do not want to do. One
can not learn extrinsically.
One must choose whether learning (intrinsic) is the priority in
parenting or making your child do what you want him to do
(extrinsic). Because a child does learn that people can make them do
things if compulsion is used. I prefer my son to remain intrinsically
motivated and know that he has a right to liberty and non-coercion.
One may choose that obedience, mandatory sharing of family
responsibilities, or religious devotion,etc. is your priority over
your child's education. But know that this extrinsic priority does
interfere with the process of intrinsic learning because these are
external priorities of the parents. A child may choose to embrace
(intrinsic) these priorities for himself but can not be made
(extrinsic) to value them.
However, both child-led learning and family harmony can co-exist when
consensual relationships are the priority. Philosophy/principles do
make a difference. Depending on what philosophy one chooses to
embrace, actions and choices are easier to put in perspective of the
unique set of variables that every choice provides. Philosophy is
the "why" we choose this way or that way.
Unschooling is a philosophy about child-led learning. There are
broader philosophies that incorporate the philosophies of both
unschooling and TCS. Consensual living is broader than just an
educational philosophy. It is the bigger picture about living
consensually, not just learning consensually.
Pat
--- In [email protected], C Johnson <piscesmomx3@y...>
wrote:
education is considered to be important enough to take precedence
over virtually everything else in the life of a child or family:
schoolchildren have to attend all day, every day, whether this is
convenient for the parents or not. Citizens, whether they have
children or not, have to pay a substantial proportion of their income
to maintain an `educational' system. If parents have been
working all
night to fulfil an order from their most important client, they
nevertheless have to get their child to school on time, one way or
another. If they want to punish the child by `grounding' him,
or
depriving him of TV, or making him do extra chores, or wear a
beetroot on his head, or any other nasty fantasy that they wish to
devise that's fine provided that it does not deprive him
of even
a single minute of `education'. Thus nothing outside the
sacred
sphere of
on the
rest of life: for instance, a school can impose homework or
detentions as an absolute requirement, without reference to the
importance of whatever other activities they may be displacing:
education takes priority.
are
largely irrelevant to, and often tragically destructive of, the
genuine growth of knowledge and creativity in the minds of the young.
But while rejecting those errors, alternative styles of education
(such as non-coercive ones) must continue to assign education that
same overriding priority if they are to be effective. All too often
they don't, and aren't.
idea the
parents are following then they must be serious about it; they must
make every effort to facilitate this interest-following all day and
every day, because if the children are not given the means and the
freedom to follow their own interests, then what exactly is going to
be the driving force of their education?
that many
parents who ostensibly take the interest-led approach to education
are simply not taking their children's education seriously enough.
resources, encouragement, and so on. But a much more frequent mistake
in `alternative' forms of education is for parents to draw an
artificial line between activities which constitute Education and
those which (they think) don't. They are willing help their children
to follow their interests in such areas as mathematics, geography and
history, but they have no qualms about making their children do
chores, preventing them from watching TV, or making them wait for
help if the parents are `busy'.
children to follow their interests wherever they lead. If the
children are going to run into a wall of parental intransigence every
time their interests take them over the artificial
`Education' line,
their learning will be curtailed and their intellectual development
sabotaged at every turn.
be willing to let go of all the ideas they have about how children
should learn to read and just let them read because it's enjoyable.
Above all, when the children finally do want to read, they need to
let them be to read. The dishes and chores can wait!One can almost
hear unschoolers cheering in agreement! So far, we are cheering too.
should learn to read because it's enjoyable' and `Above
all let
them be to read'?
are nevertheless compulsory, it follows that chores cannot wait for
anything that the children would prefer to do instead: only reading
(or other Education) gives them that privilege. But then it also
follows that children who are currently reading are faced with a
coercive choice: if they continue to read, they will be spared
chores, but if they go to play with Lego, say, they will be forced to
do them. Similarly, if chores are imminent, the children can avoid
them by starting to read, but not by saying that they want to do some
Lego. Presumably if they read until well past bedtime, they will be
spared the chores until tomorrow. Thus, since they can escape
bedtime, chores and other unpleasant things by reading, they are
being pressurised to read. Contrary to the parents' intentions, the
children are now under coercion in the sphere of reading.
they are relying on to power their children's education, namely the
children's intrinsic motivations. A `child-led' system of
education
that suppresses intrinsic motivations can no more produce results
than could a conventional `curriculum-led' system that
abandoned the
extrinsic motivations of reward and punishment.
everything else. If parents want their children to be free to follow
their interests, this can only be achieved by adopting the TCS
approach: the children's interests must be given encouragement,
priority, and a genuinely free rein.
activity. Thus, any compulsion or coercion interferes with learning.
And, if education is a priority than it must be a priority for
parents to facilitate learning in a non-coercive manner. And that non-
coersion must be utilized in ALL spheres of life or else the
compulsion used at any time damages the intrinsic motivation that
drives child-led learning.
The TCS philosophy maintains that it is a contradiction to embrace
that education and child-led learning are a priority but utilize
compulsion in other spheres of life because learning can only occur
intrinsically. Only one process can occur at once: either an
intrinsic priority or extrinsic priority.
Thus child-led learning must presume that the child is intrinsically
motivated ALL OF THE TIME. Any compulsion is extrinsic. One can not
learn while being force to do something they do not want to do. One
can not learn extrinsically.
One must choose whether learning (intrinsic) is the priority in
parenting or making your child do what you want him to do
(extrinsic). Because a child does learn that people can make them do
things if compulsion is used. I prefer my son to remain intrinsically
motivated and know that he has a right to liberty and non-coercion.
One may choose that obedience, mandatory sharing of family
responsibilities, or religious devotion,etc. is your priority over
your child's education. But know that this extrinsic priority does
interfere with the process of intrinsic learning because these are
external priorities of the parents. A child may choose to embrace
(intrinsic) these priorities for himself but can not be made
(extrinsic) to value them.
However, both child-led learning and family harmony can co-exist when
consensual relationships are the priority. Philosophy/principles do
make a difference. Depending on what philosophy one chooses to
embrace, actions and choices are easier to put in perspective of the
unique set of variables that every choice provides. Philosophy is
the "why" we choose this way or that way.
Unschooling is a philosophy about child-led learning. There are
broader philosophies that incorporate the philosophies of both
unschooling and TCS. Consensual living is broader than just an
educational philosophy. It is the bigger picture about living
consensually, not just learning consensually.
Pat
--- In [email protected], C Johnson <piscesmomx3@y...>
wrote:
>article on a TCS web page.
> I just thought I would share this with everyone. I found this
>theory is that both take education seriously. In both cases,
> Chrissie
>
>
> Taking Education Seriously
>
> This editorial first appeared in TCS 24.
> One characteristic that TCS shares with conventional educational
education is considered to be important enough to take precedence
over virtually everything else in the life of a child or family:
schoolchildren have to attend all day, every day, whether this is
convenient for the parents or not. Citizens, whether they have
children or not, have to pay a substantial proportion of their income
to maintain an `educational' system. If parents have been
working all
night to fulfil an order from their most important client, they
nevertheless have to get their child to school on time, one way or
another. If they want to punish the child by `grounding' him,
or
depriving him of TV, or making him do extra chores, or wear a
beetroot on his head, or any other nasty fantasy that they wish to
devise that's fine provided that it does not deprive him
of even
a single minute of `education'. Thus nothing outside the
sacred
sphere of
> `education' is allowed to interfere with anything inside;but `education' is allowed to encroach, wherever necessary,
on the
rest of life: for instance, a school can impose homework or
detentions as an absolute requirement, without reference to the
importance of whatever other activities they may be displacing:
education takes priority.
>conventional view: it classifies as `education' things that
> This is good. Indeed, there is only one thing wrong with this
are
largely irrelevant to, and often tragically destructive of, the
genuine growth of knowledge and creativity in the minds of the young.
But while rejecting those errors, alternative styles of education
(such as non-coercive ones) must continue to assign education that
same overriding priority if they are to be effective. All too often
they don't, and aren't.
>should `follow their own interests'. Well, if this is the
> Take the idea that instead of going to school every day, children
idea the
parents are following then they must be serious about it; they must
make every effort to facilitate this interest-following all day and
every day, because if the children are not given the means and the
freedom to follow their own interests, then what exactly is going to
be the driving force of their education?
>of any `unschooling' literature or discussion forum reveals
> At first glance, perhaps, this is obvious. And yet a little reading
that many
parents who ostensibly take the interest-led approach to education
are simply not taking their children's education seriously enough.
>their own devices without offering them enough attention, ideas,
> Some of them are simply neglectful leaving their children to
resources, encouragement, and so on. But a much more frequent mistake
in `alternative' forms of education is for parents to draw an
artificial line between activities which constitute Education and
those which (they think) don't. They are willing help their children
to follow their interests in such areas as mathematics, geography and
history, but they have no qualms about making their children do
chores, preventing them from watching TV, or making them wait for
help if the parents are `busy'.
>education mean very little unless they actually do help their
> All the wonderful things such parents say about interest-led
children to follow their interests wherever they lead. If the
children are going to run into a wall of parental intransigence every
time their interests take them over the artificial
`Education' line,
their learning will be curtailed and their intellectual development
sabotaged at every turn.
>read, by Marnie Ko, editor of Nurturing magazine: [Parents] need to
> Consider the following example, from an article on learning to
be willing to let go of all the ideas they have about how children
should learn to read and just let them read because it's enjoyable.
Above all, when the children finally do want to read, they need to
let them be to read. The dishes and chores can wait!One can almost
hear unschoolers cheering in agreement! So far, we are cheering too.
>`children
>
> But how committed is Marnie Ko really to her idea that
should learn to read because it's enjoyable' and `Above
all let
them be to read'?
>the children to complete the sacred activity of reading, but chores
> For if the dishes and chores can wait for however long it takes for
are nevertheless compulsory, it follows that chores cannot wait for
anything that the children would prefer to do instead: only reading
(or other Education) gives them that privilege. But then it also
follows that children who are currently reading are faced with a
coercive choice: if they continue to read, they will be spared
chores, but if they go to play with Lego, say, they will be forced to
do them. Similarly, if chores are imminent, the children can avoid
them by starting to read, but not by saying that they want to do some
Lego. Presumably if they read until well past bedtime, they will be
spared the chores until tomorrow. Thus, since they can escape
bedtime, chores and other unpleasant things by reading, they are
being pressurised to read. Contrary to the parents' intentions, the
children are now under coercion in the sphere of reading.
>hypocritical. It is that they are switching off the very engine that
> Our point here is not merely that such parents are inconsistent or
they are relying on to power their children's education, namely the
children's intrinsic motivations. A `child-led' system of
education
that suppresses intrinsic motivations can no more produce results
than could a conventional `curriculum-led' system that
abandoned the
extrinsic motivations of reward and punishment.
>inseparable from freedom in the matter of chores, bedtime and
> It follows that freedom in the matter of academic study is
everything else. If parents want their children to be free to follow
their interests, this can only be achieved by adopting the TCS
approach: the children's interests must be given encouragement,
priority, and a genuinely free rein.
>given." Gandalf
>
>
>
> "All you have to decide is what to do with the time you have been
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 7/24/04 10:38:59 AM, scubamama@... writes:
<< However, both child-led learning and family harmony can co-exist when
consensual relationships are the priority. Philosophy/principles do
make a difference. Depending on what philosophy one chooses to
embrace, actions and choices are easier to put in perspective of the
unique set of variables that every choice provides. Philosophy is
the "why" we choose this way or that way. >>
Right. And unschooling as discussed on this list and some other places
covers all that.
-=-Unschooling is a philosophy about child-led learning. -=-
Not as I've ever defined it. It's about learning together, about knowing
that learning is everywhere, not about someone leading it, or not.
-=-Consensual living is broader than just an
educational philosophy. It is the bigger picture about living
consensually, not just learning consensually.
-=-
Okay, so where do you want to invite people to discuss it?
This is an unschooling list and I'd really like for it to stay that way.
Sandra
<< However, both child-led learning and family harmony can co-exist when
consensual relationships are the priority. Philosophy/principles do
make a difference. Depending on what philosophy one chooses to
embrace, actions and choices are easier to put in perspective of the
unique set of variables that every choice provides. Philosophy is
the "why" we choose this way or that way. >>
Right. And unschooling as discussed on this list and some other places
covers all that.
-=-Unschooling is a philosophy about child-led learning. -=-
Not as I've ever defined it. It's about learning together, about knowing
that learning is everywhere, not about someone leading it, or not.
-=-Consensual living is broader than just an
educational philosophy. It is the bigger picture about living
consensually, not just learning consensually.
-=-
Okay, so where do you want to invite people to discuss it?
This is an unschooling list and I'd really like for it to stay that way.
Sandra