not anti-school
serendipitymama
Can anyone share with me links about Unschooling, specifically the academic aspects, that aren't necessarily anti-school or contrasting school? My husband liked school and feels like he got a lot out of it so he doesn't like articles that talk about all the ways in which school is wrong, instead of just focusing on why unschooling is right. :-)
We've been Unschooling, radically, for about 4 years now but he still has doubts about the academics. He loves math and reading and science and history and doesn't feel at all damaged by his school making him learn about them.
Thanks!
Brianna
We've been Unschooling, radically, for about 4 years now but he still has doubts about the academics. He loves math and reading and science and history and doesn't feel at all damaged by his school making him learn about them.
Thanks!
Brianna
[email protected]
Is he sharing all that love of learning with his children? I hope so. He would be a wonderful resource for them.
Nance
Nance
--- In [email protected], "serendipitymama" <granolapunk@...> wrote:
>
> Can anyone share with me links about Unschooling, specifically the academic aspects, that aren't necessarily anti-school or contrasting school? My husband liked school and feels like he got a lot out of it so he doesn't like articles that talk about all the ways in which school is wrong, instead of just focusing on why unschooling is right. :-)
>
> We've been Unschooling, radically, for about 4 years now but he still has doubts about the academics. He loves math and reading and science and history and doesn't feel at all damaged by his school making him learn about them.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Brianna
>
Joyce Fetteroll
On Jun 12, 2011, at 7:19 PM, serendipitymama wrote:
that's going to be hard to achieve through unschooling. And that's
probably why unschooling feels uncomfortable to your husband.
school is bad and why you shouldn't like school either." But some kids
-- like me, like your husband -- didn't hate school and may have
really liked many aspects of it. But the enjoyment of school has the
same flaw. Liking school doesn't mean every kid will like school.
So to understand better why people get so strongly behind unschooling,
it helps a great deal to dig into *why* people like school and *why*
some people don't. What are the common factors? And how can that
information be expanded on to tailor learning for each child so
everyone can say they enjoyed learning?
reading, science and math. I watched Shakespeare on TV for fun :-) I
went on to college and got a degree in electrical engineering so I do
know the fear that only school can get you the (supposedly) enormous
amount math and science someone needs.
School can work well for kids who absorb information without trying.
It can work well for kids who can pull an understanding just from
reading about something without needing to experience it. That's me.
That's why I did well in school.
But not every child finds that way easy or interesting.
Most people will say, well tough. They assume that school is the
reason that some kids get a lot from school. So it seems like forcing
yourself through school will get you what the kids who are good at
school get. But actually an enjoyment of the information and an ease
of learning that way is why some kids get a lot from school. Without
the enjoyment, without the desire, school just can't be the same
experience for every kid.
Unschooling is like school but tailored to individual learning styles
and tastes :-) Unschooling is responding to each child individually to
create an environment where they can experience the "enjoyment of the
information and an ease of learning" so they too can learn easily
*and* well.
Even for kids like me who were drawn to the types of things taught in
school (like math, science and historical times for me), unschooling
usually won't look like school. It won't look like kids are learning
the information that they (supposedly) need.
But what they'll be doing instead of absorbing information is
absorbing and building an *understanding* of how the world works.
It's been a long long process for me to unwrap my brain around the
idea that information leads to understanding. It's been hard because
*my* brain works that way. I absorb loads of ideas, let them simmer
and grow an understanding from them.
But that isn't how humans -- all animals, really -- are wired to
learn. We're wired to learn by trying things out and growing an
understanding of how the world works from what happens. That's why
kids play :-)
From the outside that way of learning looks inefficient. From the
outside it looks like playing, goofing around, having fun.
From the inside it doesn't look much different! :-) It feels like
play :-) But in the background the brain is making connections and
expanding on a picture of how the world works.
(A small caveat: When someone wants a lot of information about a
subject right now, a class or an all-you-need-to-know book is a good
way to do that. The reason that memorizing someone else's
understanding works in that instance is because someone already has a
bunch of questions they want answers to. They *want* the information.
But without the questions, the information doesn't have anything to
attach to. So learn "because you'll probably need it someday" is as
effective as someone being made to read a book on "How to make perfect
aspic". For people like me who have a big internal drive to understand
how the world works, even the book on aspic making might yield some
gems ;-) But most people aren't like me. And forced learning for
potential future needs is why most people hate school.
Without the need, without the desire, the information is often not
inherently interesting. (Except for people like me again! ;-) Being
forced to learn what's not interesting often leaves people turned off
to learning more about it. And worse, they may turn away from real
life uses of it that would have helped them understand because it
brings back bad memories of being forced. Which is why loads of kids
will balk at doing arithmetic outside of class. :-/
Just because we're hard wired to build our own understandings of how
the world works, doesn't mean we need to build our understanding only
from scratch. Obviously people have been improving on an understanding
of how the world works since the beginning of thought! But how we
naturally learn is by asking questions that intrigue us in whatever
order we encounter ideas that intrigue us. And we seek out answers to
those questions. Some of the seeking of answers will be us trying
things out for ourselves. (We're naturally driven to do this and find
it fun! :-) Some of it will be dipping into how others have explained
the world. (Like asking mom or dad! ;-) Or reading a book.) When *we*
get curious about a particular question we will seek out whatever
means seems to match our need in the moment.
What can be frustrating for someone who wants some feedback that
learning is happening -- as schools must do to give to parents and the
state -- is that the natural process isn't linear. It zigs and zags
and goes off on more interesting tangents. And the zig back may be
later in the day or ten years from now.
And that zigging and zagging and those tangents don't look like
academic learning for most kids. That's what can make unschooling
really hard to accept for people like me! They look like playing. They
look like playing hours and hours of video games. And asking
questions. And drawing. And watching TV. And conversations. And
listening to audio books. And playing with friends.
For some kids the playing will look more educational like Legos and
science experiments and completing 50,000 words of a novel in a month
for National Novel Writing Month.
But, here's the kicker: If the kids are exploring what interests them
in a rich environment -- where they encounter interesting things,
where their parents are interested in the world -- where their
interests are taken seriously and supported, their understanding of
how the world works will grow regardless of what they explore. By
pursuing what interests them, they're making connections that are
important to who they are, important to how their brains work,
important to what about life fascinates them.
For science minded folk, it's worrisome that not all kids absorb a
great understanding of science through unschooling. But not all kids
are interested in science. Not all kids are genetically wired to be
scientists. But *all* unschooled kids will build an understanding of
how the world works (including the science aspects) and grow a desire
to know a bit more because they have the freedom to ask their *own*
questions, to seek answers to what *they're* curious about.
Kids in school who aren't genetically wired to be scientists, who
aren't curious in those directions, don't get that freedom to explore.
It's assumed by educators and parents that they'll absorb the minimum
of "what they need to know", but is that true? Are there long term
studies? Schools only show kids have learned for the test. They
haven't proven the kids have memorized for the long haul, and, more
importantly, can't even demonstrate that the kids understand or can
apply what they've memorized in novel situations. What many kids who
aren't drawn to learning by absorbing information certainly do come
away from school with is a dislike of science and a dislike or
learning and a desire to stay far away from learning more. And that in
the long term is far worse than not having memorized information but
not having your curiosity crushed. Kids don't naturally hate math and
science. But without a curiosity in what's being taught, being forced
to learn math and science (and literature and history) can make them
hate those subjects.
Here's a couple of real life examples from my daughter:
When she was 10ish, we were reading a book that began with a joke:
"The town clock frequently told the right time." (Love that line ;-)
She asked what frequently meant. Now at 10 she'd certainly heard that
word dozens and dozens of times. But it wasn't that she had *no*
understanding of the word. It's that she had been building an
understanding of the meaning of "frequently" bit by bit, refining it a
bit more each time she encountered the word in a new context. But her
understanding hadn't grown to the point where she was positive about
the meaning of the joke. So she asked for a better understanding --
for my understanding basically -- because the understanding she'd
pulled so far, the understanding she could pull from the joke, wasn't
enough for that moment. She *wanted* to get the joke so she tapped
into my understanding,
In school the process would be to memorize the "right" answer:
"occurring or done on many occasions, in many cases, or in quick
succession". And to work at understanding from there. But human brains
naturally work the other way. They build up that understanding from
lots and lots of examples from loads of different contexts. Once
someone has loads of examples, a more generalized, abstract definition
will make sense. School tries to hand kids the abstract before they've
absorbed an understanding from examples. And before they *want* the
abstract understanding. Before they *need* the abstract understanding
to answer questions they have.
Real learning looks frustratingly inefficient! It *should* be possible
to just memorize understandings (like "occurring or done on many
occasions, in many cases, or in quick succession") and own that
understanding, and make that understanding work in real life. But
unfortunately it's not how (most) of us work. It works well for a few.
It seems to work well for some (eg, they can spit it back for a test
and they *think* they understand). It works okay for others who have
to work to cram it in. It works poorly for others.
And the problem with memorizing other people's understanding,
memorizing the abstract, is that it doesn't give us an understanding
of how and why something works in real life, and how and why it works
better than something else, and how and why it doesn't work as well as
this other thing and when you'd want to use this and when you'd want
to use that. It doesn't give us the foundation of understanding that's
summarized by someone else's understanding. It's *just* the summary.
Someone else's understanding is like the label on the box. Building
our own understanding is the context of the box.
Once someone has pulled an understanding of something from a variety
of real life encounters, it's easy to see how the (abstract) label
applies to the contents of the box. Its' very very very difficult to
memorize a label (an abstract way of looking at an idea) and then to
build an understanding to go inside that box.
Related to that, the woman professor who taught Physics I in college
said that boys picked up physics (mechanics) quicker than girls
because boys had spent their lives being the ball. And that's true!
(Obviously doesn't apply to all boys nor all girls, but it's true of
many.) Boys (in general) knew how things acted in collision because
they'd *been* the ball, had hit balls, had thrown balls, had thrown
rocks and sticks, had experienced dozens of different kinds of
"balls". So the abstract ideas presented in physics mapped to an
understanding they had absorbed from experience. Most of the girls,
though, hadn't spent years experiencing the way different things act
in collision. So us girls had to try to imagine a picture of how the
world works from a (mostly) abstract understanding of how we were told
the world works. Which doesn't work anywhere near as well as real
experience in a vast array of contexts!
That realization hit me hard when I went to write a paper about the
physics of a punch as part of the test for a black belt in Tae Kwon
Do. I figured it would be easy. But as I delved into it, trying to
apply the picture I'd built to illustrate the abstract understanding
I'd gotten from physics class, I realized I didn't understand at all.
The picture I had had been good enough to answer questions on physics
tests. But when I tried to map it onto real life, my understanding
revealed enormous cracks and holes. I thought I'd understood. Tests
showed I understood. But it wasn't an understanding at all. I had to
start from scratch and build up an abstract understanding from real
life examples.
(And the reason I did that, the reason it worked, is because I wanted
to understand. Being made to understand in college had obviously not
worked well at all! Even though I thought it had.)
My second daughter example: I too was doubtful that kids could learn
math from living life. Sure, they'd pick up some simple arithmetic
probably. But all those hours and hours of studying and practicing
math concepts from arithmetic to calculus was not going to happen by
living real life, I was sure.
But my daughter proved that idea wrong! By living life in a world
where she used numbers to tell her things she wanted to know about
things that interested her, Kathryn absorbed an understanding of how
numbers worked. And, more importantly, she absorbed and understanding
of how the world works *and* how numbers could represent that and why
someone would want to do that.
And how did she do that? Video games were her primary
"curriculum". :-) Not educational video games! Pokemon. Super Mario
Brothers. Animal Crossing. The desire to solve the puzzles and beat
the game made the information presented in numbers useful to her.
Pokemon alone has hundreds of charts and graphs that can help someone
play better.
Additionally, she was interested in organizing collections so made
databases and spreadsheets. (Of Pokemon, of dinosaurs, of creatures
she made up. What ever interested her. I helped her figure out how to
do what *she* wanted.) She was also into drawing on computers which
presents a lot of information and ways to do things that are based on
numbers. She had money to spend and wanted to know what she could buy
with it and how much more she might new.
Now she also did have a Dad who is interested in math but the amount
of fun stuff he showed her was minutes of math, not hours. (And he
didn't torture her with the stuff she "needed" to know. He just showed
her fun stuff like Fibonacci numbers.) And I answered whatever
questions she had, giving her the answers, walking through the answer
as I figured it out. (Eg, I never made her do the math.)
The point is that she didn't need an understanding of math to use
numbers. She *pulled* an understanding of math from her desire to get
better at what she enjoyed -- especially video games :-) (And I want
to emphasize she's not a math geek. She wasn't doing math puzzles
under the covers at night ;-) She's more of an artist and writer and
musician. But she obviously does have the genes to want to understand
how the world maps to numbers from both my husband and me.)
With unschooling, she *didn't* end up with a collection of knowledge
equivalent to 4 years of high school math. But she ended up with
something that was apparently much better. At 14 she took her father's
college statistics class and was always one of the highest scorers on
homework and tests. While she voluntarily chose to sit through his
classes twice, while she asked him questions while doing homework, all
the work on the homework and on tests was hers. She was in class with
college students 3-5 years older than her who had been through 12+
years of math classes and she did better than nearly all of them. Her
pulled understanding was an asset. Their crammed in memorization was a
handicap. (She also took Algebra and pre-Calculus. She made it through
most of Calculus but the teacher was lousy and it became more of an
exercise to get the math so she didn't have to do it in college rather
than for fun as it had been.)
I'm not saying every unschooled kid can take college statistics at 14!
She did well because she'd grown an understanding of how the world
works through pursuing her interests. She did well because she hadn't
been demoralized by 12 years of forced math. She did well because it
interested her. It interested her because of genes (mostly) and
because of an environment where math was useful and fun and never
forced on her.
She has learned well and profoundly about the world as long as she
pursued what interested her. The learning dropped off when she was
learning things that she didn't care to learn. The important thing is
that very very little of what she did during her years unschooling
looked like school. Most of it looked like things parents let their
kids do if the kids have been good, if the kids have finished their
(supposedly more important) school work. Since she's always been
resistant to learning what she hasn't chosen to learn, it's a good
guess that 12 years of required math would have handicapped her too.
Joyce
> Can anyone share with me links about Unschooling, specifically theIf someone's goal for his kids is a head full of specific knowledge,
> academic aspects, that aren't necessarily anti-school or contrasting
> school?
that's going to be hard to achieve through unschooling. And that's
probably why unschooling feels uncomfortable to your husband.
> My husband liked school and feels like he got a lot out of it so heI think what criticism of school often feels like is "Here's why
> doesn't like articles that talk about all the ways in which school
> is wrong, instead of just focusing on why unschooling is right. :-)
school is bad and why you shouldn't like school either." But some kids
-- like me, like your husband -- didn't hate school and may have
really liked many aspects of it. But the enjoyment of school has the
same flaw. Liking school doesn't mean every kid will like school.
So to understand better why people get so strongly behind unschooling,
it helps a great deal to dig into *why* people like school and *why*
some people don't. What are the common factors? And how can that
information be expanded on to tailor learning for each child so
everyone can say they enjoyed learning?
> He loves math and reading and science and history and doesn't feelWell, that's pretty much me too :-) I was a geeky kid. I loved
> at all damaged by his school making him learn about them.
reading, science and math. I watched Shakespeare on TV for fun :-) I
went on to college and got a degree in electrical engineering so I do
know the fear that only school can get you the (supposedly) enormous
amount math and science someone needs.
School can work well for kids who absorb information without trying.
It can work well for kids who can pull an understanding just from
reading about something without needing to experience it. That's me.
That's why I did well in school.
But not every child finds that way easy or interesting.
Most people will say, well tough. They assume that school is the
reason that some kids get a lot from school. So it seems like forcing
yourself through school will get you what the kids who are good at
school get. But actually an enjoyment of the information and an ease
of learning that way is why some kids get a lot from school. Without
the enjoyment, without the desire, school just can't be the same
experience for every kid.
Unschooling is like school but tailored to individual learning styles
and tastes :-) Unschooling is responding to each child individually to
create an environment where they can experience the "enjoyment of the
information and an ease of learning" so they too can learn easily
*and* well.
Even for kids like me who were drawn to the types of things taught in
school (like math, science and historical times for me), unschooling
usually won't look like school. It won't look like kids are learning
the information that they (supposedly) need.
But what they'll be doing instead of absorbing information is
absorbing and building an *understanding* of how the world works.
It's been a long long process for me to unwrap my brain around the
idea that information leads to understanding. It's been hard because
*my* brain works that way. I absorb loads of ideas, let them simmer
and grow an understanding from them.
But that isn't how humans -- all animals, really -- are wired to
learn. We're wired to learn by trying things out and growing an
understanding of how the world works from what happens. That's why
kids play :-)
From the outside that way of learning looks inefficient. From the
outside it looks like playing, goofing around, having fun.
From the inside it doesn't look much different! :-) It feels like
play :-) But in the background the brain is making connections and
expanding on a picture of how the world works.
(A small caveat: When someone wants a lot of information about a
subject right now, a class or an all-you-need-to-know book is a good
way to do that. The reason that memorizing someone else's
understanding works in that instance is because someone already has a
bunch of questions they want answers to. They *want* the information.
But without the questions, the information doesn't have anything to
attach to. So learn "because you'll probably need it someday" is as
effective as someone being made to read a book on "How to make perfect
aspic". For people like me who have a big internal drive to understand
how the world works, even the book on aspic making might yield some
gems ;-) But most people aren't like me. And forced learning for
potential future needs is why most people hate school.
Without the need, without the desire, the information is often not
inherently interesting. (Except for people like me again! ;-) Being
forced to learn what's not interesting often leaves people turned off
to learning more about it. And worse, they may turn away from real
life uses of it that would have helped them understand because it
brings back bad memories of being forced. Which is why loads of kids
will balk at doing arithmetic outside of class. :-/
Just because we're hard wired to build our own understandings of how
the world works, doesn't mean we need to build our understanding only
from scratch. Obviously people have been improving on an understanding
of how the world works since the beginning of thought! But how we
naturally learn is by asking questions that intrigue us in whatever
order we encounter ideas that intrigue us. And we seek out answers to
those questions. Some of the seeking of answers will be us trying
things out for ourselves. (We're naturally driven to do this and find
it fun! :-) Some of it will be dipping into how others have explained
the world. (Like asking mom or dad! ;-) Or reading a book.) When *we*
get curious about a particular question we will seek out whatever
means seems to match our need in the moment.
What can be frustrating for someone who wants some feedback that
learning is happening -- as schools must do to give to parents and the
state -- is that the natural process isn't linear. It zigs and zags
and goes off on more interesting tangents. And the zig back may be
later in the day or ten years from now.
And that zigging and zagging and those tangents don't look like
academic learning for most kids. That's what can make unschooling
really hard to accept for people like me! They look like playing. They
look like playing hours and hours of video games. And asking
questions. And drawing. And watching TV. And conversations. And
listening to audio books. And playing with friends.
For some kids the playing will look more educational like Legos and
science experiments and completing 50,000 words of a novel in a month
for National Novel Writing Month.
But, here's the kicker: If the kids are exploring what interests them
in a rich environment -- where they encounter interesting things,
where their parents are interested in the world -- where their
interests are taken seriously and supported, their understanding of
how the world works will grow regardless of what they explore. By
pursuing what interests them, they're making connections that are
important to who they are, important to how their brains work,
important to what about life fascinates them.
For science minded folk, it's worrisome that not all kids absorb a
great understanding of science through unschooling. But not all kids
are interested in science. Not all kids are genetically wired to be
scientists. But *all* unschooled kids will build an understanding of
how the world works (including the science aspects) and grow a desire
to know a bit more because they have the freedom to ask their *own*
questions, to seek answers to what *they're* curious about.
Kids in school who aren't genetically wired to be scientists, who
aren't curious in those directions, don't get that freedom to explore.
It's assumed by educators and parents that they'll absorb the minimum
of "what they need to know", but is that true? Are there long term
studies? Schools only show kids have learned for the test. They
haven't proven the kids have memorized for the long haul, and, more
importantly, can't even demonstrate that the kids understand or can
apply what they've memorized in novel situations. What many kids who
aren't drawn to learning by absorbing information certainly do come
away from school with is a dislike of science and a dislike or
learning and a desire to stay far away from learning more. And that in
the long term is far worse than not having memorized information but
not having your curiosity crushed. Kids don't naturally hate math and
science. But without a curiosity in what's being taught, being forced
to learn math and science (and literature and history) can make them
hate those subjects.
Here's a couple of real life examples from my daughter:
When she was 10ish, we were reading a book that began with a joke:
"The town clock frequently told the right time." (Love that line ;-)
She asked what frequently meant. Now at 10 she'd certainly heard that
word dozens and dozens of times. But it wasn't that she had *no*
understanding of the word. It's that she had been building an
understanding of the meaning of "frequently" bit by bit, refining it a
bit more each time she encountered the word in a new context. But her
understanding hadn't grown to the point where she was positive about
the meaning of the joke. So she asked for a better understanding --
for my understanding basically -- because the understanding she'd
pulled so far, the understanding she could pull from the joke, wasn't
enough for that moment. She *wanted* to get the joke so she tapped
into my understanding,
In school the process would be to memorize the "right" answer:
"occurring or done on many occasions, in many cases, or in quick
succession". And to work at understanding from there. But human brains
naturally work the other way. They build up that understanding from
lots and lots of examples from loads of different contexts. Once
someone has loads of examples, a more generalized, abstract definition
will make sense. School tries to hand kids the abstract before they've
absorbed an understanding from examples. And before they *want* the
abstract understanding. Before they *need* the abstract understanding
to answer questions they have.
Real learning looks frustratingly inefficient! It *should* be possible
to just memorize understandings (like "occurring or done on many
occasions, in many cases, or in quick succession") and own that
understanding, and make that understanding work in real life. But
unfortunately it's not how (most) of us work. It works well for a few.
It seems to work well for some (eg, they can spit it back for a test
and they *think* they understand). It works okay for others who have
to work to cram it in. It works poorly for others.
And the problem with memorizing other people's understanding,
memorizing the abstract, is that it doesn't give us an understanding
of how and why something works in real life, and how and why it works
better than something else, and how and why it doesn't work as well as
this other thing and when you'd want to use this and when you'd want
to use that. It doesn't give us the foundation of understanding that's
summarized by someone else's understanding. It's *just* the summary.
Someone else's understanding is like the label on the box. Building
our own understanding is the context of the box.
Once someone has pulled an understanding of something from a variety
of real life encounters, it's easy to see how the (abstract) label
applies to the contents of the box. Its' very very very difficult to
memorize a label (an abstract way of looking at an idea) and then to
build an understanding to go inside that box.
Related to that, the woman professor who taught Physics I in college
said that boys picked up physics (mechanics) quicker than girls
because boys had spent their lives being the ball. And that's true!
(Obviously doesn't apply to all boys nor all girls, but it's true of
many.) Boys (in general) knew how things acted in collision because
they'd *been* the ball, had hit balls, had thrown balls, had thrown
rocks and sticks, had experienced dozens of different kinds of
"balls". So the abstract ideas presented in physics mapped to an
understanding they had absorbed from experience. Most of the girls,
though, hadn't spent years experiencing the way different things act
in collision. So us girls had to try to imagine a picture of how the
world works from a (mostly) abstract understanding of how we were told
the world works. Which doesn't work anywhere near as well as real
experience in a vast array of contexts!
That realization hit me hard when I went to write a paper about the
physics of a punch as part of the test for a black belt in Tae Kwon
Do. I figured it would be easy. But as I delved into it, trying to
apply the picture I'd built to illustrate the abstract understanding
I'd gotten from physics class, I realized I didn't understand at all.
The picture I had had been good enough to answer questions on physics
tests. But when I tried to map it onto real life, my understanding
revealed enormous cracks and holes. I thought I'd understood. Tests
showed I understood. But it wasn't an understanding at all. I had to
start from scratch and build up an abstract understanding from real
life examples.
(And the reason I did that, the reason it worked, is because I wanted
to understand. Being made to understand in college had obviously not
worked well at all! Even though I thought it had.)
My second daughter example: I too was doubtful that kids could learn
math from living life. Sure, they'd pick up some simple arithmetic
probably. But all those hours and hours of studying and practicing
math concepts from arithmetic to calculus was not going to happen by
living real life, I was sure.
But my daughter proved that idea wrong! By living life in a world
where she used numbers to tell her things she wanted to know about
things that interested her, Kathryn absorbed an understanding of how
numbers worked. And, more importantly, she absorbed and understanding
of how the world works *and* how numbers could represent that and why
someone would want to do that.
And how did she do that? Video games were her primary
"curriculum". :-) Not educational video games! Pokemon. Super Mario
Brothers. Animal Crossing. The desire to solve the puzzles and beat
the game made the information presented in numbers useful to her.
Pokemon alone has hundreds of charts and graphs that can help someone
play better.
Additionally, she was interested in organizing collections so made
databases and spreadsheets. (Of Pokemon, of dinosaurs, of creatures
she made up. What ever interested her. I helped her figure out how to
do what *she* wanted.) She was also into drawing on computers which
presents a lot of information and ways to do things that are based on
numbers. She had money to spend and wanted to know what she could buy
with it and how much more she might new.
Now she also did have a Dad who is interested in math but the amount
of fun stuff he showed her was minutes of math, not hours. (And he
didn't torture her with the stuff she "needed" to know. He just showed
her fun stuff like Fibonacci numbers.) And I answered whatever
questions she had, giving her the answers, walking through the answer
as I figured it out. (Eg, I never made her do the math.)
The point is that she didn't need an understanding of math to use
numbers. She *pulled* an understanding of math from her desire to get
better at what she enjoyed -- especially video games :-) (And I want
to emphasize she's not a math geek. She wasn't doing math puzzles
under the covers at night ;-) She's more of an artist and writer and
musician. But she obviously does have the genes to want to understand
how the world maps to numbers from both my husband and me.)
With unschooling, she *didn't* end up with a collection of knowledge
equivalent to 4 years of high school math. But she ended up with
something that was apparently much better. At 14 she took her father's
college statistics class and was always one of the highest scorers on
homework and tests. While she voluntarily chose to sit through his
classes twice, while she asked him questions while doing homework, all
the work on the homework and on tests was hers. She was in class with
college students 3-5 years older than her who had been through 12+
years of math classes and she did better than nearly all of them. Her
pulled understanding was an asset. Their crammed in memorization was a
handicap. (She also took Algebra and pre-Calculus. She made it through
most of Calculus but the teacher was lousy and it became more of an
exercise to get the math so she didn't have to do it in college rather
than for fun as it had been.)
I'm not saying every unschooled kid can take college statistics at 14!
She did well because she'd grown an understanding of how the world
works through pursuing her interests. She did well because she hadn't
been demoralized by 12 years of forced math. She did well because it
interested her. It interested her because of genes (mostly) and
because of an environment where math was useful and fun and never
forced on her.
She has learned well and profoundly about the world as long as she
pursued what interested her. The learning dropped off when she was
learning things that she didn't care to learn. The important thing is
that very very little of what she did during her years unschooling
looked like school. Most of it looked like things parents let their
kids do if the kids have been good, if the kids have finished their
(supposedly more important) school work. Since she's always been
resistant to learning what she hasn't chosen to learn, it's a good
guess that 12 years of required math would have handicapped her too.
Joyce
Joyce Fetteroll
> We've been Unschooling, radically, for about 4 years now but heMy site tends to tackle the subject from a logical point of view
> still has doubts about the academics. He loves math and reading and
> science and history and doesn't feel at all damaged by his school
> making him learn about them.
rather than the more emotional approach that women tend to be drawn
to. That's not a put down of women! It's a recognition that women and
men's brains work differently so they tend to approach things
differently. Different is rich and good! :-) But it means that women's
explanations and what comforts women's worries often doesn't get at
what worries men. So for an engineer's take on unschooling he can try:
http://joyfullyrejoycing.com
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
plaidpanties666
Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...> wrote:
Absorbing information effortlessly is why I did well in school too - but conversely why I struggled more after graduation. That ability didn't set me up well with real life skills; those are things I've had to pick up on my own while un-learning a good many of my school skills.
That might come across as anti-school, but its one of the biggest criticisms of college professors and employers of young adults - and parents and teachers, too! Schools aren't designed to teach life skills and so they Can't, for the most part.
Kids can do well leaving school if they go right into a situation where they have something like mentorship - and smaller colleges, Vo-tech schools, and with academic fraternities are frequently set up to provide exactly that, but not all kids know to take advantage of those options.
Some kids get a bit of mentorship in high-school, as well, via a favorite teacher, coach, or club leader. The trouble is, schools don't have the resources to provide that level of support to all students or even Most students. And you can't know which of your kids will get that kind of support in school and which won't. Kids who are very confident and self-assured can end up getting little to no support in the school system, for instance, because they seem to "have it all together".
Unschooling sets kids up with the kind of support system that lets them learn real world skills with a much higher degree of safety and support sooner. It's an avenue whereby support can be targetted to the real needs of individuals. That's an educational ideal! Its what every (good) teacher would like for her or his students - individualized support.
It could be helpful to your husband if you did some research into the education of "gifted" kids because it tends to revolve around this very issue. "Gifted" kids are expected to forge ahead in topics that interest them but also to need a lot of unexpected help along the way. Unschooling works along that same premise but takes it a little further -not just "gifted" kids benefit from an individualized approach to exploring the world, but all kids.
---Meredith
>> School can work well for kids who absorb information without trying.At the same time, though, those same kids will do just as well without school - they don't Need school to learn. What they need is support for the things they don't do as well on their own and schools don't provide those things.
> It can work well for kids who can pull an understanding just from
> reading about something without needing to experience it. That's me.
> That's why I did well in school.
Absorbing information effortlessly is why I did well in school too - but conversely why I struggled more after graduation. That ability didn't set me up well with real life skills; those are things I've had to pick up on my own while un-learning a good many of my school skills.
That might come across as anti-school, but its one of the biggest criticisms of college professors and employers of young adults - and parents and teachers, too! Schools aren't designed to teach life skills and so they Can't, for the most part.
Kids can do well leaving school if they go right into a situation where they have something like mentorship - and smaller colleges, Vo-tech schools, and with academic fraternities are frequently set up to provide exactly that, but not all kids know to take advantage of those options.
Some kids get a bit of mentorship in high-school, as well, via a favorite teacher, coach, or club leader. The trouble is, schools don't have the resources to provide that level of support to all students or even Most students. And you can't know which of your kids will get that kind of support in school and which won't. Kids who are very confident and self-assured can end up getting little to no support in the school system, for instance, because they seem to "have it all together".
Unschooling sets kids up with the kind of support system that lets them learn real world skills with a much higher degree of safety and support sooner. It's an avenue whereby support can be targetted to the real needs of individuals. That's an educational ideal! Its what every (good) teacher would like for her or his students - individualized support.
It could be helpful to your husband if you did some research into the education of "gifted" kids because it tends to revolve around this very issue. "Gifted" kids are expected to forge ahead in topics that interest them but also to need a lot of unexpected help along the way. Unschooling works along that same premise but takes it a little further -not just "gifted" kids benefit from an individualized approach to exploring the world, but all kids.
---Meredith
JJ
> Can anyone share with me links about Unschooling, specifically the academic aspects, that aren't necessarily anti-school or contrasting school? My husband liked school and feels like he got a lot out of it so he doesn't like articles that talk about all the ways in which school is wrong, instead of just focusing on why unschooling is right. . . He loves math and reading and science and history and doesn't feel at all damaged by his school making him learn about them.I loved school and academics and especially libraries. For me it was all exciting and absorbing very satisfying. I wanted to read and think and explore ideas, to know and do and be in all directions. I enjoyed it so much that I studied to become an education professional and didn't see any difference between school and education, thought of them as the same thing. But I've come to understand that I was unusual to experience School and Education that way.
>
>
What I want for my children is the loving of learning, the desire that leads education and living the life of the mind unbound -- not necessarily the Schooling, although if that works for them, fine. I was churched as a child and loved much of that in the same ways I did schooling. Now what I want for my children is ethical maturity, goodness, the morality and the communal comfort of connection with human transcendence -- whether or not they ever find any of it in Church.
School and Church are forms of institutional support for (and increasing authority over) something that only has meaning inside each individual. To criticize the institution of school or church isn't to be against education or ethics, learning or spiritual growth; indeed it's often the opposite, arising from those who care, who would defend and return focus to individual support when institutions disappoint or worse.
I started to write about these differences between School and Education soon after our first child was born in 1990 (at 21 now, she does, too!)and perhaps in a way your DH would relate to? Here's one excerpt, with more links to follow inside:
http://www.culturekitchen.com/jj_ross/blog/flash_wimbledon_widget_woes_intelligent_individ
"Nurturing Intelligence on Any Surface. . .
Surface players are out. Deep thinking is in. And yet, the nuance is
lost on an American system still leaning on production-line academies to spit out the next mechanical marvel.
Versatility isn't a talent, but a desire to extend ability.
. . .Where did Nadal find this spirit of court innovation?
Not at an American academy. Nadal's parents resisted that siren's song. He stayed close to home... far from the Nick Bollettieri-style compounds in Florida.
Instead, Nadal grew up with dimension, was raised a chameleon... Nadal applied his eagerness to learn and adjust as he decoded the subtleties of grass during Wimbledon.
Such court awareness isn't a virtue of American tennis academies. And the forehand factories are not the answer to the country's talent deficit."
. . .The Whole Game has changed so much over 120 years--were racquets made of wood then, or whittled whale bone, oh dear, not raw human flesh like the 11th century monks?? --that surely those early (almost accidental by comparison) greats would urge us to explore and adapt new ways of winning, rather than foolishly try to replicate skills and strategies from a different era.
We can't legislate exactly which intelligent and creative kids will become our new world champions, or why or how. Whether we forbid their changes and sanction their styles or not, all we really can count upon them for is one way or another, to leave all us fans and armchair brandishers awestruck at their feet.
May they know the past without bowing to it, dominate the present without destroying it, and invent the future they can imagine, without giving any pontifications of our past-expiration expertise more than an indulgent grin.
Pat the Prince on his balding pate and play ball!
I just can't WAIT to see what happens next . . .
JJ
Lots to read at Dr. Peter Gray's Psychology Today blog (see the extensive comments for dozens of personal experiences) about the positives of learning without schooling for reading, math, science and critical thinking etc:
http://cockingasnook.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/children-teaching-themselves-to-read-psychology-today-post-goes-up/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201002/children-teach-themselves-read/
http://cockingasnook.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/psychology-today-wants-unschooled-learning-stories/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201004/kids-learn-math-easily-when-they-control-their-own-learning
http://cockingasnook.wordpress.com/2010/02/26/children-teaching-themselves-to-read-psychology-today-post-goes-up/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201002/children-teach-themselves-read/
http://cockingasnook.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/psychology-today-wants-unschooled-learning-stories/
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201004/kids-learn-math-easily-when-they-control-their-own-learning
--- In [email protected], "JJ" <jrossedd@...> wrote:
>
> > Can anyone share with me links about Unschooling, specifically the academic aspects, that aren't necessarily anti-school or contrasting school? My husband liked school and feels like he got a lot out of it so he doesn't like articles that talk about all the ways in which school is wrong, instead of just focusing on why unschooling is right. . . He loves math and reading and science and history and doesn't feel at all damaged by his school making him learn about them.
>
>
> http://www.culturekitchen.com/jj_ross/blog/flash_wimbledon_widget_woes_intelligent_individ
>
> "Nurturing Intelligence on Any Surface. . .
>
> . . .Where did Nadal find this spirit of court innovation?
> Not at an American academy. Nadal's parents resisted that siren's song. He stayed close to home... far from the Nick Bollettieri-style compounds in Florida.
>
Betty
I don't have sites or books to recommend. I wanted to say that I can relate to your husband. Maybe you'll share my thoughts with him?
I put a lot into school and I got a lot out of it. My top ten list of inspirational people would include five public school teachers.
We started out as homeschoolers through a charter school. I wanted that doggone advisor to tell me how many hours we were supposed to do something, how many pages, and what the best way was to hammer it into her head. It took two years to realize I was trying to cram "information" into her head, not "knowledge" she actually needed. We would open up the social studies book and talk about community helpers when hello! We had already met them at different events, heard all the in-depth information straight from them, and had a blast. The social studies book was first to go. It didn't take me long to realize math curriculum is designed to be used by thirty children and English curriculum was full of stupid stories that the kid had no interest in. I had to work on MYSELF. I had to step back and try to realize how much I DIDN'T remember from school. For a real mind trip- find an online sample test for your state's mandatory testing and see how well you can pass it (for any grade!). I don't remember this crap, but guess what? I'm still an okay person! In fact, on paper, I'm an excellent person! I'm smart, I know what's going on in the world, I'm stable, I volunteer, I'm kind, a good wife and mother, I function well in society, I'm capable of holding down a career, etc. I learned absolutely none of these in school. I learned all of this through being a person, existing and participating in society, and maturing.
I honestly believe that a child who is out of school learns these traits earlier. I don't think earlier is the goal, but if they're good people and citizens in their teens they will be excellent ones in their twenties!
All in all it took three years to get the devil out of me. We own curriculum, it's up to them if they want to pluck it off the shelf and go through it. When they ask me questions, we find the answer. We don't hold schedules or kill trees practicing rote-memory activities. There's simply not a need. The world is our classroom; the bumper sticker on my truck declares it so! Lol!
My youngest is now kindergarten aged. An hour ago she brought down blocks (they are Math U See tiles we didn't use) and started stacking and counting them. She wanted to know what half of this hundred-tile was. We showed her how to find it and she figured it out herself. How could I spoil that self-driven discovery with a "sit down, let's open up the book to page seventy. What is the answer to....? -I- personally can't. To me it is more important that a child cares about what they want to know rather than having an adult cram data in to their heads.
If nothing else, school as we know it is a relatively new invention. For 6,000 to 3,000,000 years, depending on your worldview, we have flourished as a human race with experience being our teacher. The greatest inventors and philosophers had nothing but equipment and experienced adults to work with and look where we are now! We are okay!
I put a lot into school and I got a lot out of it. My top ten list of inspirational people would include five public school teachers.
We started out as homeschoolers through a charter school. I wanted that doggone advisor to tell me how many hours we were supposed to do something, how many pages, and what the best way was to hammer it into her head. It took two years to realize I was trying to cram "information" into her head, not "knowledge" she actually needed. We would open up the social studies book and talk about community helpers when hello! We had already met them at different events, heard all the in-depth information straight from them, and had a blast. The social studies book was first to go. It didn't take me long to realize math curriculum is designed to be used by thirty children and English curriculum was full of stupid stories that the kid had no interest in. I had to work on MYSELF. I had to step back and try to realize how much I DIDN'T remember from school. For a real mind trip- find an online sample test for your state's mandatory testing and see how well you can pass it (for any grade!). I don't remember this crap, but guess what? I'm still an okay person! In fact, on paper, I'm an excellent person! I'm smart, I know what's going on in the world, I'm stable, I volunteer, I'm kind, a good wife and mother, I function well in society, I'm capable of holding down a career, etc. I learned absolutely none of these in school. I learned all of this through being a person, existing and participating in society, and maturing.
I honestly believe that a child who is out of school learns these traits earlier. I don't think earlier is the goal, but if they're good people and citizens in their teens they will be excellent ones in their twenties!
All in all it took three years to get the devil out of me. We own curriculum, it's up to them if they want to pluck it off the shelf and go through it. When they ask me questions, we find the answer. We don't hold schedules or kill trees practicing rote-memory activities. There's simply not a need. The world is our classroom; the bumper sticker on my truck declares it so! Lol!
My youngest is now kindergarten aged. An hour ago she brought down blocks (they are Math U See tiles we didn't use) and started stacking and counting them. She wanted to know what half of this hundred-tile was. We showed her how to find it and she figured it out herself. How could I spoil that self-driven discovery with a "sit down, let's open up the book to page seventy. What is the answer to....? -I- personally can't. To me it is more important that a child cares about what they want to know rather than having an adult cram data in to their heads.
If nothing else, school as we know it is a relatively new invention. For 6,000 to 3,000,000 years, depending on your worldview, we have flourished as a human race with experience being our teacher. The greatest inventors and philosophers had nothing but equipment and experienced adults to work with and look where we are now! We are okay!
Betty
....one more thing....
My husband is finishing a university history course. He wrote a paper about Hitler. I mockingly asked him, "did you write it like a third grader? 'Hitker was a bad man. He killed Jews. We aren't allowed to talk about religion in school so I don't know who's a Jew." We both laughed our butts off at how sad but true this is.
School requires such a high level of political correctness that I don't see a lot if it as effective.
My husband is finishing a university history course. He wrote a paper about Hitler. I mockingly asked him, "did you write it like a third grader? 'Hitker was a bad man. He killed Jews. We aren't allowed to talk about religion in school so I don't know who's a Jew." We both laughed our butts off at how sad but true this is.
School requires such a high level of political correctness that I don't see a lot if it as effective.
[email protected]
Of course, you're allowed to talk about different religions in school. You just aren't allowed to push yours.
Nance
Nance
--- In [email protected], "Betty" <bettyjeanmarino@...> wrote:
>
> ....one more thing....
> My husband is finishing a university history course. He wrote a paper about Hitler. I mockingly asked him, "did you write it like a third grader? 'Hitker was a bad man. He killed Jews. We aren't allowed to talk about religion in school so I don't know who's a Jew." We both laughed our butts off at how sad but true this is.
> School requires such a high level of political correctness that I don't see a lot if it as effective.
>
[email protected]
Let's not get into the topic of religion and school, please. It's not only off topic, its even more contentious a subject than television... and that's saying something ;)
---Meredith
---Meredith