- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
As I write this essay, children and adolescents all over America are frantically completing their assigned summer reading, so they can turn in their book reports, due on the first day of class. Or, they are blowing off the assignments while their parents are frantically trying to get them to do them. If your child fails to turn in those reports, you may be as much to "blame" as your child. The school system expects you to monitor, nudge, maybe even bribe or threaten your child--do whatever you must to get that slacker to do the assignment. .... To be a trustful parent these days, you may need to find some alternative to conventional schooling for your child. Here are two suggestions. Read More
better than nature
Dear Dr. Gray,
While I've enjoyed your posts on Freedom to Learn, and I firmly agree with you it's important for children to have time for free play and to indulge their natural curiosity, I worry that you put far too much emphasis on just letting development take its natural course through spontaneous free play, when it seems like we could do so much better if parents and children consciously and deliberately work on channeling children's natural curiosity into endeavors are actually expected to do the most good, for whatever your local vision of the good is. Yes, we can learn a few things from hunter-gatherers, but really---who wants to be a hunter-gatherer? People in this civilization have accomplished great things by---well, directly striving to do great things, and while this vision of play über alles may be a recipe for happiness, I worry that it might also be a recipe for mediocrity. This world needs competent, caring people to make things work, and good work requires---I won't say discipline, but something more than mere play. Striving.
My background: I'm twenty-one years old and was traditionally schooled up through the nervous breakdown that precipitated my withdrawal from University in my second year. I feel like most of my youth was wasted in school. So much of the time I was just showing up, going through the motions, trying to obey the teacher's commands but not even doing a very good job of it. On my own time, I did a lot of reading and writing and thinking about things that I actually cared about, and this spontaneous, private study was much more useful than most of what I did for school. On the other hand, it was nowhere near optimal, either. You and others in the unschooling literature have sung the praises of learning that children don't explicitly think of as learning, but that's exactly what I regret about my private studies: I was just doing what I did naturally, without even thinking about what I was trying to do and how I might do it better, and if you're not in the habit of asking those questions, then you miss out on some major arbitrage opportunities. I don't know if you realized this, but Nature is not our friend! Explicit, deliberative rationality is really fantastically useful.
It's important to remember that policy debates should not appear one-sided. We can criticize the assumption of traditional educators that children left to their own devices will do nothing but worthless crap, while also recognizing the very real risk that children left simply to their own devices will do quite a lot of stuff that turns out, on reflection, to be worthless crap. Looking back on my wasted youth, while I regret the time I spent completing worthless school assignments, I also regret a lot of my self-chosen activities. All those hours spent playing stupid games, or collecting little pieces of cardboard bearing pictures of men holding sticks! My word. I could have been studying math! There's a sense in which I didn't really value my life, then. Not the way I do now.
Traditional schooling is terrible, but I think we can do much better than telling kids "I trust you to make your own way in the world." How about a synthesis of trusting and directive parenting? Looking back, what I wish my parents and teachers had told me was this: "Your life is important, and you should spend your youth learning all sorts of interesting and important things, and developing all sorts of useful and important skills! Intelligence is actually useful for solving real problems; it's not just a toy to garner praise from us! Read a book, now! Solve a problem, now! Don't wait, don't stop! For every book that you read makes your stronger, every problem that you solve increases your beauty, every line that you write is another stitch in your ball gown!"
Am I making sense, or am I way off-base? Thoughts?
I just noticed the "reply
I just noticed the "reply function... my post below was intended as a reply, and I apologize for any confusion.
It seems I overlooked the
It seems I overlooked the reply button too! But at least my subject line made it clear that it was a reply.
How far would you have gone
How far would you have gone with your self study if you hadn't had to spend 6+ hours a day (not including travel time and homework) on "showing up, going through the motions, trying to obey the teacher's commands but not even doing a very good job of it"?
When children who have attended conventional schools are brought home it's often necessary for them to go through a period of de-schooling before they can effectively learn at home.
While many kids are like you and me and explore their own educational interests in the time wrenched from attending school, others end up growing up refusing to touch a book unless it's assigned, unable to use math except in assigned tasks, and only watching reality TV because the stuff on the Discovery channel is too much like learning (okay, that last one is probably not as common as the first two).
Most of the unschoolers I know say they do plant educational stuff for their kids. Like getting a telescope after their child reads a few books on the stars. Or getting a cookbook when the child wants to bake. And that's just for the under-10 crowd. Come the teen years the resources expand to include classes at community colleges, auditing courses at the university, etc. More than one child has had no interest in math whatsoever beyond counting for stupid games and gone on to go through college algebra, trig, calculus, in a year because they decided that that's what they want to do.
Heck, speaking of stupid games, my husband learned a ton of stuff about WWII a few years back because he was researching to run a role-playing game. He wanted, although it didn't matter in the slightest, to be accurate about the people he put into the game, details about dates of battles that happened in the background, and even just things like did that city in France exist back then?
It's not the mind set we grew up with, but it's pretty cool to see learning for your child in everything.
Not WAY off-base
Just a little off-base, but I've got 30+ years on you, and the older I get, the more I realize that none of it is wasted time. None of it.
"All those hours spent playing stupid games" -- yeah. Personally, I play a lot of Tetris. I get given a lot of grief over it, but actually Tetris occupies and distracts my conscious mind, and in the background I'm processing. I'm old enough that there were no computers in my childhood -- I played a lot of solitaire then. Same deal. Something about our American work ethic makes us feel uncomfortable being "idle", so those of us who require down-time for unconscious thought processes find socially acceptable ways to be idle without being idle. You need it, or you wouldn't do it.
I write computer games now. I'm a self-taught Java programmer. My husband and I dropped out of college to get married 33 years ago. As soon as personal computers became available, we got them and started learning together about programming. We wrote games for fun, and developed careers out of it. We were lucky, but we were doing what came naturally to us.
My kids started out in public school, but I couldn't deal with exactly what Peter is talking about in this essay. Traditional school makes parents jump through hoops, just like it makes the kids. It was destroying our family life. We were fortunate to have a Sudbury-type school (www.circleschool.org) in the area, so both my kids spent several years there, and at this point are just unschooled. They are incredible kids, and I have no doubt that they will do whatever they need to do to accomplish what they want to accomplish.
As to socialization, which is all I ever wanted to rely on school for, it hasn't suffered since my kids have been out of school. They both do theater and music, and they both have friends they enjoy spending time with. And we have maintained strong ties to The Circle School community, even though we aren't actually enrolled there any more.
Thank you
Dear Z. M., I want to thank you, most sincerely, for such a thoughtful and thought provoking set of comments. I'm not going to try to respond at any length; what I would say would be redundant with the thoughtful responses from Aubrey, Hannah, Liz, ToMarGames, Shannon, Klakemom, and others. What you have raised is really a profound question: What is worth doing, or worth learning? Or, just a little differently, What makes life worthwhile? My belief is that we can never answer that for someone else. It's hard enough to answer it for ourselves. -- Unschooled kids, and those who go to Sudbury schools, are forced to address that question for themselves, because nobody pretends to know the answer that applies to them. -- Peter
An Alum's Perspective
I started at a Sudbury school at the age of 7 (in '98), and graduated from the same school in June '08. Given this perspective, I read Z. M. Davis' comment with interest.
What I saw as a recurrent theme was the assumption that children, faced with full responsibility for their lives on a daily basis, would not have an interest in rationally exploring potential ways to achieve their ends with efficiency and excellence. What I've seen and experienced has been quite to the contrary; most kids at my school were dedicated to excellence at a level far beyond many adults that I've known in my lifetime.
Dismissing the question of the value of play itself, I would argue that because Sudbury kids have established habits of identifying what is important to them and taking responsibility for its realization, deliberative rationality is an essential aspect of their daily lives.
I cannot think of a single student that I knew in my time at the school who didn't give any thought to their future. And when they did give it thought, it was with tremendous zest and (though it was often a playful process) deliberation. But that's not even the point! In our daily lives *at school*, many of the same "real-world" skills became a necessity to pursue the things we cared about. We didn't need anyone to tell us that we "ought" to study such-and-such, or if we got that type of advice it was in the course of a natural, peer-to-peer discussion about the the things we cared about.
As is surely clear, I love my school and the model. I feel that it worked well for me, and I am honored to maintain close friendship with other alums who I respect and admire. What more can one ask for?
I do envy you.
I do envy you.
re: better than nature
Z. M. Davis,
You say that you firmly agree that children should have time to play and indulge their curiosity, but then you state that all the time you spent playing was wasted time, and you believe that other children, by playing and following their interests, would likewise be wasting their time, simply because the play didn't produce something tangible or work towards an obvious goal.
Your comment contains many premises that I disagree with. One of which is that all time must be utilized in a "productive" manner. Honestly, what is wrong with "wasting" time having fun? Why isn't happiness good enough? Why must your life be "optimized"? It's your life, and if collecting "little pieces of cardboard bearing pictures of men holding sticks" is something that made you happy and served a function in your life at that time (which it certainly did, else you would not have done it), why do you regret it? Simply because you think you could have been doing something better? You say you should have been learning math, because that would have been productive. But at the time, would it really have? Had you been forced against your own volition to do math, would you really have learned it? Would it really have been productive? Weren't you forced to do math in school? Didn't they try to tell you that it was important? And how did that turn out for you?
I also question your assumption that time spent doing seemingly worthless pursuits is wasted time. Picking up a rattle and shaking it seems kind of like a worthless thing to do. But that's how babies learn to understand the properties of the world around them. Children play in the ways they do because it helps to serve a necessary function for them, emotionally or intellectually. Through play children often learn to cope with difficult situations in their lives. Their play is practice, and it serves a useful function, even if by outward appearances it's trivial. In time their play will evolve into pursuits that have more of an appearance of being productive. But that doesn't make it any more important than the play that came before it, for the play that came first was a necessary step in the process.
You say that your own educational experience was simply going through the motions. You did what you had to do (or at least tried to anyway). But in what way is that different from your proposed directive approach? The fact of the matter is you can't create a synthesis of trustful parenting and directive parenting, because they are two opposites of a spectrum. You can lean more to one end than the other, but I don't think you can really have both in the sense that you are talking about. Because implicit in a directive approach is the statement, "I don't trust you to figure out what's important for yourself, so I'm going to decide for you." Not only is this an insult to the child, it inhibits the child from learning for his- or herself how to decide what really is important, and may actually discourage interest in the matter you are trying to promote. From your comment it would appear that you actually do not trust children to learn the skills necessary for a happy and productive life. And for some strange reason, you seem to think that you were incapable of learning what's important or worthwhile without someone telling you... but where you are now with your beliefs and goals and pursuits, is that because of your own experience and personal decisions, or did someone tell you what to believe and think? I'm willing to bet it's the former.
"This world needs competent, caring people to make things work, and good work requires---I won't say discipline, but something more than mere play."
I would say discipline. Good work does require discipline. It requires that you value what you are doing, that you are patient, open minded, and persistent. What you say this world needs is exactly what is promoted by giving children the freedom to direct their own learning. In fact, it is coercion that promotes slacking, inattention, and lack of concern or value towards what you are doing. Your own educational experience is testament to that.
Just because someone tells you something is important, it doesn't mean you will suddenly find it important. You can't transfer value that way. It simply doesn't work. Every child has to learn through his or her own experience what is and is not valuable in life. And while initially in play, children will do things that most would consider of little value, they are in fact learning from it, and it is quite valuable to them at that time. As children get older, they will see what is around them and their pursuits will likely be directed towards larger goals, to things that are valuable to more than just themselves.
One of the biggest flaws in your reasoning that I can see, is that you think you can decide what children learn. You can't. Children will learn (or not learn) what they will, regardless of what you try to force into them. Children have to build their own mental models of the world on their own, and you can't simply transplant information to their brains via explanations. They have to figure it out and see for themselves.
However, allowing children freedom is not the same thing as completely ignoring your kids. There is nothing distrustful about sharing your knowledge and values with your children. There is nothing wrong with helping your child when they ask for your help. Trustful parenting doesn't mean leaving your kids to figure out everything for themselves, exactly. It means you provide them with ample opportunity to learn, because, really, that's all you can do. Much as you might want them to learn and value math, for example, they might not. And you can't force them to understand. They have to learn it for themselves. And the more you try to coerce, the more you will defeat your own purposes.
In sum, I think the point you are missing is that there only exists self-directed education, and the closer we come to realizing that, the better off we all are. Nature is not our enemy; we have been designed to know what we need and to seek to meet those needs. We need food and water, so we hunger and thirst. We need to learn, so we are curious. We need to be mature and involved, so we seek to grow up and be a part of the community. Coercion is not only unnecessary, but it is counterproductive.
To you I recommend reading two books. One, How Children Learn by John Holt, and two, A Guide to Rational Living by Albert Ellis and Robert A. Harper. The former is what it quite plainly states. It's Holt's observations of children and the conclusions he makes as a result. It's an excellent read and very informative. The latter is somewhat unrelated, but it deals with rationality and emotional disturbances. Some of the content of your post seemed to indicate that you might find this book quite interesting and informative. Really, though, I think it's a good read for anyone at all, and everyone could benefit from it. Rationality is important, as you have stated, and it leads to a much happier, healthier life.
synthetic
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. My responses follow.
"Honestly, what is wrong with 'wasting' time having fun? Why isn't happiness good enough?"
Fun is good, and happiness is good, and interests are good, but I don't regard all happinesses and all interests as equally virtuous. I'm not saying that everything has to be productive (indeed, what counts as "productive" depends on what it is you consider valuable), but it seems worth distinguishing between different types of fun. For myself, I feel very comfortable saying that linear algebra or philosophy of biology is much purer, better, and altogether more important than, oh, I don't know, say Power Rangers or who's taking whom to prom. But I'm not a moral realist; your milage may vary.
"[W]hy do you regret [collecting baseball cards]? Simply because you think you could have been doing something better?"
Yes, exactly!
"Didn't they try to tell you that [mathematics] was important? And how did that turn out for you?"
I remember in first or second grade, they gave us arithmetic workbooks that we could work through at our own pace. Now, I loved those workbooks! I blazed through them so fast! And then---some point along the line, they stopped giving us workbooks, and we started having math classes, where the teacher tells you what to do every day, and you obey. And I stopped working hard.
So yes, I think I would have responded well to something along the lines of, "Academic knowledge is precious! Here are some books! Go nuts!" Indeed, I credit a lot of my intellectual skills to being raised in a family where I was read to and encouraged to read. I just wish it had been more explicit; I wish that someone had told me in so many words that the important thing was knowledge, not obeying-the-teacher. It would have saved so much time and tears later on!
"From your comment it would appear that you actually do not trust children to learn the skills necessary for a happy and productive life."
Probably not. Sorry.
"You say that your own educational experience was simply going through the motions. You did what you had to do (or at least tried to anyway). But in what way is that different from your proposed directive approach?"
I'm talking about the difference between "You have to do exactly this in just this manner and turn it in on this day" (the directive approach) and "We want you do something in the general area of this-and-such, but you're encouraged to do it at a pace and in a manner that you find works best, and we value and affirm that you have all sorts of other important interests, too" (the kind of synthesis--or middle of the spectrum, if you want to call it that---that I would support).
"Just because someone tells you something is important, it doesn't mean you will suddenly find it important. You can't transfer value that way. It simply doesn't work. [...] One of the biggest flaws in your reasoning that I can see, is that you think you can decide what children learn. You can't."
I certainly agree that no one has fine-grained control over their children's thoughts, but simply by providing one sort of environment rather than another, offering this toy rather than that toy, praising or noticing this action rather than another, you're implicitly making all sorts of choices that are going to have a causal effect on the child's development. For example, children tend to share their parents' religion. (On the other hand, Judith Rich Harris has gained some notoriety for recent work suggesting that genetics and peer influence is much more powerful than parental influence in many domains, but I confess that I'm not up to speed on this literature.)
"Coercion is not only unnecessary, but it is counterproductive."
Policy debates should not appear one-sided. How do you know? What if you're wrong? Of course it would be wonderful to live in a world without any sort of coercion, in which everyone got to do exactly what she wanted and we all lived together and peace and harmony. But it is (to put it mildly!) not at all obvious that such a thing is possible. Like it or not (and I don't like it), our modern world is a schooled world. The fact that I can dream of an unschooled paradise, doesn't mean such a thing is possible. What would actually happen if mass numbers of people started unschooling? It's an empirical question, to be determined by evidence and reasoning. On my honor as an aspiring rationalist, I cannot simply presume that everything would be just fine. If unschooling is really so obviously great, why isn't everyone doing it now? Why don't we see the U.S. News & World Report have an annual issue on all sorts of exciting learning projects for young adults, rather than a list of college rankings? Is the rest of the world just stupid, or evil? Is it all one very large historical accident? If we're going to be sane radicals, we have to be prepared to face these kinds of tough questions directly and answer them honestly, not brush them away with idealistic slogans that might not actually be true, however desperately we wish they were.
"One, How Children Learn by John Holt"
I've read most of Holt's books; I liked them.
Re:Synthetic
No fancy theories to discuss, but two real live unschooled kids. My son, 8 next week, has, in recent months read The Red Badge of Courage, Oliver Twist, rejected Treasure Island as "the worst book ever!",grasped the basics of fractions, multiplication, and decimals, fixed the computer I couldn't, and learned to navigate the world of online gaming.
My daughter, 5, watched her Little Toot video upwards of 100 times, asking new questions on a wide variety of subjects throughout (dolphins, pelicans, tongue-twisters, weather and geologic patterns, to name a few). She honed reading skills with the credits, and learned all the songs, then choreographing dances for them. when she wanted her brother to dance with her and he couldn't reproduce her moves, she drew symbols along the left side of a piece of paper, and numbers along the right. Many of the numbers were backwards, and the symbols and numbers really don't line up, but it is complex problem-solving (she turned 5 in July).
We have built a life that provides many many opportunities for our children to explore at home and elsewhere, with a variety of people of all ages, and almost all of their time is completely their own, to use as they wish. I recommended a few of the books when I thought they'd be enjoyed, answered questions, and offered support when they wanted it. Beyond that, I kept out of the way, trusting that they knew what they needed.
I didn't expect these results - or any others, either. If I had expected something, or tried to direct their choices, I doubt the results would have been the same. There is something powerful and freeing in saying, "I did this, and it was all my idea!".
The glowing grins I see while they pursue their newest play or projects tells me they are living their passions - and that they know, right now, what it has taken me 40 years of living to grasp.
Only when we are living our passions are we our truest, best, and (if this is important, which I doubt)most productive selves.
I suspect time and living will naturally shift your perspective, and show you that you were unschooling all along, and that everything counts...
Peace-
Shan
The Unfettered Life -
www.memismommy.blogapot.com
unschooling our kids
I to am a unschooler of two beautiful and bright children. I sometimes have doubts about my choice to keep my children home. Both of my children attended pre-school (one which emphasised socializing rather than academics), but have been home ever since then. My daughter is almost 8 and my son is turning six in Dec. The only thing I "teach" is reading (phonics and word recognition and such). I belong to a local homeschooling group that gets together to do planned activities as well as just to play. It is through this group that I am able to let go of some of my fears and trust that it will all work out. I have an opportunity to talk to other homeschoolers who have been doing it for much longer than I have, to meet their beautiful children, and hear their stories. My children are involved in a variety of activities that I choose for them as a way of helping them explore and find their own interests. I feel that at this age they don't really know what they will like until they have had a chance to experience different things. We are fortunate to have a community recreation program which allows people to enrol in different classes at a very reasonable price. My children are currently taking: piano lessons, gymnastics, a craft class, tae kwon do, jazz dance, as well as an art program at the local art gallery. My daughter also attends Brownies, while my son decided he didn't want to return to Beavers. I ask only that they try the activity for the whole session and then if they don't like it they don't have to return. Their day is spent doing whatever they want to do when we don't have planned activities to attend. Sometimes they play all day long, coming up with fantastic imaginative play and other times they just want to veg out and watch tv. They have workbooks that they can work in if they want (they sometimes like to "play" school). The point is, they decide what they need to be doing and I am there to help if they need it. Sometimes they will spend hours and days playing on the computer and then not go near it for a month. I try not to interfere in their play or learning as much as possible.
I have read just about every book written by John Holt and felt they spoke really spoke to me. My own schooling experience left a lot to be desired. I spent a lot of time feeling like I wasn't smart enough (especially when it came to math) only to learn later in life that I am very capable of grasping practical math such as accounting and business math. Had someone given me the opportunity to learn those types of math earlier (I learned them in my secretarial course in college), I might have come out of school feeling more competent in that subject. When I asked my husband who was reluctant to homeschool what he remembered about school he mostly talked about the social aspects of school, but had little to say about the acedemics. If I can give my kids the socialization they need, then as long as they learn the basics and still have a love of learning then I feel like I will have done as well as or better than conventional schooling could do. So, when you take acedemics and socialization out of the school model what's left? What's left is close family ties, a love of learning, an ability to interact with people of all ages, and the ability to manage their own time and learning. Those are the things I think are missing in school and why I keep my kids at home. Not to mention that there are no bullies in my home and noone who will make them feel "stupid" for not getting "it".
Homeschooling isn't for everyone, but I believe that everyone could do it if they chose to. There are many children in school that I think benefit from being there,as their home lives are not conducive or safe places to learn. That is a problem for society, not for the education system though. If more money was spent helping families become more cohesive and nurturing rather than a failing educational model, the schools wouldn't have to take on so much. Imagine if kids could go to school for a couple of hours a day to learn the basics like math, reading, and writing and the rest of the time they could play and be close to their families instead of kids having to spend their whole day and sometimes after school in the "prison" of school while their parents are working or incapable of being there for their kids for other reasons. Imagine a society that supported single income families and stay-at-home parents instead of pushing apart families. We have come to believe that school is the only place where kids will learn, and school has become a place where the teachers are expected to teach kids "everything" instead of trusting that the parents are capable of teaching their kids something of value.
There is another book worth mentioning when it comes to homeschooling or even just treating your children with respect. It is called "Raising our Children, Raising ourselves" by Naomi Aldort. Naomi Aldort talks about trusting our children, respecting them and honoring their uniqueness. Even if you don't homeschool it is well worth reading just as a guide to parenting respectfully.
I have to admit to being a
I have to admit to being a little insulted by your caveats. Why would you assume that these issues would be especially relevant to unschooling parents. Or, more succinctly - Duh! And yet by especially mentioning these particular issues as challenges that unschooling parents must "figure out how to meet", you reinforce the idea that unschoolers who don't put the effort into figuring this out will naturally keep their children away from other children and adults and not allow them any space to themselves.
None of these have even been things that crossed my mind during my ten years of unschooling. Of course my daughter hung out with other adults and children! We were an unschooling family, not a cloister!
Thank you
I was disturbed by the list of caveats, too. Why do unschooling parents and children still have to defend ourselves from the myth of insufficient socialization. I moderate a listserve for homeschooling parents in Montgomery County, MD. There are 408 families on the list! We see posts for activities as wide ranging as swimming, chess, bowling, acting, math and chemistry classes. There are field trips, park days, and potlucks.
You can be as plugged in to the greater community as you would like as an unschooler/homeschooler. It doesn't even take a lot of creativity, just a willingness to follow your child's interests. Honestly I think my children have more interactions with a wider range of ages than they would if they were in school. They take classes with lots of adults and meet many of their friend's parents. Since we do many of our activities all together siblings are included.
This misinformation weakens the very valid points that the article is trying to make!
Thanks, Carrie,
It's good to hear that finding ways for unschooled kids to become connected with lots of other people and to spend time exploring and playing away from their parents is not so difficult. I appreciate your list of some of the ways that this happens. -Peter
Insult not intended
Sarah, thank you for this comment. Certainly I did not mean to be insulting to unschooling parents! Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "caveats," but just referred to them as challenges to be met by unschooling parents. Immediately after listing the "caveats," I wrote: "I realize that many unschoolers have figured out ways of meeting the challenges suggested by these caveats. They have found ways for their children to play and explore away from themselves, to meet and make friends with other children over a broad age range, and to become naturally exposed to a variety of adults." I then invited unschooling parents to share with us how they do this.
-- Perhaps you would agree that, in our society today, these kinds of social opportunities don't always happen naturally. Unschooling families may have to take active steps to make them happen.
My best wishes,
Peter
Caveats
I'm an unschooler and see your point about the "caveats." Distrust of unschooling seems pervasive.
I also know that reading Dr. Gray's other posts has made me long for a type of community that doesn't even exist where neighborhood kids arrange their own multi-age baseball games down the street and we don't have to sign up for classes and activities to be around people, even though I live in an opportunity-filled, homeschooling-friendly city
I can see the advantage of unschooling at a school, which is what the Sudbury Model boils down too. Still *the biggest problem* I have in my unschooling is making time to play together as a family, and yet I've found that without that, the rest of our activities which give us "socialization" feel empty.
I read Z.M. Davis' response
I read Z.M. Davis' response with interest. You seem very wise for your years! My children are homeschooled and we do try to find a balance between some directed learning and following their interests.
I feel that it is up to me to ensure that they have been introduced to a broad range of ideas and subject areas, and I try to do it in a way that is meaningful and enjoyable for them. I ask them what they want to learn, and I provide further opportunities for learning when I see that an interest has been sparked.
At the same time, I don't want them to think that the only time they have to apply themselves in life is when the topic is utterly pleasurable to them. I'd like them to learn to communicate their thoughts coherently, which necessitates an understanding of language, for example. I'd also like them to have a chronological approach to learning history as a means of providing context and understanding of human development through the ages, as opposed to the piecemeal approach I remember from school.
One of my children is interested in biology (dinosaurs, animals, birds, etc.). He would study this all the time, to the exclusion of all else, if I didn't direct him a bit. It's not a bad thing that he's so passionate about this area, but he has been single minded about it for several years now (he's 7). If we followed his interests exclusively, he would be happy to learn nothing else.
I have met enough unschoolers to understand that not every child learns well on his own. I have met parents who rationalize that having their child play video games all day is some how "educational". Some people simply aren't all that curious about the world around them, and would much prefer mindless entertainment to productive learning.
So, I agree with Z.M. Davis -- there needs to be a balance. The child's love of learning can be maintained and their interests can be respected without giving over entirely to child-led learning.
It's a little sad to me that
It's a little sad to me that in our society anything that a child wants to do is instantly suspect. "They want to read all the time"? Send them outside at once! "They want to be outside all the time"? They must come in and read. Even Biology? Really? Is there nothing that a child can want to do to the exclusion of all other interests that is acceptable? Do we really need to be well rounded?
When you think about great scientists, artists, musicians, or athletes do you think that they are that interested in every aspect of life?
I think parents get stuck in the idea that they must make their child into a peg that can be stuffed into any hole. They must be able to do anything. I think that's sad and ultimately hurtful to children who know what they are REALLY interested in only to be told that they can't follow that interest.
You seem to be making two points that conflict with each other. You state that you have a child who knows what they want to do but that's not good. Then you state that children who don't really know what they want to do and just want to play video games are also not good. I must submit to you, by the way, that there are a lot of good jobs to be had in the gaming industry so I wouldn't knock it so quick. I think it goes back to the basic point which is that children are not trusted to do what they want. If they want it, it must be stopped and redirected.
Children need to play and, as the other responder said, that play is important and as necessary as anything else. If given their freedom they really will regulate themselves. Even with video games. They will decide for themselves what is important and we should, as parents, show them support even if it's not what we think is important.
You're probably right
I probably am stating conflicting points, because it reflects the conflict in my own mind about unschooling. I can see for myself how happy my kids are when left to their own devices. Yet, I can't seem to shake my own ideals of the "perfect education". It certainly wasn't what I had in public school. Maybe there's also an underlying fear that they will somehow be spoiled by all of these freedoms. Already, after a summer of "following their interests", a suggestion today that we pick up math again was met with a Major Attitude. So, I'll continue to sit on the fence a while longer, I guess.
Deschooling
What you are experiencing is, believe it or not not unusual. I strongly suggest Tammy Takahashi's book Deschooling Gently. Many of us are so ingrained in traditional schooling that we can't understand anything else. If standard schooly math isn't turning your kids on find other ways to grab their interest in it. Make it practical, cooking, baking, grocery shopping, etc. When they finally realize all the practical applications and that we can't do with out math in our everyday lives the light bulb goes off. It happens at different times for each child.
We also have this concept that a child should learn X by Y date. So not true. Every child has their own way of learning and will learn things at their own rate.
This is my family's second year homeschooling. Depending on who you talk to we are eclectic or unschoolers. I think trying to put everyone under a label just sucks and is so school think. We follow our children's interests and passions. That changes from day to day and even minute to minute sometimes but the kids are happy and they are learning.
Re: I read....
M 7 yo spends hours gaming. He spends hours watching TV, too - and hours on many other things. He has 24 a day to play with, after all!
The other night I was watching something on National Geographic. It was showing how silk is made, woven, and dyed...he came in just after the silkworm cocoons were boiled with pupae inside. I started to tell him about how silk is made, and he interrupted to say, "Yes, I know, Mommy. The silkworms spit out the thread for their cocoons, and they eat mulberry tree leaves."
Then Marco Polo was mentioned, and the Silk Road. He proceeded to describe it to me, then ask about the water game called Marco Polo. After that, I asked him where he'd learned it. "You know, from my Carmen Sandiego Chase Through Time game."
He spent three blissful days in front of the computer, working his way through history while catching crooks. he needed some help from me, but not much. No one said he had to, and no one was trying to teach him about silk or exploration. It was just a silly game...or was it, to him?
Silk for thought....
Shan
The Unfettered Life -
www.memismommy.blogspot.com
silly games etc from a mom & teacher
Shan and all... What a great discussion!
My 5-year-old has learned so much via online gaming sites for wee ones, like Nick Junior, plus she absorbs a ton from watching Diego, Dora, and the Backyardigans' episodes that we record on TIVO. I would hate to take away her games and shows for she would lose out on so much knowledge...plus, they give her the down-time and alone-time that suits her style!
She will be in her 3rd year at Montessori this year, btw. This will be her "Kindergarten" year, and I put that in quotes since really she's staying in the same classroom she's had for preschool. But believe me, she has already met and surpassed many of the Kindergarten outcomes outlined by our school district.
I'm a public school teacher (middle school). My goal as an educator is to "unschool" as much as I can within the parameters of the school building, resources, and yes, standards to which we must aspire. There are only so many computers to go around, only so much library time available...but my students and I can do our best to explore with each other and learn from each other. I've seen them make magic -- yes, even at public school.
I can't see my daughter attending public school, but who knows what the future holds. I am just so glad that the Internet exists so I can read from experts and moms/dads like the folks represented in these comments. Thank you, all!
:) Annette
Self Directed Learning
I agree that children need to learn sometimes independantly from adults and they do a lot of the time. Other times, family bonds and especially sibling bonds are strengthened by the multi-age groups that a family provides in a home education setting. As the mother of 5 Unschoolers and a parent trainer, speaker and author of the bestselling, "Discipline without distress: 135 tools for raising caring, responsible children without time-Out, spanking, punishment or bribery" I would recommend that our whole system needs to move to self-directed learning. Schools are so far behind in providing the content - the internet already does that. What our children need is the process - who, where, how, and why to beleive what information is valid and valuable. That is the education that our children need. Everything else is at their fingertips through the internet if they choose to chase it.
Unschooling and the Internet
Our 10 year old son is a perfect unschooler. And it is mostly thanks to the internet. Although we do use workbooks to produce our portfolio of learning for the state requirements, almost all of his learning has been online or through software or books. But mostly by his own choosing. We learned fractions by doubling or halving recipes since he loves to help me bake. When he was 6 he learned all about WW I and WW II. Now he has a blog, produces his own videos, and is into everything horror related.
I agree that the caveats reinforce the stereotype that we are somehow isolated. In today's world you are only as isolated as you choose. And again, this is thanks largely to the internet. Although, we purposefully moved to a neighborhood that kids still roam the streets. We also lead a children's activities program for the neighborhood, and do this as a family, thereby integrating ourselves into the "school kids".
We belong to two different home schooling groups ranging from 75 families in one, to over 600 in the other. There is something every day of the week, from park days, to circus arts classes. Anything you can think of.
I will admit, there is sacrifice in being a homeschooling family. Typically one parent stays home, but like us, we work different shifts, to accommodate this choice. So there is usually a financial sacrifice as well. Which leads to a lot of creativity, use of the internet and the library.
Thanks for a well written piece and some very good commentary.
Heather
Unschooling and the Internet
Our 10 year old son is a wonderful unschooler. And it is mostly thanks to the internet. Although we do use workbooks to produce our portfolio of learning for the state requirements, almost all of his learning has been online or through software or books. But mostly by his own choosing. We learned fractions by doubling or halving recipes since he loves to help me bake. When he was 6 he learned all about WW I and WW II. Now he has a blog, produces his own videos, and is into everything horror related.
I agree that the caveats reinforce the stereotype that we are somehow isolated. In today's world you are only as isolated as you choose. And again, this is thanks largely to the internet. Although, we purposefully moved to a neighborhood that kids still roam the streets. We also lead a children's activities program for the neighborhood, and do this as a family, thereby integrating ourselves into the "school kids".
We belong to two different home schooling groups ranging from 75 families in one, to over 600 in the other. There is something every day of the week, from park days, to circus arts classes. Anything you can think of.
I will admit, there is sacrifice in being a homeschooling family. Typically one parent stays home, but like us, we work different shifts, to accommodate this choice. So there is usually a financial sacrifice as well. Which leads to a lot of creativity, use of the internet and the library.
Thanks for a well written piece and some very good commentary.
Heather
Unsupervised children can be dangerous
Part of my problem with sitting children at desks for the majority of the day is that they don't get the chance to learn appropriate behaviour via practise.
Then, when they're out on the playground, they behave inappropriately and with few adults around to correct the issue before it gets out of hand, it turns into a 'bully' scenario.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, the part that I could not agree with at all was that children should spend time unsupervised.
As children get older, of course they need more unsupervised time.
However, leaving younger children in the company of older children means that the older children assume almost 'parental' responsibility. This would mean an innately unfair amount of responsibility be placed on the older child.
This might be all right for a short term period but it is the adult/parent who should be giving the child(ren) guidance.
I do think parents should, for the most part, butt out. But, they still need to be in the background to be available to step in if/when needed. Even if just to indicate appropriate behaviour like, "No pushing".
Kids will learn on their own (some things - multiplication tables would not be at the top of that list though). But they will also decide to do dangerous things without being able to forecast the danger that may be involved.
Just sitting on the internet may involve some danger. A parent to take note of dangerous possibilities and guiding the child to learn to keep themselves safe is necessary.
Many, many life experiences are required to develop this skill (in my experience). And the skills to keep yourself safe do not always evolve without guidance, and almost never evolve from sitting at a classroom desk.
A seventeen year old will not necessarily be able to stop a thirteen year old from doing something dangerous if the thirteen year old has decided they won't be dissuaded. And besides that, a fifteen year old doesn't always have such great judgement all the time either (nor should they since they are only fifteen).
So, having a parent in the background, the majority of the time, checking every once in a while to ensure that the child is (being) safe, is important.
responsibility
Kim wrote:
"However, leaving younger children in the company of older children means that the older children assume almost 'parental' responsibility. This would mean an innately unfair amount of responsibility be placed on the older child."
Why do you say this? Giving older children responsibility for younger children is such a wonderful opportunity for both the younger and older kids. The younger kids look up to the older ones and learn from them, and the older kids feel worthwhile and valued, while they learn to be helpful and understanding. It's a beautiful thing to see. It's also a great experience in getting ready to be good parents once they become adults.
Responsibility is good for kids. It helps them to mature, and it give them real self-esteem, based on being important, contributing members of the family and community.
Cindy
Kim, I believe the problem is
Kim,
I believe the problem is that unsupervised means different things to different learning communities. Here Peter Gray uses unsupervised when I believe he really means unsurveilled.
Home educated children are most definitely supervised, but they are not under constant surveillance. In general, their freedom seems to come hand-in-hand with responsibility.
~g
So much depends on the situation
Kim, thanks for this thought. I certainly agree that kids don't learn appropriate behavior by sitting at a desk. I also think that the typical school playground provides all the ingredients for acting out and bullying. The kids have been cooped up; they're age segregated (which promotes competition rather than nurturance); they're in what is fundamentally a competitive environment. --
My former graduate student, who spent hundreds of hours at Sudbury Valley school watching kids from a distance, reported that he saw no instances of bullying. Similarly, all of the anthropologists I have talked with, who study hunter-gatherers report that bullying does not occur among the kids in the bands they have observed, even though they spend most of their time unsupervised, out of sight of adults. -- So here is the question: Why do kids in some situations behave respectfully and in other situations behave so badly that they can quite correctly be called "dangerous"? --Peter
Post new comment