Michael Atherton

Hi,

Does anyone know of any formal studies of unschoolers?

Thanks,

Michael

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/9/05 7:46:25 AM, athe0007@... writes:


> Does anyone know of any formal studies of unschoolers?
>

No. I think it will be a long time before there are any, if ever. Part of
the problem is that the definition of unschooler isn't scientifically valid.
Homeschoolers could be studied, and unschooling-leanings could be a part of
that.

Part of the problem is that few have been unschooled throughout. Most
started in school, and it would be difficult or impossible to separate out what
they learned in school, or what effect school had on their subsequent attitudes
toward learning.

I learned in school (definition presented three different times; I learned it
the first time) that no study was valid without a control group. No control
group, no scientific method. What would be the control group?

But on the other hand... what is the control group for formal education?
All their "studies," all the grad students' "work" on which masters' and PhDs
in education are based are done with pretty much nothing but the boogie man
as a real control group. The hypothetical uneducated, illiterate,
unsocialized, math-ignorant straw man is the control group. "If it weren't for us, you
would be... "

Sandra


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

Michael Atherton

Sandra wrote


> No. I think it will be a long time before there are any,
> if ever. Part of the problem is that the definition of
> unschooler isn't scientifically valid. Homeschoolers could
> be studied, and unschooling-leanings could be a part of that.

Definition might be a minor problem, but not an insurmountable one.

> Part of the problem is that few have been unschooled throughout.
> Most started in school, and it would be difficult or impossible
> to separate out what they learned in school, or what effect school
> had on their subsequent attitudes toward learning.

If unschooling does anything positive for students then
it should be measurable, even if they've been exposed
previously to other forms of education

> I learned in school (definition presented three different times;
> I learned it the first time) that no study was valid without a
> control group. No control group, no scientific method.
> What would be the control group?

This assumption is not necessarily correct. The general school
population could serve as a control or homeschooled students
could serve as their own controls in a repeated measures
study.

Michael

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/9/05 8:45:47 AM, athe0007@... writes:


> If unschooling does anything positive for students then
> it should be measurable, even if they've been exposed
> previously to other forms of education
>

At which point are you imagining the measures being taken?
Because if it's any time before adulthood, it would invalidate the
unschooling pretty thoroughly. And if it's AT adulthood, how would you know how much
had been learned after the person left home?

In the absence of something to sell or of salaries to be justified, the
motives for testing are slight.

-=- The general school
population could serve as a control-=-

Not a good one. Most of what I "learned in school" I learned outside of
school, or in spite of school. I wasn't the only one.

Sandra


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

Michael Atherton

Sandra wrote:

> In a message dated 11/9/05 8:45:47 AM, athe0007@... writes:

>> If unschooling does anything positive for students then
>> it should be measurable, even if they've been exposed
>> previously to other forms of education

> At which point are you imagining the measures being taken?
> Because if it's any time before adulthood, it would invalidate the
> unschooling pretty thoroughly. And if it's AT adulthood, how
> would you know how much had been learned after the person left home?

If unschooling has any positive benefits they should be measurable.

> In the absence of something to sell or of salaries to be justified, the
> motives for testing are slight.

You all seem to believe that unschooling is a better approach
to learning than other types of homeschooling or formal schooling.
If I am considering unschooling as an option then I would like
to see verifiable evidence (other than testimonials) that it
confers some benefit. Is there a problem?

>> population could serve as a control-=-

> Not a good one. Most of what I "learned in school" I learned outside of
> school, or in spite of school. I wasn't the only one.

If unschooling is better, then its students should somehow be
measurably different than the general population, otherwise
what's the point?

Michael

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/9/2005 10:53:15 AM Central Standard Time,
athe0007@... writes:

> Not a good one. Most of what I "learned in school" I learned outside of
> school, or in spite of school. I wasn't the only one.

If unschooling is better, then its students should somehow be
measurably different than the general population, otherwise
what's the point?




~~~

I laughed right out loud.

That IS the point of unschooling. The measurement of things are not what
matters. Joy and happiness, peace and contentment--those are the types of
unmeasurable things that matter.

Maybe it's too Zen for some.

Karen


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

Liz in AZ

There are no scientific studies of unschooling or unschoolers; none
that show better "academic achievement", none that show worse. None.

Is that what you wanted to know?

--- In [email protected], "Michael Atherton"
<athe0007@u...> wrote:
>
>
> Sandra wrote:
>
> > In a message dated 11/9/05 8:45:47 AM, athe0007@u... writes:
>
> >> If unschooling does anything positive for students then
> >> it should be measurable, even if they've been exposed
> >> previously to other forms of education
>
> > At which point are you imagining the measures being taken?
> > Because if it's any time before adulthood, it would invalidate
the
> > unschooling pretty thoroughly. And if it's AT adulthood, how
> > would you know how much had been learned after the person left
home?
>
> If unschooling has any positive benefits they should be measurable.
>
> > In the absence of something to sell or of salaries to be
justified, the
> > motives for testing are slight.
>
> You all seem to believe that unschooling is a better approach
> to learning than other types of homeschooling or formal schooling.
> If I am considering unschooling as an option then I would like
> to see verifiable evidence (other than testimonials) that it
> confers some benefit. Is there a problem?
>
> >> population could serve as a control-=-
>
> > Not a good one. Most of what I "learned in school" I learned
outside of
> > school, or in spite of school. I wasn't the only one.
>
> If unschooling is better, then its students should somehow be
> measurably different than the general population, otherwise
> what's the point?
>
> Michael
>

Vicki A. Dennis

1) Could be that difficulty could arise deciding what constitutes
"measurable". By whom? And what qualities measured.

2) Same thing about "benefits" or "positive"

3) Have to think about "better" in what way. Or "better" than
what.

4) I'm not sure that unschoolers all consider themselves NOT to part
of the general population....which is indeed very diverse, else what's the
point of saying "general".



vicki



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Atherton
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:31 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Scientific Studies of Unschooling?





If unschooling has any positive benefits they should be measurable.


If unschooling is better, then its students should somehow be
measurably different than the general population, otherwise
what's the point?

Michael










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

Michael Atherton

I had said:

>> If unschooling is better, then its students should somehow be
>> measurably different than the general population, otherwise
>> what's the point?


Karen replied:

> ~~~
>
> I laughed right out loud.
>
> That IS the point of unschooling. The measurement of things are
> not what matters. Joy and happiness, peace and contentment--those
> are the types of unmeasurable things that matter.
>
> Maybe it's too Zen for some.

So unschooling is based on emotion and faith, rather than
reason and evidence?

Michael

queenjane555

> If unschooling is better, then its students should somehow be
> measurably different than the general population, otherwise
> what's the point?


Go to a Live and Learn Unschooling Conference (the next one is in NM
in Sept 2006)...there will be NO question in your mind then
whether "unschoolers are different"!

In fact, while i was at the last L&L Conference (this past Oct in
MO), i realized that unschoolers truly ARE different. We read on the
lists all the time about how unschooled kids are different, the
teenagers arent moody angry kids who hate their parents, the kids
are friendly and open, honest and caring....sometimes its hard to
believe that its true. Could unschooling really make THAT much of a
difference?

But as i stood there surrounded by hundreds of unschooled kids I had
to admit, that YES they really are different. Its palpable.
Unmistakable. I don't know that a scientific study would be very
good at measuring how an unschooled teenager willingly and kindly
plays with a preschool age friend. Or whether the scientific method
could really capture the essence of a healthy, happy, whole
relationship between a 15 yr old teenager and her parents. How could
a scientific study really quantify the joy at seeing a roomful of
people clapping because a child was brave enough to go onstage in
front of strangers and tell a joke, or sing a song, surrounded by
total, unconditional love and acceptance? What "scientific" words
could truly convey the impact of a child learning to read (or "do
math" or spell or...)in his own way, in his own time, thereby
preserving his love of learning for years to come?

I know you want proof that unschooling won't screw up your kid, that
your child will be successful and be able to learn what he "needs"
to know. But you're asking the wrong questions, really. Unschoolers
know that those are the natural byproducts of unschooling...how
could they not be? Because the real question is: is my child happy?
Is his or her day filled with joy? Do we treat each other kindly,
and with respect? Do i encourage my child's passions and help him
attain his goals if i can?

If a child is raised the way most unschoolers are raised, how could
they NOT be successful? How could they NOT realize their dreams?
Happiness---JOY---*that's* the key to unschooling! How do you
measure that??


Katherine

Michael Atherton

Vicki wrote:
>
> 1) Could be that difficulty could arise deciding what
> constitutes "measurable". By whom? And what qualities
> measured.

As a homeschooling parent, why would I want to choose a
method or philosophy if there's no way to determine whether
it's better for my child? The "whom" is my family.
Happiness is measurable. We do it everyday. "How's it
going?" Learning is certainly measurable. Johnny can read
or they can't.

> 2) Same thing about "benefits" or "positive"

Although, benefits are to some degree subjective
(I do have specific ones for my children), our
culture has clearly defined benefits for educational
outcomes. I'm simply saying that it would be nice to
have some idea how unschoolers meet these expectations.
I think that choosing unschooling simply because it
feels good is a mistake. Lots of things feel good,
but not all are beneficial in the long term.

> 3) Have to think about "better" in what way. Or "better"
> than what.

Better than the approach that I am currently using. Be it
the public schools or eclectic homeschooling.

> 4) I'm not sure that unschoolers all consider themselves
> NOT to part of the general population....which is indeed very
> diverse, else what's the point of saying "general".

No matter how you look at it homeschoolers are a minority
of the school aged children in the U.S. Are you saying
that there's nothing different about unschooling or
children who are unschooled compared to children in public
or private schools?

Michael

Michael Atherton

Katherine wrote:

> If a child is raised the way most unschoolers are raised, how could
> they NOT be successful? How could they NOT realize their dreams?
> Happiness---JOY---*that's* the key to unschooling! How do you
> measure that??

Katherine wrote:

> If a child is raised the way most unschoolers are raised, how could
> they NOT be successful? How could they NOT realize their dreams?
> Happiness---JOY---*that's* the key to unschooling! How do you
> measure that??

Maybe they might be unsuccessful because they are unmotivated
or lack the capability to be self-directed?

> Happiness---JOY---*that's* the key to unschooling! How do you
> measure that??

You ask them? Even if they are happy and joyful how can you
know whether they are learning without measuring it?

Michael

Deb

Michael

In a population of unschoolers, you are not going to get anything
really 'measurable' in the weighed, defined, quantified, test
scores, college admissions, "good" (lucrative, prestigious) careers
way. The benefit of unschooling, as Karen said elsewhere, is in Joy,
Love, Freedom, Curiosity, Creativity, Peace. Can't measure or bottle
that.

If you're considering unschooling as a homeschooling method that
produces more doctors or more engineers or higher GPAs, you're not
going to find what you are looking for. If you are looking for a way
to nurture the unique individual sparks of everyone in your family,
then read some, think some, ask yourself what the studies you are
looking for would prove in the long run in your unique family.
Because what we are all saying is that we've jumped into the water
and we love it - that is our experience. There are those who dip a
toe in and decide not to because it doesn't fall within their
definition of proper temperature and salinity range. That's their
choice.

> If unschooling has any positive benefits they should be measurable.
Measured how? Tests? Nope - that would defeat the purpose of the
subject being tested because imposing a test arbitrarily would go
counter to unschooling. College degrees? Invalid since many of those
who have been unschooled choose to go directly into careers or start
businesses or whatever - you'd have to hold this one in abeyance
until the end of the subject's life because they might choose to get
a degree at age 30 or 40 or 60. But then again that wouldn't even
prove anything since many people choose to get degrees later and
later (my DH didn't start college until 10 years after high school -
he didn't go until he found something he was interested in and chose
to pursue via a college path). Lucrative career paths? Nope again
since not all choose that path - some choose to start businesses or
explore other types of options. Plus, even those today who have done
the high GPA, good college, advanced degree 'hoops' are out looking
for work, waiting tables, doing data entry, etc - stuff happens.

Notice the words choice, choose, and option that appear repeatedly.
That's because each person in the family (parents too) are choosing
their own path through life, not following the 'good grade, college,
career' path. How does one measure joy?

> You all seem to believe that unschooling is a better approach
> to learning than other types of homeschooling or formal schooling.
> If I am considering unschooling as an option then I would like
> to see verifiable evidence (other than testimonials) that it
> confers some benefit. Is there a problem?
Yes - what would constitute 'verifiable' evidence? How do you verify
a life lived with gusto?

> If unschooling is better, then its students should somehow be
> measurably different than the general population, otherwise
> what's the point?
Again, what are you trying to measure? You're not going to find
higher grades, more college degrees, early graduation, taller,
faster, etc. Anecdotal eveidence is all there is when you are
looking at a life being lived. Perhaps in two or three generations
when there are children of children who have never set foot in a
classroom *involuntarily*, it might be possible to notice general
trends (maybe there will be a visible mushrooming of writers,
painters, athletes, who were all unschooled but that isn't something
we can see in the now). One of the problems of this kind of
measuring is that you aren't measuring just one thing as you would
with looking at GPAs or SAT scores. What unschooling looks like is
as different as each person, each family, that is living it.

This might not be a perfect illustration (and I ask forgiveness
ahead of time for the comparison I'm about to make) but maybe it'll
help: did you ever watch one of the big dog shows (like the
Westminster Kennel Club show)? One of the things that they
repeatedly mention when doing best in class judging is that the dogs
are not compared to one 'perfect' hypothetical dog but to their
individual breed standard - how close is this particular German
Shepherd a 'perfect' example of German Shepherd; this collie to
the 'perfect' collie; and so on. The one that is the closest to
their particular breed standard, wins. Now, to move it to our
unschooled kids - rather than being compared to other people
(different 'breeds'), we are 'judging' our kids based on their
individual 'breed' and guess what? They are exactly 100% perfect
examples of themselves! Isn't that wonderful!

And that's why you'll never 'quantify' unschooling - it's as unique
as a fingerprint.

--Deb

[email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: Deb <soggyboysmom@...>
Michael

This might not be a perfect illustration (and I ask forgiveness
ahead of time for the comparison I'm about to make) but maybe it'll
help: did you ever watch one of the big dog shows (like the
Westminster Kennel Club show)? One of the things that they
repeatedly mention when doing best in class judging is that the dogs
are not compared to one 'perfect' hypothetical dog but to their
individual breed standard - how close is this particular German
Shepherd a 'perfect' example of German Shepherd; this collie to
the 'perfect' collie; and so on. The one that is the closest to
their particular breed standard, wins. Now, to move it to our
unschooled kids - rather than being compared to other people
(different 'breeds'), we are 'judging' our kids based on their
individual 'breed' and guess what? They are exactly 100% perfect
examples of themselves! Isn't that wonderful!

-=-=-
As a dog show judge, I really liked this, Deb!

It's a very hard concept for people new to dog shows (much less the uninitiated!) to
understand. We're not comparing collies to schnauzers or even collies to collies. The
comparison is to a written standard (always including the intangibles!), NOT to one another!

Very cool.

~Kelly


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

Betsy Hill

Hi, Michael --

I've been reading Edward Deci's book _Why We Do What We Do_. I've only
read the first three or four chapters, but those focus directly on
studies of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. I think this speaks
fairly directly to what you want to know, as unschoolers avoid pushing
externally motivated learning on their kids. I recommend you see if
your library has this book, and dip into it a little.

Betsy

Deb Lewis

***I know you want proof that unschooling won't screw up your kid, that
your child will be successful and be able to learn what he "needs"
to know.***

I don't think the poster is interested in unschooling. I think he's
interested in enlightening a group of misguided/ignorant radicals. <g>
Maybe he thinks none of us went to public school or college. Maybe he
thinks none of us came from traditional backgrounds. Maybe he thinks we
read one article in Mother Jones and decide go all hippie and anti-
establishment. Flower power, man. Unga bunga butterfly.


Deb L, in snowy Montana where there are no unschooling "students." <beg>

[email protected]

There have been no formal studies of unschoolers, as you probably already
knew, because in the greater population unschoolers are a very small segment, we
can't all agree what makes someone an "unschooler" anyway (even on this
list, really), and the people who tend to fund this kind of thing don't care. The
people DOING it know it works and don't need studies.

That said, you want measurements and evidence that authentic learning takes
place.
Julian, who is 16, has unschooled since he completed the third grade. To me,
that means that since he was 7 years old, he has not been forced to read,
write, study, or learn anything he didn't want to. In addition, we do not have
required chores, we do not punish, he does not have a bedtime, etc.

My information on Julian is clearly anecdotal rather than scientific,
because we don't have a control Julian. (If we did we'd probably feel sorry for the
control Julian and start unschooling him, so it'd mess up the research.

The main way all homeschoolers know their kids are learning is they talk to
them. Even the ones who test and have assignments can tell their kids are
learning without them. They just worry about it or are required by state
authorities to test. Julian knows stuff. Lots and lots of stuff. Lots that I don't
know. And I'm wicked sharp.

Some of the Impressive Stuff that Julian has done:
1. When he had just turned 14 he took a Harvard Extension course called
Evolution and Society. He took it because he thought it sounded interesting. He
was required each week to read 200-300 pages of primary source material
consisting mostly of pre-Darwin era science and religion writing. Because he had
not been in school, he was hindered by not having learned to skim long, boring
reading, but he did fine. He had also not spent years learning to write
papers...in fact, when he left school he hated writing and had written almost
nothing until this course. The course required several lengthy argument papers,
which we coached him through (the mechanics, not the content--HE knew what
needed to be in them, we didn't.) He did the most participating in class
discussions. The next youngest student was 21. Most were taking it for graduate
credit. He earned a B+.
2. Julian is a committed musician, and works on his music for up to hours a
day. He takes guitar and voice lessons weekly. He is planning to teach himself
to play the bass.
3. Julian spent a year and a half working weekly at a local food pantry,
eventually training other volunteers. The Director told me that he was the best,
most reliable volunteer he had.
4. This fall Julian got a job as a Coordinator of Religious Education at a
UU church, a job that had been intended for an adult. He plans curriculum,
worship, etc. for the program, and works with many volunteers.
5. He is presently taking an online Marine Biology course through the
University of CA at Dominguez Hills.
6. He often teaches things like Beginning guitar and making chainmaille to
children and adults.
7. He writes extremely well, both creatively and more traditional papers.
8. He has become very adept at doing sound for events, and has created an
impressive sound system for himself.

I could go on and on. These things are cool. What we find cooler is that he
has done these things because he loves to and wants to. He did well in his
Harvard course because he cared about it, not because he suddenly had become a
prodigy. He is also an awesome friend, very kind and caring. He likes his
parents. He has an insatiable desire for learning stuff, in lots of areas.

It is different, and there is emotion and faith, as well as reason and
evidence.

Kathryn


**********************************************************
Michael said: >> If unschooling is better, then its students should somehow
be
>> measurably different than the general population, otherwise
>> what's the point?


Karen replied:

> ~~~
>
> I laughed right out loud.
>
> That IS the point of unschooling. The measurement of things are
> not what matters. Joy and happiness, peace and contentment--those
> are the types of unmeasurable things that matter.
>
> Maybe it's too Zen for some.

Michael went on:
So unschooling is based on emotion and faith, rather than
reason and evidence?

Come to the Northeast Unschooling Conference, Memorial Day Weekend, May
26-28, 2006 in Peabody, Massachusetts! www.NortheastUnschoolingConference.com



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

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/9/05 12:12:37 PM, athe0007@... writes:


> Johnny can read
> or they can't.
>

That would so DEFINITELY be a "he."

Johnny can read or he can't.
But when? At four? Six? Eight? Twelve?

The only grown Johnnys I know who can't read went to school.
School does not guarantee reading.

-=-our
culture has clearly defined benefits for educational
outcomes. -=-

Our schools sometimes can't see the forest for the walls. School is not
"our culture," but those who are living in academia confuse school and culture
quite often and very thoroughly.

-=- I'm simply saying that it would be nice to
have some idea how unschoolers meet these expectations.-=-

Have you ever met any older unschoolers? There are three at my house, and
I've met a few hundred others.

-=-I think that choosing unschooling simply because it
feels good is a mistake. -=-

Then for you it would be a mistake. Don't do it. People should only do
what they understand and what they're willing to commit to.

-=-> 3) Have to think about "better"  in what way. Or "better"
> than what.

-=-Better than the approach that I am currently using. Be it
the public schools or eclectic homeschooling.-=-

Not a single person in the dozen-plus years I've been involved in this has
EVER said, "Well... school or eclectic would be better, but what the heck...
I'll leave that behind and move toward worse!!"

There are many people who have believed unschooling would be better but
their circumstances didn't allow for it.

-=-No matter how you look at it homeschoolers are a minority
of the school aged children in the U.S. -=-

Yes, but that doesn't mean that that minority is not a part of the U.S., and
that my children are NOT "school aged children in the U.S." (And for the
record, this list has people in the U.K., France, Canada, Australia, New Zealand
and Japan. Broaden your scope.)

Sandra



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

Deb

--- In [email protected], "Michael Atherton"
<athe0007@u...> wrote:
>
> As a homeschooling parent, why would I want to choose a
> method or philosophy if there's no way to determine whether
> it's better for my child? The "whom" is my family.
> Happiness is measurable. We do it everyday. "How's it
> going?"
So you're not looking for a scientific study on this then. All
studies every done on 'happiness' are self reported and thus totally
subjective. No outside, objective observer can quantify happiness.
And, since we're not nuts (okay well...lol) why would we continue
doing something that is making us miserable when there are other
options?
>Learning is certainly measurable. Johnny can read
> or they can't.
But when? to what extent? Are you measuring a 5 yr old? a 25 yr old?
Reading what? Job applications? the next Harry Potter novel? a
technical manual? the New York Times? What would
constitute "passing"? Based on what? Remember, while I totally agree
that reading is useful in our society, we aren't measuring our kids
against any other kids or any hypothetical 'average kid'.
>
> Although, benefits are to some degree subjective
> (I do have specific ones for my children), our
> culture has clearly defined benefits for educational
> outcomes. I'm simply saying that it would be nice to
> have some idea how unschoolers meet these expectations.
Really? What are those clearly defined benefits for educational
outcomes? One of the VPs in our company has no college degree. There
are plenty of folks with advanced degrees and no job. Is a
particular education outcome a guarantee of anything? If yes, show
it. If not, why jump through hoops of someone else's choosing when
you could be doing what you choose and getting to where you choose
to go. One thing you might not have caught onto yet (unless you've
read through a bunch of the archives here and on other sites) is
that those "expectations" are not something we choose to hold our
kids (or ourselves) to. The only expectations my son has to look at
are what he expects of himself, not me, not society at large.

> I think that choosing unschooling simply because it
> feels good is a mistake. Lots of things feel good,
> but not all are beneficial in the long term.
Hmm if I had the choice to do something that felt good and ended at
the same place that something that didn't feel so good, which would
I choose? that's pretty much a no-brainer. Before any of this will
make sense, there needs to be a realization that there's more than
one way to anything. Good grades to college to good job are hoops
that lead to someplace BUT there are other ways to good job AND what
defines 'good job' is variable. Even employers are finding out that
more money and prestige is not the drawing card it once was. So, if
a "good job" is variable then the path to get there is also
variable. And if the path is variable, why would one NOT want to
take the one that offers the most joy and pleasure along the way?

> Better than the approach that I am currently using. Be it
> the public schools or eclectic homeschooling.
If you're looking for better GPAs and SATs then unschooling is
definitely NOT going to be better than what you are currently doing.
Another analogy (I know I know lol): some chickens are kept in
coops, fed scientifically, medicated, and all their eggs are in one
place and easy to measure and count. Other chickens are free-range
chickens. They are given some food and water and peck and hunt for
the rest. They aren't routinely medicated tomake them bigger or
produce more, just if they get sick. Their eggs are here and there
and wherever - sometimes you don't ever see the eggs even though you
know they are there somewhere because the chicken is healthy and
that's what healthy chickens do. Same with people. You can pop a
child into a seat, feed them on scientifically designed and approved
materials for their age, medicate them if necessary to get them to
sit still and do the material, and it's easily quantifiable - x
number of pages, y exercises correct, etc. My son is a free range
boy. There's stuff he knows that I have no idea about - I didn't
teach it to him. He'll pop out with a comment along the way that'll
amaze me (he was explaining that certain types of armor in a game
make the character invulnerable - he's 7 - I didn't know he knew
that word nor the definition of it - no vocabulary lists or
quizzes). Just as I've collected tidbits along the way and made
connections to other things, he is collecting tidbits and making
connections.

> No matter how you look at it homeschoolers are a minority
> of the school aged children in the U.S. Are you saying
> that there's nothing different about unschooling or
> children who are unschooled compared to children in public
> or private schools?
There's a LOT different about unschooled kids - but a researcher
would be hard pressed to measure and test and quantify it. Things
like self-motivation, curiousity, overall happiness and satisfaction
and contentment are not things that can be measured except
subjectively. And if all there is is subjective data, then our
anecdotal evidence should be quite adequate to that standard.

--Deb

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/9/05 12:14:10 PM, athe0007@... writes:


> Maybe they might be unsuccessful because they are unmotivated
> or lack the capability to be self-directed?
>

Maybe.
That certainly happens with kids in school all the time.

But who's likely to gain the capability for self-direction, those who are
directed by others until they're out of college, or those who are helped to make
their own choices from childhood?

-=-
You ask them? Even if they are happy and joyful how can you
know whether they are learning without measuring it?-=-

I could tell when they could walk, because they stood up and walked. I
could tell when they could put their own shoes on, wipe their own butts, ride a
bike and read. That's how I could tell. I can tell when they understand
Shakespeare because they discuss it and ask intelligent questions. I can tell
when they can use computers because they use them. Those things do not need
to be measured.

Sandra


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

Michael Atherton

--- In [email protected], Betsy Hill
<ecsamhill@s...> wrote:
>
> Hi, Michael --
>
> I've been reading Edward Deci's book _Why We Do What We Do_.
> I've only read the first three or four chapters, but those focus
> directly on studies of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. I think
> this speaks fairly directly to what you want to know, as unschoolers
> avoid pushing externally motivated learning on their kids. I
> recommend you see if your library has this book, and dip into it
> a little.

From Amazon:

" Deci starts from the position that individuals have something
that can be called a "true self," and that people wish to act in
accord with this "true self." They wish to be autonomous (authentic)
rather than controlled. If they act autonomously (authentically),
they are self-motivated. If they act autonomously, they also respect
others because the "true self" wishes to be related to others (a
point on which Aristoteles would have agreed, and Thomas Hobbes would
have strongly disagreed). Deci assumes that human beings are
cooperative by nature, rather than competitive."

So do unschoolers believe that human beings are cooperative by
nature?

Do they believe that invdividuals have something called a
"true self?"

Do they believe that all individuals are self-motviated?

Michael

Michael Atherton

--- In [email protected], "Liz in AZ"
<eerrhhaz@y...> wrote:
>
> There are no scientific studies of unschooling or unschoolers; none
> that show better "academic achievement", none that show worse. None.
>
> Is that what you wanted to know?

Yes! Thanks.

Michael

Michael Atherton

--- In [email protected], Deb Lewis
<ddzimlew@j...> wrote:
>
> ***I know you want proof that unschooling won't screw up your kid,
that
> your child will be successful and be able to learn what he "needs"
> to know.***
>
> I don't think the poster is interested in unschooling. I think
> he's interested in enlightening a group of misguided/ignorant
> radicals. <g>
> Maybe he thinks none of us went to public school or college.
> Maybe he thinks none of us came from traditional backgrounds.
> Maybe he thinks we read one article in Mother Jones and decide
> go all hippie and anti-establishment. Flower power, man. Unga
> bunga butterfly.

Maybe, just maybe, I'm interested in knowing what and how unschoolers
think. Ever think of that?

I have no interest in convicing you that you're wrong or that there's
a better way. I just want to understand. Isn't that one of
the foundations of unschooling?

Michael

[email protected]

Another good "we have experience" analogy in the world of measurement is the
idea that mothers NEED to know how much their infants are eating. Well...
He nursed until he fell asleep, my breasts are making more milk, he peed and
pooped later, and he's gaining weight.

No we do NOT need to know how much he had. It won't help anything to know
how much it was.

And honestly, there have been doctors who "required" mothers to pump milk and
measure it and report how much the baby drank. STUPID doctors. (And
fearful mothers who shouldn't let doctors own their babies.)

If you EVER know of a mom who has some reason to need to know how much a baby
drank, weigh the baby before feeding and after, on a baby scale that shows
ounces. (And don't change the diaper before weighing the second time--output
was in, just before he put it out.)

Testing to see if a person is learning is "necessary" when the teacher needs
to justify the salary, when the school needs to justify the grant money, when
the parents want to decide whether to keep paying the tutor. It all has to
do with money.

Sandra


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

Pamela Sorooshian

On Nov 9, 2005, at 8:31 AM, Michael Atherton wrote:

> If unschooling is better, then its students should somehow be
> measurably different than the general population, otherwise
> what's the point?

Not everything that is valuable is measurable.

Your premise, Michael, that "better" implies some sort of measurably
superior outcome, is false.

-pam



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

Barb Lundgren

Michael asks:

So do unschoolers believe that human beings are cooperative by
nature?

Do they believe that invdividuals have something called a
"true self?"

Do they believe that all individuals are self-motviated?

Personally, I would answer 'yes' to each of these questions. But I speak
only from my own experience of course.

Barb


"Whatever you can do, or dream you can do, begin it. Boldness
has genius, power, and magic in it." Goethe

Vicki A. Dennis

Michael,



You may need to look to your own definitions and vocabulary, and yes, life
philosophy so that you can ask questions that would make more sense to those
who have chosen and experienced unschooling.



It appears that your definition of learning (and the need for measuring)
leans a bit to segregated "academics". Or at least to the idea that only
what is measured can be worthy. Count your blessings that I don't
respond to your claim about being able to easily measure "Johnny can read
or he can't". (Clue: try to digest earlier writing by Herndon or Kozol.



You might also consider asking folks who breastfed their children "how can
you know whether they are getting nourishment without first putting the milk
in a measuring cup or bottle".



I predict you will be disappointed if you seek from this list either
scientific proof or a sales pitch that you should unschool **because** it
will produce a better schooled product.



vicki



-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Atherton
Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 12:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: Scientific Studies of Unschooling?



how can you
know whether they are learning without measuring it?

Michael














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

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/9/05 1:55:59 PM, athe0007@... writes:


> So do unschoolers believe that human beings are cooperative by
> nature?
>
> Do they believe that invdividuals have something called a
> "true self?"
>
> Do they believe that all individuals are self-motviated?
>

One unschooler had read a few chapter of a book by a guy I never heard of,
and you're asking if all unschoolers believe what he believes! Calm yourself,
please!



Michael, you joined the list yesterday. You asked about studies; you
received responses.

On the side, I sent you links to Joyce's site, Pam's, to unschooling.info and
my site. If you're truly interested in unschooling, go to what's already
written and read there a while, please. Keep reading this list for a week or
so. Then if you have questions and haven't found other sources, post your
questions.

Sandra

Sandra



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

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/9/2005 1:12:37 PM Central Standard Time, athe0007@
umn.edu writes:

So unschooling is based on emotion and faith, rather than
reason and evidence?




~~~

This list is full of reason and evidence. FULL of it.

And so is my life with my kids and my time with other unschooled kids. I
don't need studies. I can see it with my own eyes.

I didn't have to go to school to learn about gravity. Nobody had to show me
a study. It just is. I can see it working all around me. Same with
unschooling. It works.

Maybe you live on the moon and gravity is different for you. If you left
school and started hanging with some unschoolers, it would become obvious to
you, too.

Karen


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

Betsy Hill