"Necessary" Subjects
Rachel
Hi all. I'm new(ish) here and not really unschooling, as my son is only 9 months old, but I've been learning so much from following this group and from Sandra's site. I'm so grateful that I've found unschooling while my son is so young.
I've been thinking lately about all the arguments against unschooling (and homeschooling in general) that I see and hear in various places, such as the assertion that "everyone NEEDS to learn algebra, calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics, etc., and that no mom can teach those subjects as well as a certified, trained, professional teacher, blah, blah, blah." So for the last couple months I've been thinking to myself when I see that argument, "well, yeah, they are necessary subjects, but unschoolers can learn those things on their own, or from a tutor or mentor, or a college class." But I've gradually come to feel that they really aren't necessary for everyone (or even most people), since not everyone has a need for calculus or chemistry every day. I never took chemistry, and aside from losing a couple bets with my husband, it hasn't impaired my life at all. ;)
It seems like there are so many other subjects that are far more USEFUL in life, but that aren't offered in K-12 schools at all. Relevant, helpful, important information. Just off the top of my head, here are subjects that are more interesting and relevant to my life than calculus, chemistry, et al.: politics, philosophy, comparative religion, home maintenance, architecture, ecology, weather systems, sources of energy, war, journalism, gardening/farming, nutrition, electrical engineering, statistics, health and the healthcare industry, law, ethics, computer programming, web development, business organization, and so on. John Taylor Gatto mentions dialectics as an important subject no one teaches anymore, and I don't even know what that word means!
I think I've finally gotten over the notion that there are certain "subjects" everyone needs to learn between ages 6 and 16. Now I just need to get over being pissed off about wasting so much time in school.
So tell me... what are your answers when people question you about these "necessary" subjects? It took me months, with a LOT of learning and reflecting, to get over my hangups just about this topic - how do you talk about this kind of thing with a highly skeptical questioner (say, a family member who you have to see all the time) when they have no interest in an actual conversation, let alone to have their entire worldview challenged?
I've been thinking lately about all the arguments against unschooling (and homeschooling in general) that I see and hear in various places, such as the assertion that "everyone NEEDS to learn algebra, calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics, etc., and that no mom can teach those subjects as well as a certified, trained, professional teacher, blah, blah, blah." So for the last couple months I've been thinking to myself when I see that argument, "well, yeah, they are necessary subjects, but unschoolers can learn those things on their own, or from a tutor or mentor, or a college class." But I've gradually come to feel that they really aren't necessary for everyone (or even most people), since not everyone has a need for calculus or chemistry every day. I never took chemistry, and aside from losing a couple bets with my husband, it hasn't impaired my life at all. ;)
It seems like there are so many other subjects that are far more USEFUL in life, but that aren't offered in K-12 schools at all. Relevant, helpful, important information. Just off the top of my head, here are subjects that are more interesting and relevant to my life than calculus, chemistry, et al.: politics, philosophy, comparative religion, home maintenance, architecture, ecology, weather systems, sources of energy, war, journalism, gardening/farming, nutrition, electrical engineering, statistics, health and the healthcare industry, law, ethics, computer programming, web development, business organization, and so on. John Taylor Gatto mentions dialectics as an important subject no one teaches anymore, and I don't even know what that word means!
I think I've finally gotten over the notion that there are certain "subjects" everyone needs to learn between ages 6 and 16. Now I just need to get over being pissed off about wasting so much time in school.
So tell me... what are your answers when people question you about these "necessary" subjects? It took me months, with a LOT of learning and reflecting, to get over my hangups just about this topic - how do you talk about this kind of thing with a highly skeptical questioner (say, a family member who you have to see all the time) when they have no interest in an actual conversation, let alone to have their entire worldview challenged?
Heather
Rachel wrote:
cars, eat food, and live in buildings, etc, etc. People who provide
these goods and services are essential to us in the way we live our
lives, now. It is elitist for me to assume my children are above these
things, and that we are a part of class that must pursue an "academic"
path to professional careers, in order to avoid manual labor or service.
Part of really being okay with unschooling for me was to accept that all
paths were acceptable, and valid, and potentially wonderful.
My husband was an english major who is now a carpenter. Some might
argue that he is more useful in his current profession- though I am sure
english majors can be quite useful, sometimes. He uses lots of geometry
and math, and some science, but has learned that on the job, or at least
REALLY learned it. He runs into customers and people new to the business
who don't know how to read a tape measure. Presumably most of them went
to school, and learned about measurement there, but don't use it, so
don't know it.
There are so many different ways a person can be useful or enjoyable, to
themselves, and to others. SO many. I find it presumptuous to think that
anyone would know what another person might need to know in pursuit of
their as yet unknown path. I have seen time and time again that my kids
can pick up very quickly what they need and want to know. So can I. I
have a degree in my field, but have learned most of what I use everyday
from doing it. The use of computers has changed everything so completely
that I really had to learn all of that on my own after returning to it
after a break when my kids were young.
The knowledge needed for many careers is changing daily, as technology
changes. You could mention that. So the most needed skill for adapting
in a rapidly changing world is the ability to learn what one needs in
any situation, with confidence. My kids have that. I am not at all
worried that they will find ways to be useful, and get compensated for
that. What that is and what they might need to know for it is unknown to
me at this time. It is actually unknown to me what I might need to know
for the future, too.
However, you don't HAVE to talk to them about it. Changing the subject
is fine, too. Mostly staying off the subject of what we DON'T do at home
has been the best strategy. People are usually pretty satifistied to
hear about what we ARE doing. As that is really cool, and pretty
distracting. Listening to NPR also provides me with lots of distracting
topics of conversation, too.
Heather (in NY)
>One argument that I have used is this: Most of us create garbage, drive
> So tell me... what are your answers when people question you about
> these "necessary" subjects? It took me months, with a LOT of learning
> and reflecting, to get over my hangups just about this topic - how do
> you talk about this kind of thing with a highly skeptical questioner
> (say, a family member who you have to see all the time) when they have
> no interest in an actual conversation, let alone to have their entire
> worldview challenged?
>
cars, eat food, and live in buildings, etc, etc. People who provide
these goods and services are essential to us in the way we live our
lives, now. It is elitist for me to assume my children are above these
things, and that we are a part of class that must pursue an "academic"
path to professional careers, in order to avoid manual labor or service.
Part of really being okay with unschooling for me was to accept that all
paths were acceptable, and valid, and potentially wonderful.
My husband was an english major who is now a carpenter. Some might
argue that he is more useful in his current profession- though I am sure
english majors can be quite useful, sometimes. He uses lots of geometry
and math, and some science, but has learned that on the job, or at least
REALLY learned it. He runs into customers and people new to the business
who don't know how to read a tape measure. Presumably most of them went
to school, and learned about measurement there, but don't use it, so
don't know it.
There are so many different ways a person can be useful or enjoyable, to
themselves, and to others. SO many. I find it presumptuous to think that
anyone would know what another person might need to know in pursuit of
their as yet unknown path. I have seen time and time again that my kids
can pick up very quickly what they need and want to know. So can I. I
have a degree in my field, but have learned most of what I use everyday
from doing it. The use of computers has changed everything so completely
that I really had to learn all of that on my own after returning to it
after a break when my kids were young.
The knowledge needed for many careers is changing daily, as technology
changes. You could mention that. So the most needed skill for adapting
in a rapidly changing world is the ability to learn what one needs in
any situation, with confidence. My kids have that. I am not at all
worried that they will find ways to be useful, and get compensated for
that. What that is and what they might need to know for it is unknown to
me at this time. It is actually unknown to me what I might need to know
for the future, too.
However, you don't HAVE to talk to them about it. Changing the subject
is fine, too. Mostly staying off the subject of what we DON'T do at home
has been the best strategy. People are usually pretty satifistied to
hear about what we ARE doing. As that is really cool, and pretty
distracting. Listening to NPR also provides me with lots of distracting
topics of conversation, too.
Heather (in NY)
>
>
>
stephanie
Rachel,
I tend to not enter in to conversations about unschooling with people who aren't interested in understanding it. Your child is so young that you could just stick with telling them that you plan to homeschool and tell them of all the online schools and wonderful curriculum available, just to get them off your case.
Unschooling doesn't need defending and unless they are your spouse, you don't need their permission. As my kids have gotten older some of our skeptical relatives have come on board with the idea of open source learning (everyone a child meets is a possible teacher) if not unschooling (children can learn on their own). This has allowed the relatives to get involved as facilitators in the kids learning. It took time and the understanding that this was the direction we were taking with or without blessings from those around us.
I think the amount of effort you put into it should depend on how integral the person is in your lives.
Steph
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with Nextel Direct Connect
I tend to not enter in to conversations about unschooling with people who aren't interested in understanding it. Your child is so young that you could just stick with telling them that you plan to homeschool and tell them of all the online schools and wonderful curriculum available, just to get them off your case.
Unschooling doesn't need defending and unless they are your spouse, you don't need their permission. As my kids have gotten older some of our skeptical relatives have come on board with the idea of open source learning (everyone a child meets is a possible teacher) if not unschooling (children can learn on their own). This has allowed the relatives to get involved as facilitators in the kids learning. It took time and the understanding that this was the direction we were taking with or without blessings from those around us.
I think the amount of effort you put into it should depend on how integral the person is in your lives.
Steph
Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with Nextel Direct Connect
Sandra Dodd
-=-The knowledge needed for many careers is changing daily, as
technology
changes. You could mention that. So the most needed skill for adapting
in a rapidly changing world is the ability to learn what one needs in
any situation, with confidence. My kids have that.-=-
This is a good suggestion, and it's true.
What I've done when people clearly seemed to be in challenge and put-
down mode, certain they were about to ask some question I had never
considered (yeah; what are the odds?) is I would give them a book and
say that if they wanted to know more they should read that, and then
if they wanted to discuss it I'd be glad to.
It was a big if/then condition on any further conversation about it.
If they read the book (used to be Linda Dobson's Book of Homeschool
Answers, sometimes, or Mary Griffith's Unschooling book, or maybe a
website), I wouldn't have to answer their questions because the book
did it for me. If they don't read the book, I don't have to answer
their questions because they haven't fulfilled the condition I put on
them.
Basically I was saying they weren't qualified to discuss it with me,
but if they wanted to study up, I'd give them some of my time.
If you do that now, you could use my new book! <g>
http://sandradodd.com/bigbook
But if they come back with anything at all like "Yeah, but..." you can
say "Have you finished that book I gave you?" If they say they don't
want to read a book, they want you to tell them, you could say that's
the problem with school, is that it keeps people from wanting to learn
on their own, but that you're not in the business of spoon-feeding
people information.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
technology
changes. You could mention that. So the most needed skill for adapting
in a rapidly changing world is the ability to learn what one needs in
any situation, with confidence. My kids have that.-=-
This is a good suggestion, and it's true.
What I've done when people clearly seemed to be in challenge and put-
down mode, certain they were about to ask some question I had never
considered (yeah; what are the odds?) is I would give them a book and
say that if they wanted to know more they should read that, and then
if they wanted to discuss it I'd be glad to.
It was a big if/then condition on any further conversation about it.
If they read the book (used to be Linda Dobson's Book of Homeschool
Answers, sometimes, or Mary Griffith's Unschooling book, or maybe a
website), I wouldn't have to answer their questions because the book
did it for me. If they don't read the book, I don't have to answer
their questions because they haven't fulfilled the condition I put on
them.
Basically I was saying they weren't qualified to discuss it with me,
but if they wanted to study up, I'd give them some of my time.
If you do that now, you could use my new book! <g>
http://sandradodd.com/bigbook
But if they come back with anything at all like "Yeah, but..." you can
say "Have you finished that book I gave you?" If they say they don't
want to read a book, they want you to tell them, you could say that's
the problem with school, is that it keeps people from wanting to learn
on their own, but that you're not in the business of spoon-feeding
people information.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Bob Collier
--- In [email protected], "Rachel" <danae28@...> wrote:
Things You Really Need to Learn
By Stephen Downes
http://www.downes.ca/post/38502
Stephen Downes' bio is here:
http://www.downes.ca/me/index.htm
"His cat, was the first feline in Manitoba to have had her own web page." Love that.
Bob
>You might find this a useful read:
> Hi all. I'm new(ish) here and not really unschooling, as my son is only 9 months old, but I've been learning so much from following this group and from Sandra's site. I'm so grateful that I've found unschooling while my son is so young.
>
> I've been thinking lately about all the arguments against unschooling (and homeschooling in general) that I see and hear in various places, such as the assertion that "everyone NEEDS to learn algebra, calculus, biology, chemistry, and physics, etc., and that no mom can teach those subjects as well as a certified, trained, professional teacher, blah, blah, blah." So for the last couple months I've been thinking to myself when I see that argument, "well, yeah, they are necessary subjects, but unschoolers can learn those things on their own, or from a tutor or mentor, or a college class." But I've gradually come to feel that they really aren't necessary for everyone (or even most people), since not everyone has a need for calculus or chemistry every day. I never took chemistry, and aside from losing a couple bets with my husband, it hasn't impaired my life at all. ;)
>
> It seems like there are so many other subjects that are far more USEFUL in life, but that aren't offered in K-12 schools at all. Relevant, helpful, important information.
Things You Really Need to Learn
By Stephen Downes
http://www.downes.ca/post/38502
Stephen Downes' bio is here:
http://www.downes.ca/me/index.htm
"His cat, was the first feline in Manitoba to have had her own web page." Love that.
Bob
Sandra Dodd
-=- So for the last couple months I've been thinking to myself when I
see that argument, "well, yeah, they are necessary subjects, but ...-=-
Really? I'm 56 years old and never "took" calculus, and never learned
it on my own. I haven't needed it yet. I married a guy who
understands it well enough to tutor others, but he works mathishly and
knows lots of mathematical ways of thinking. So as community
property goes, our family has calculus, but there are families all
around us who don't know it, I'm sure, and their cars run and their
dogs bark.
"Necessary" is worth reconsidering.
-="everyone NEEDS to learn algebra, calculus, biology, chemistry, and
physics, etc.-=-
"Biology" is a huge field. My kids have picked up lots of information
about cells and skin, reproduction of animals, plants and humans,
health, diseases and strength, nutrition (for plants and animals)...
Holly had a boyfriend with a degree in genetics. He didn't live a
better life than my kids do, nor get along with people better, nor
earn and save money better.
Little boys learn more about physics by playing with toy cars and
balls, from sports and wagons/bicycles/skateboards than someone
sedentary learns in a basic physics classroom. Someone can listen and
take notes about angles and force without a clue what it might be good
for.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
see that argument, "well, yeah, they are necessary subjects, but ...-=-
Really? I'm 56 years old and never "took" calculus, and never learned
it on my own. I haven't needed it yet. I married a guy who
understands it well enough to tutor others, but he works mathishly and
knows lots of mathematical ways of thinking. So as community
property goes, our family has calculus, but there are families all
around us who don't know it, I'm sure, and their cars run and their
dogs bark.
"Necessary" is worth reconsidering.
-="everyone NEEDS to learn algebra, calculus, biology, chemistry, and
physics, etc.-=-
"Biology" is a huge field. My kids have picked up lots of information
about cells and skin, reproduction of animals, plants and humans,
health, diseases and strength, nutrition (for plants and animals)...
Holly had a boyfriend with a degree in genetics. He didn't live a
better life than my kids do, nor get along with people better, nor
earn and save money better.
Little boys learn more about physics by playing with toy cars and
balls, from sports and wagons/bicycles/skateboards than someone
sedentary learns in a basic physics classroom. Someone can listen and
take notes about angles and force without a clue what it might be good
for.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***I think I've finally gotten over the notion that there are certain "subjects" everyone needs to learn between ages 6 and 16.***
Seperating the world into subjects, in and of itself, is something to question and ponder, let alone whether or not some of those subjects are needed or not.
The real natural working world doesn't work that way. Everything is interconnected with everything else. My kids are exposed to other kids who go to school, so they are familiar with the notion of "subjects". It's something I wish I could take away from their knowledge. In the age of DaVinci, math, art, and science were all studied together. Throughout history, knowledge and learning have been lumped together in many different ways.
If you go way back to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the people who have been attributed with starting the basis of western philosophy, you see that they all studied everything, each with their own personal reflection on the world, writing and discussing things that were more relevant to each of them as individuals. It wasn't until modern, post Renaissance thinking, that educational theories and thoughts started narrowly defining the world and breaking them up into mini subjects. (correct me if I'm wrong here, anyone who may know more about this than I do)
When you hear the phrase Renaissance Man, what does that imply? Simply a very wide breadth of knowledge, in modern terminology, one who has studied and excelled in many subjects. But, I don't think scholars of the Renaissance were breaking everything down into "subjects" like what we do today in modern schools, and even then, not everyone was actually in an academy, DaVinci is a prime example. Learning was an all encompassing thing. The Renaissance was hugely influenced by Greek scholars, which doesn't surprise me in the least. Even so, there were even more people using skilled labor and thinking and passing on their skills to the next generation, who weren't scholars. If I had to guess, I'd say that DaVinci was so very important because he directly impacted skilled labor. From the middle ages until somewhere about the mid 1800's, coinciding with compulsory schooling, most young people learned through apprenticeships, or through skills
passed on from their own families' trades.
That's my very brief summary of how I think about "subjects" and education and why I don't like everything broken down into neat little packages called "subjects". I think it inhibits real thought and real learning. Not to even get into the fact that scholars were adults, not children ages 6-16, and young people, roughly ages 13-16, were already working and in apprenticeships. While I have no doubt that many children worked, they were still children. I know I'm hugely oversimplifying here.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Seperating the world into subjects, in and of itself, is something to question and ponder, let alone whether or not some of those subjects are needed or not.
The real natural working world doesn't work that way. Everything is interconnected with everything else. My kids are exposed to other kids who go to school, so they are familiar with the notion of "subjects". It's something I wish I could take away from their knowledge. In the age of DaVinci, math, art, and science were all studied together. Throughout history, knowledge and learning have been lumped together in many different ways.
If you go way back to Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, the people who have been attributed with starting the basis of western philosophy, you see that they all studied everything, each with their own personal reflection on the world, writing and discussing things that were more relevant to each of them as individuals. It wasn't until modern, post Renaissance thinking, that educational theories and thoughts started narrowly defining the world and breaking them up into mini subjects. (correct me if I'm wrong here, anyone who may know more about this than I do)
When you hear the phrase Renaissance Man, what does that imply? Simply a very wide breadth of knowledge, in modern terminology, one who has studied and excelled in many subjects. But, I don't think scholars of the Renaissance were breaking everything down into "subjects" like what we do today in modern schools, and even then, not everyone was actually in an academy, DaVinci is a prime example. Learning was an all encompassing thing. The Renaissance was hugely influenced by Greek scholars, which doesn't surprise me in the least. Even so, there were even more people using skilled labor and thinking and passing on their skills to the next generation, who weren't scholars. If I had to guess, I'd say that DaVinci was so very important because he directly impacted skilled labor. From the middle ages until somewhere about the mid 1800's, coinciding with compulsory schooling, most young people learned through apprenticeships, or through skills
passed on from their own families' trades.
That's my very brief summary of how I think about "subjects" and education and why I don't like everything broken down into neat little packages called "subjects". I think it inhibits real thought and real learning. Not to even get into the fact that scholars were adults, not children ages 6-16, and young people, roughly ages 13-16, were already working and in apprenticeships. While I have no doubt that many children worked, they were still children. I know I'm hugely oversimplifying here.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***You might find this a useful read:
Things You Really Need to Learn
By Stephen Downes
http://www.downes ca/post/38502***
From that website:***Oddly, by this I do not mean 'literacy' in the traditional sense, but rather, how to look at some text and to understand, in a deep way, what is being asserted (this also applies to audio and video, but grounding yourself in text will transfer relatively easily, if incompletely, to other domains).***
While I agree with much of that, I'd just like to point out that the reverse is true also. Acquiring knowledge and literacy through audio and video, translates very nicely to real reading, when the person is ready to read. By the time Chamille picked up her first book and read it, she'd already acquired many books through cd's and tapes and videos. Since she had heard the written word, and stories, and ideas, it made it very easy for her to have a solid understanding of literature and vocabulary.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Things You Really Need to Learn
By Stephen Downes
http://www.downes ca/post/38502***
From that website:***Oddly, by this I do not mean 'literacy' in the traditional sense, but rather, how to look at some text and to understand, in a deep way, what is being asserted (this also applies to audio and video, but grounding yourself in text will transfer relatively easily, if incompletely, to other domains).***
While I agree with much of that, I'd just like to point out that the reverse is true also. Acquiring knowledge and literacy through audio and video, translates very nicely to real reading, when the person is ready to read. By the time Chamille picked up her first book and read it, she'd already acquired many books through cd's and tapes and videos. Since she had heard the written word, and stories, and ideas, it made it very easy for her to have a solid understanding of literature and vocabulary.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***However, you don't HAVE to talk to them about it. Changing the subject
is fine, too. Mostly staying off the subject of what we DON'T do at home
has been the best strategy. People are usually pretty satifistied to
hear about what we ARE doing. As that is really cool, and pretty
distracting. Listening to NPR also provides me with lots of distracting
topics of conversation, too.***
AND, sometimes it's not even worth it to enter into a conversation with someone who isn't going to or willing to even try to understand. Chamille has friends with parents like that. It's a pointless endeavor to counter someone else's preconceived notions of what you are doing, when their assumptions are competely false and their notion of how things should be are so very different from your own.
You'd have to start at square one and you just can't do that with some people! Sometimes talking politics IS much safer!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
is fine, too. Mostly staying off the subject of what we DON'T do at home
has been the best strategy. People are usually pretty satifistied to
hear about what we ARE doing. As that is really cool, and pretty
distracting. Listening to NPR also provides me with lots of distracting
topics of conversation, too.***
AND, sometimes it's not even worth it to enter into a conversation with someone who isn't going to or willing to even try to understand. Chamille has friends with parents like that. It's a pointless endeavor to counter someone else's preconceived notions of what you are doing, when their assumptions are competely false and their notion of how things should be are so very different from your own.
You'd have to start at square one and you just can't do that with some people! Sometimes talking politics IS much safer!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]