[email protected]

This was sent to me from someone who is researching unschooling. She
didn't say where she found it, but I thought I'd share and let a some
you question of few of her statements.

She said she found only three radicals---I guess she didn't come here
to ask questions! <g>

~Kelly


Why I'm Not An Unschooler



When I joined the growing home education movement I was astounded to
discover there was a large and growing subset who called themselves
unschoolers. "Unschoolers???!!!" I exclaimed in disbelief, "What kind of
awful, neglectful parent would be an unschooler?"

After a few months of research into the subject, however, I came to the
unbelievable realization that we actually are unschoolers.

With an additional couple of months of reading and discussion under my
belt,
I came to the firm conclusion that we are nothing at all like most
unschoolers.

Further study, however, revealed that we are pretty close to being
unschoolers on Tuesdays and Thursdays, that any parent who doesn"t
"whoop"
their kids is an unschooler, that everyone who doesn"t use
school-in-a-box
is an unschooler, that only three people on earth are pure unschoolers,
and
that only people who eat granola and sleep in a family bed and don"t
believe
in razors are unschoolers.

*Unschooling Undefined

I wasn"t flip-flopping in my philosophy, I was hearing a new
"definition"
for unschooling every week. On its face, the term only defines in the
negative, telling you what it is not, rather than what it is. Most
people in
the educational mainstreamÑoutside of the home education movementÑhave
never
heard of it. And those inside the home education movement use the term
in so
many different ways as to make the term nearly noncommunicative.

Even a great deal of research did not clarify the issue. Nowhere could I
find even a broad definition that was generally accepted. I was sure
that
all I needed to do was to get some information "from the horse"s
mouth," so
to speak. So I finally approached dozens of self-proclaimed unschoolers
in
various different forums and asked them to define unschooling.

The responses actually quite surprised me. By far the most common
initial
response I received was, "Unschooling does not have a definition and I
see
no need to define it for anyone else!"

My follow-up question was, "If unschooling has no meaningful
definition, why
do you label yourself as such?" While this did not illicit a rush of
warm
embraces, most people realized that I was not attacking their ideology,
but
simply asking for some philosophical analysis. At that point, a very
informative discussion ensued.

Two semi-definitions of unschooling resulted from these discussions
(although every person I spoke with insisted that it could not be
succinctly
defined). These were the most common answers that could garner any kind
of
support. An unschooler is someone who:

Leans toward unstructured learning

and/or

Leans toward child-led learning

*Unstructured

"Children should not sit still after hour after, being spoonfed
everything
they need to know from some rigid, generic curriculum."

Many homeschoolers have realized that too much "schooly" structure is
not
beneficial and is actually deleterious to learning. This freeing
realization, however, has led some to discard all structure, whether
beneficial or not.

This confuses two separate issues. One being the rigid structure of the
environment (such as the restrictive discipline that is typically
needed to
maintain order in a classroom with one teacher and 30 students), and the
other being the structure of the material being learned.

Depending on the subject at hand and the stage of learning the child has
progressed to, structured learning may well be the most effective way to
master a given material.

"We prefer natural learning, just letting life happens as it happens."

This standard may well ignore the fact that some learning requires
organization. Some subjects do not offer enough information/feedback to
be
learned effectively if only studied as infrequently and haphazardly as
they
may be encountered in day to day activity.

Learning any topic thoroughly and effectively, requires a healthy
combination of both structure and free exploration. To disavow
structure as
being bad in and of itself may result, under the best circumstances, in
the
child wasting time and energy and, in the worst, in the child becoming
sufficiently frustrated and discouraged in the learning process that he
loses interest.

*Undirected

"Children won"t learn anything they are forced to do, they only truly
learn
if they want to learn."

This provocative assumption argues that learning only occurs if
children are
completely in charge of subject matter and timetable. But the logic is
fundamentally flawed. In fact, all the unschoolers I know except three
unwittingly disprove this theory by their practice.

Many will ascribe dire consequences to any subject being coerced,
forced, or
required of children. These same parents, however, still have skills or
behaviors that they consider "non-optional." These generally have to do
with
health and safety and family lifestyle. For example, these parents
require
their children to: brush their teeth, stay out of the road, help with
chores, etc.

These parents don"t take the position that requiring a child to brush
his
teeth will make him hate tooth brushing so much that he will never brush
again once the parent"s influence is diminished. But they do claim that
requiring math study will create math-haters and math-phobics who will
avoid
computation for the rest of their lives. They don"t seem to recognize
this
inconsistency.

If entirely child-led learning is truly a sound educational foundation,
it
would not be limited so arbitrarily to subjects somehow labeled
"academic"
as opposed to "real-life."

"Children won"t learn from the mistakes of others, they have to learn
for
themselves."

This speaks more of a lack of trust in the family relationships than it
does
of educational philosophy. It also flies in the face of historical
reality;
learning from others is the way man has progressed from tribalism and
barbarism to various levels of civilized endeavor. If every person
truly had
to learn everything on their own, no one would have been able to build
on
and surpass the accomplishments of prior generations.

To my husband, a scientist, this is a most basic concept. He could not
make
the progress he has made in fuzzy logic research if he were not able,
and
willing, to stand on the shoulders of those who laid the foundationÑto
learn
from their success and failure paths. If he did not examine their work
and
mistakes and experience, trust in their validity, and learn from them,
he
would have to reinvent the wheel. He would be forced to learn
everything on
his own, and simply wouldn"t have enough hours in the day to make a
useful
contribution.

"I can"t possibly know what my child will want to be or to do when they
grow
up, so I would never presume to tell them what they need to know."

This statement implies that since a parent cannot make perfect, specific
predictions, that he also cannot make very good, general predictions.
This
is completely inaccurate.

While I may not always be able to guess exactly how many ounces of
water any
of my daughters will drink on a given day, I can tell you that each of
them
will drink at least some water on that day with nearly 100% accuracy.

The same principle holds true for most academic work. While I can"t
predict
exactly how many math problems in a particular text would be of optimum
benefit to my children, I can say that for most people in our society an
understanding of math through the second year of algebra would be
extremely
beneficial given the cost (time, energy, expense) of learning. I can
also
say that if our society continues to progress technologically, math
through
calculus will be likely to be helpful to most people in the future.

To make these generalizations a parent does not need to second-guess a
child"s vocation nor require her to specialize.

There is another underlying implication in this statement: that because
parents do not have the ability to make perfect decisions, they should
make
none at all. It says that since we can"t know exactly how much history
will
fit in perfectly with their future career and/or life choices, we have
no
right to say that they need to know any history at all.

Not only does this ignore the fact that parents have more experience and
hopefully more wisdom to draw upon than their children, but it also
ignores
the fact that every decision we make is subject to our imperfections. In
spite of this, most of us do not feel immobilized.

Often, as before, the parents making these claims, themselves show the
lack
consistency in this argument. They cannot perfectly determine precisely
how
much and what manner of toothbrushing will be most beneficial to each
child.
Still they feel justified in compelling their children to brush. Why?
Because they feel that the cost (time, energy, expense) of brushing is
outweighed by the benefit, and they feel qualified to make a good
general
estimate of how much brushing is required to reach an acceptable
benefit.

Once again the most effective type of learning is a combination of
well-thought out guidance in conjunction with personal initiative.

*The Good Stuff

We are not unschoolers. The label has so many varied definitions and
they
are often inconsistent with our ideology.

Still I have learned a great deal from the unschoolers I know. I"ve
learned:
to find education most anywhere; to ignore practices and methods that
don"t
serve us; to watch and listen to my children with my heart.

This was first published in 1996 in Super Learning Tools.

soggyboysmom

--- In [email protected], kbcdlovejo@a... wrote:
> This was sent to me from someone who is researching unschooling.
>She
> didn't say where she found it, but I thought I'd share and let a
>some
> you question of few of her statements.
>
> She said she found only three radicals---I guess she didn't come
>here
> to ask questions! <g>
>
> ~Kelly
Where to start? Where to start? So much time so little to say -
stop, reverse that...
>
> Leans toward unstructured learning
> and/or
> Leans toward child-led learning
I suppose one would have to lean somewhat in order to *embrace*
someone or something... But, "leaning toward unstructured learning"
or whatever is kind of like "leaning toward being vegetarian" - you
may agree in principle/philosophy, you do it sometimes (maybe most
of the time even), but over all, you still like a good steak now and
again in practice.

>
> Depending on the subject at hand and the stage of learning the
>child has
> progressed to, structured learning may well be the most effective
>way to
> master a given material.
Yes, and if the *learner* chooses to use a structured method, that's
great (as Sandra's recent posts on Marty's foray into college
classes - it was Marty, not Kirby, correct?)

> This standard may well ignore the fact that some learning requires
> organization. Some subjects do not offer enough
>information/feedback to
> be
> learned effectively if only studied as infrequently and
>haphazardly as
> they
> may be encountered in day to day activity.
Such as? Yes, letting a person twingle with the piano at will on and
off is less effective for learning a Beethoven sonata BUT it is
still not taking into account the purposes of the *learner*. When I
wanted to learn to play piano, it was with a specific purpose in
mind - I wanted to play a few favorite old hymns to at least a
recognizable, if not fluid, level. I played A LOT over and over for
a while. Then I stopped. Then I started. Then I stopped and started
a few more times. Not a paragon of structured, organized learning
(and I was doing it without a teacher, just a beginner's book that I
skipped around in at will, on my own time frame). I can pick out
those hymns plus figure out a bunch of others. I reached my goal.
Perhaps not as quickly and efficiently, but I still enjoy it and
*own* it.

> Learning any topic thoroughly and effectively, requires a healthy
> combination of both structure and free exploration. To disavow
> structure as
> being bad in and of itself may result, under the best
>circumstances, in
> the
> child wasting time and energy and, in the worst, in the child
>becoming
> sufficiently frustrated and discouraged in the learning process
>that he
> loses interest.
Example? I've got a child. When he wants to learn something, we do
whatever seems to work best. Numeracy is growing rapidly without any
formal structure or set outline of steps. Reading was absorbed as
best as I can figure - sure wasn't formal anything involved.
Basically, he absorbed until he outright said he wanted to learn to
read. In 3 evenings (total maybe 90 minutes at bedtime) we went
through a small set of 'primer' type books designed to 'teach'
reading (Bob Books). That 90 minutes basically convinced DS that he
could read, was in fact already reading and we moved on from there.
Other stuff (all those other 'subjects' like geography and science
and history) are indeed easily absorbed piece by piece, making new
connections and adding to existing connections as we go - that's
what adults are doing all day long, if they haven't decide they
don't need to learn anything anymore.

> This provocative assumption argues that learning only occurs if
> children are
> completely in charge of subject matter and timetable. But the
>logic is
> fundamentally flawed. In fact, all the unschoolers I know except
>three
> unwittingly disprove this theory by their practice.
No, learning does occur even when forced - but rarely is the
learning involved related to the subject matter for the long term.
The 'data' can be absorbed short term and may 'stick' longer term if
it is repeated enough over a long time. But, what sticks first and
quickly is learning that learning is hard/boring/whatever and that
the child is "bright/slow/average/good-at-math/gifted/disabled" and
many other things. Learning that what you are good at defines you,
rather than Who you are and where your passions take you.

> Many will ascribe dire consequences to any subject being coerced,
> forced, or
> required of children. These same parents, however, still have
>skills or
> behaviors that they consider "non-optional." These generally have
>to do
> with
> health and safety and family lifestyle. For example, these parents
> require
> their children to: brush their teeth, stay out of the road, help
>with
> chores, etc.
Ah - this is where things diverge between those who look at
unschooling as an 'educational method' and those who consider it a
lifestyle.

> These parents don"t take the position that requiring a child to
>brush
> his
> teeth will make him hate tooth brushing so much that he will never
>brush
> again once the parent"s influence is diminished. But they do claim
>that
> requiring math study will create math-haters and math-phobics who
>will
> avoid
> computation for the rest of their lives. They don"t seem to
>recognize
> this
> inconsistency.
Yes, we do indeed see that inconsistency - which is why forced
anything is avoided. Discussion and information and modelling (and a
good look at the ugly fillings in my head) are all it needs for DS
to be the most mindful regarding dental hygiene (since this is the
example used). Guess this person hasn't actually talked to any of
us "radicals" huh? ;-)

> If entirely child-led learning is truly a sound educational
>foundation,
> it
> would not be limited so arbitrarily to subjects somehow labeled
> "academic"
> as opposed to "real-life."
EXACTLY! Gee, this is actually getting it kind of - it is a sound
foundation and should not be limited to just 'academics' but to all
of life.
> "Children won"t learn from the mistakes of others, they have to
>learn
> for
> themselves."

> This speaks more of a lack of trust in the family relationships
>than it
> does
> of educational philosophy.
For some people this is true - they do NOT want to take it from
someone else, they need to experience things on their own - EVEN IF
they are in a loving, trusting family relationship. BUT, with a
loving, trusting relationship built, when things go awry, they are
safe to come back and explore it freely without condemnation. And,
over time, are more likely to heed concerns voiced by those loving,
trusted voices.
>It also flies in the face of historical
> reality;
> learning from others is the way man has progressed from tribalism
>and
> barbarism to various levels of civilized endeavor. If every person
> truly had
> to learn everything on their own, no one would have been able to
>build
> on
> and surpass the accomplishments of prior generations.
Learning from others and learning in a strictly formal way
(especially via print as most 'formal learning' is done) are two
different things. I learn from my DH. He learns from me. Neither of
us are doing anything structured or formal. DS learns from us as
well - but not because we are sitting him down and requiring it of
him - he hears, sees, participates, explores, asks, answers; we do,
assist, answer, ask (real questions, seeking his ideas). It may
involve books. It may involve sitting in the back yard for several
hours looking at clouds. Children learn to walk and talk from others
yet few (barring physiological/physical/mental issues) would say
they "taught" their child to walk or talk. Learning happened. And
they learned from others. Yet there wasn't explicit teaching
involved - assisting, facilitating, encouraging, modelling in spades
but there's no "time to do our walking practice now" involved.

>
> "I can"t possibly know what my child will want to be or to do when
>they
> grow
> up, so I would never presume to tell them what they need to know."
>
> This statement implies that since a parent cannot make perfect,
>specific
> predictions, that he also cannot make very good, general
>predictions.
> This
> is completely inaccurate.
Um, misunderstanding here. We don't need to *tell* them what they
need to know because the general stuff is general, basic, and they
know they need it and they learn it because it is basic, necessary,
stuff. Like walking and talking - there is a purpose to it. I could
make a pretty good general prediction that DS would need to be able
to walk. And sure enough he did. I didn't tell him that. Knowing
that, I didn't arrange lessons for him. I did, however, make a tot-
friendly environment available. I comforted him when he bumped hard
into something. I held his hands as he stepped or walked carefully
and slowly when he was attached to the backs of my legs (one of his
favorite "push toys"). Likewise, letters and sounds are all around
(hey I rhymed). DS knew they communicated something and with
exploration and asking and playing with the symbols and the sounds,
he was eventually reading.

> While I may not always be able to guess exactly how many ounces of
> water any
> of my daughters will drink on a given day, I can tell you that
>each of
> them
> will drink at least some water on that day with nearly 100%
>accuracy.
Really? And never a day goes by when they only drink milk and juice
and soup of their own choice (removing, if possible, any
requirement, subtle or otherwise, of yours)? I *know* that there are
some days when DS drinks lots of milk and juice and no water
(barring, perhaps, a bit that gets swallowed in the rinse/spit of
brushing). In the warm months, odds are good that he'll drink lots
of water. In the winter, probably not as much and sometimes no H2O
directly.

> The same principle holds true for most academic work. While I
>can"t
> predict
> exactly how many math problems in a particular text would be of
>optimum
> benefit to my children, I can say that for most people in our
>society an
> understanding of math through the second year of algebra would be
> extremely
> beneficial given the cost (time, energy, expense) of learning. I
>can
> also
> say that if our society continues to progress technologically,
>math
> through
> calculus will be likely to be helpful to most people in the future.
Right. Sure. I've had two semesters of college calculus and I use it
ZERO - and I'm in a high tech industry. Odds are actually LOWER
because of technology, not higher - pocket calculators nowadays can
do all those calculations if you know the basic inputs (the fence is
this long and this wide ...). Also, *formal* calculus and algebra
are different than the concepts they are used to convey (ask your
scientist husband about how the notation for his equations is merely
representing a concept in symbolic language). My DS was using basic
algebra at age 3 - yup 3 yrs of age. He solved the following
equation 3+x=7 (basic algebra right - solving for x is one of the
first lessons). He had 3 cookies and wanted 7 so he figured out how
many more he needed to get what he wanted. He didn't write it down.
He didn't know it was algebra, let alone math or arithmetic. It was
just information he needed to get what he wanted. And he used his
fingers to calculate it.

> There is another underlying implication in this statement: that
>because
> parents do not have the ability to make perfect decisions, they
>should
> make
> none at all. It says that since we can"t know exactly how much
>history
> will
> fit in perfectly with their future career and/or life choices, we
>have
> no
> right to say that they need to know any history at all.
Actually, it is making a decision quite firmly that says I will
assist my child in learning any and all history that my child
chooses to pursue - whether or not it has any relationship to any
future career or life choices. We spent a lovely, silly time,
playing with Shakespearean language one evening last winter (DS was
6). He doesn't "know" Shakespeare but he does have connections
for "Shakespeare" "Hamlet" "To be or not to be that is the question"
(the silly arose when DH said he had to use the bathroom as soon as
we got in - we were pulling into the driveway - I said To pee or not
to pee that is the question whether it is nobler to pee thy pants or
suffer the slings and arrows of holding it...) He picked up the
accent of the 'classical Shakespearean English' and we tossed bits
and pieces of Shakespeare back and forth and made up stuff that
sounded good. DS may never *need* to know any of it, but if he runs
across a reference to it, he'll have something to attach it to.
> Not only does this ignore the fact that parents have more
>experience and
> hopefully more wisdom to draw upon than their children, but it
>also
> ignores
> the fact that every decision we make is subject to our
>imperfections. In
> spite of this, most of us do not feel immobilized.
If keeping up with DS is immobilized I'd hate to be mobile! phew
> Often, as before, the parents making these claims, themselves show
>the
> lack
> consistency in this argument. They cannot perfectly determine
>precisely
> how
> much and what manner of toothbrushing will be most beneficial to
>each
> child.
> Still they feel justified in compelling their children to brush.
>Why?
Uh go back up and read the other section on required toothbrushing
et al
> Because they feel that the cost (time, energy, expense) of
>brushing is
> outweighed by the benefit, and they feel qualified to make a good
> general
> estimate of how much brushing is required to reach an acceptable
> benefit.
There's no guesswork needed - the ADA has guidelines on how much and
how often one needs to brush (I think it is currently something like
two minutes of brushing at least twice per day).

> Once again the most effective type of learning is a combination of
> well-thought out guidance in conjunction with personal initiative.
Yes, exactly - but the guidance needs to be in the form of trail
guide - the trail guide doesn't decide the goal, but rather takes
the goal of the guide-ee (is that a word?) as well as other
abilities, interests, etc (expressed or otherwise) into account and
provides information for the guide-ee to make decisions on which
path to take, how far to go, etc. The 'guidance' is not "You have to
learn algebra by the time you are 18" but rather "You're interested
in... let's see what kinds of stuff would be useful... hmm looks
like algebra is important for ... here are a few ways to learn that.
This looks interesting. What do you think?"

> to watch and listen to my children with my heart.
Gee if you spend all your time watching and listening to your
children with all your heart, how do you have time to require stuff
of them - wouldn't that be ignoring their hearts and ignoring what
you are hearing?

--Deb

[email protected]

> Yes, and if the *learner* chooses to use a structured method, that's
> great (as Sandra's recent posts on Marty's foray into college
> classes - it was Marty, not Kirby, correct?)
>

Kirby.

Right. Nobody was twisting his arm. I was prepared to twist his arm to
quit that evil English 101 class, but he didn't need to have his arm twisted.
He knew when to willingly take a structured class and when to bail out like
his book was on fire.

-=-> This standard may well ignore the fact that some learning requires
> organization. Some subjects do not offer enough
>information/feedback to
> be
> learned effectively if only studied as infrequently and
>haphazardly as
> they
> may be encountered in day to day activity.-=-

As I read that it sounded breathlessly thoughtless, like someone had all in
one great burst of writing packed in all the kneejerk nonsense she possibly
could, with the employment of a plethora of multisyllabic obfuscatory verbiage.
I was impressed in the negative numbers. The success of that writing was
quite deferred.

-=-To disavow
> structure as
> being bad in and of itself may result, under the best
>circumstances, in
> the
> child wasting time and energy and, in the worst, in the child
>becoming
> sufficiently frustrated and discouraged in the learning process
>that he
> loses interest.-=-

To avow that structure is in and of itself to result in good might suggest
that sufficient engagement in strucutured study of English composition might
result in writing such as one would have read in the paragraph prior to this
which was painful on the surface and unintentionally humorous at its core.
It was fluffed-up bullshit.

-=-This provocative assumption argues that...-=-

****YAWN****

-=-> Many will ascribe dire consequences to any subject being coerced,
> forced, or
> required of children. These same parents, however, still have
>skills or
> behaviors that they consider "non-optional."-=-

**yawn**
burp
Non-optional (but easily obtained skill at our house is the recognition of
nonsense.
That wasn't taught in the school the writer above attended, it seems, or
maybe it can't BE taught.

-=->It also flies in the face of historical
> reality;
> learning from others is the way man has progressed from tribalism
>and
> barbarism to various levels of civilized endeavor.-=-

Compulsory education is HOW old?
I bet she's talking about people voluntarily submitting themselves to the
instruction of others.

-=-We don't need to *tell* them what they
need to know because the general stuff is general, basic, and they
know they need it and they learn it because it is basic, necessary,
stuff.-=-

I KNEW my kids would need to be comfortable with computers, so I let them
play with them all they wanted from the time they could work the mouse. I
didn't measure their useage and when they got older we got other computers (we
helped them get their own used computers; got an extra used one for Holly to use).
Maybe they'll never use computers in their jobs (maybe not; probably
will), but they already use them for real in their lives, and will for the rest of
their days.


-=->math
> through
> calculus will be likely to be helpful to most people in the future.
Right. Sure. I've had two semesters of college calculus and I use it
ZERO - and I'm in a high tech industry-=-

Right. Deb had it and isn't using it. Hours in class, homework, tests,
grades, cost of tuition...
I have not a day of calculus ever, but I know Keith uses it in his head at
work and away from work, but he thinks in patterns and I think in words.
Never a day of calculus or trigonometry; dropped out of Algebra II in 10th grade,
but had a college degree before I was 21. My ass is kissable. New Mexico
being a community property state, Keith's math is my math. <bwg>

-=-most of us do not feel immobilized.-=-
[Deb wrote:] -=- If keeping up with DS is immobilized I'd hate to be mobile!
phew-=-

Yes, and my kids have had to keep up with me!!!
"Immobilized"!?? I have to be really very ill or wounded to be even
temporarily immobilized.

Sandra


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]