« It's not Turkey, but ... | Main | Avast! »
November 29, 2005
Unschooling
No, really, none of you missed anything. That last comment I made about unschooling really did come out of the blue, onto the blog.
I've had some "encounters" with unschoolers in the last couple of weeks, and they usually raise my blood pressure just a tetch.
For the couple of you who read my blog and are not familiar with the term, "unschooling" refers to letting the child decide what, how, and when to learn. It involves supporting the child's interest and facilitating their learning. The theory behind unschooling is that we learn best when we are interested, and when we teach ourselves (or seek out the teacher). Additionally, it's assumed that children will learn the skills they need in life, because through living they will find those skills useful. They'll want to learn to read, write and do basic math because it will be obvious that they need those tools to do anything successfully. They might not choose to learn algebra, or formal grammar ... but if they ever decide they want to go into a career or an avocation that needs those things, they can learn them then.
When a child is set free to learn as his interest dictates, the argument goes, he is passionate about learning. He is creative. He is interested.
I'm fine with all of that. Really.
My problem comes with the flip side of the coin, the belief that if all of the above is true, it must follow that "imposed learning" is stifling, impractical, and wastes the child's time. And that's the nice way to put it. Unschooling, like homeschooling, and attachment parenting, has its fanatics, and fanatics drive me Up. The. Wall.
They drive me up the wall because what they really mean, when they use the term "unschooling," is full-time unschooling. They mean unschooling not so much as an educational method, but as a commitment to a philosophy.
Full-time unschooling can and does work. Throughout time it has produced exceptional people. I've seen it work, and work well. Unschoolers, I am in your corner. Honestly.
However, we are not full-time unschoolers because I don't think that's the best education I can provide for my family. I firmly believe that there are certain skills and areas of knowledge which my kids will be better off learning, whether they will or no. I firmly believe that my kids can only benefit from my experience and knowledge of the world, in guiding them towards subjects they would not have chosen for themselves. (I had to be dragged into that modern art class in college. Who knew I'd love it, and discover a whole new world?) I am convinced that there is value in requiring a child to learn to work hard and well at something that is both difficult and not of his choosing.
I know that many of you don't believe these things. You can argue with me if you feel like it, but frankly I've been through all the arguments.
With those beliefs firmly in mind, we have structured, mom-imposed school. And this lasts for ... three hours a day, on average. Not counting time spent reading.
What happens the rest of the day? Well, mostly, they're free to, er, follow their own interests. Which I encourage and facilitate.
See? We do unschool - not as a commitment to a philosophy, but as a part of real life. The vast majority of people unschool. No, we don't do it full-time, except in short bursts when we need a change, a break, or when life gets in the way of plans. But we do it. (Oddly enough, I also call this process of encouraging/facilitating their own interests "parenting.")
Watch the unschoolers, though. They get twitchy when I say that. Steam starts to come out of their ears. They give me the spiel about how imposing learning on my kids is not unschooling. It disqualifies me. (I once had a woman tell me that she thought limiting my kids' TV time was "too curriculum.") This is followed closely by the spiel about how my imposed learning is sucking the joy of life out of my children, it's coercive, it creates a dependency, it's presumptuous, it wastes their time, and it doesn't work, anyway.
All of those arguments about structured schooling are right some of the time. It's presumptuous and ridiculous to assume they're all happening in three hours a day in my house. Really. My kid may not love Latin, but I can assure you he's not being emotionally or mentally scarred by being subjected to it for 20 minutes a day. And he knows the meanings behind all the spells in Harry Potter. Not to mention the name jokes. (I won't go on here to enumerate the tried and true benefits of a little imposed schooling.)
I hate the ongoing tension between structured school types, and unschoolers. I think it's silly. We all, parents included, spend some part of the day pursuing our own interests, learning what we want to learn or what we choose to learn. We all unschool. Just because I don't do it 24 hours a day does not mean my kids do not benefit from pursuing their own interests, learning how to learn, or exercising their own freedom and creativity.
My previous entry came after yet another run-in in which I was assured that bluebirds would sing, the sun would rise, and everyone would be happy if I just let go of the ridiculous idea that it's of value to coerce any child to learn Latin, and my presumption that I know what's best for my children. The nerve of me. And I guess I'm bitter; I'm very supportive of full-time unschoolers. I think it's a wonderful way of life, and I think a kid can get a fine education that way. It's not for us. I wish that more committed unschoolers could converse with me by admitting that what I do is not for them, but leaving out the fanaticism and evangelism.
Posted by lynx at November 29, 2005 12:01 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/657
Comments
My favorite line is "Children learn all the time, so two hours of structured study a day isn't going to interfere with their ability to learn what they want for the rest of the day." They haven't managed a comeback to that one yet.
Posted by: Lioness at November 29, 2005 10:00 AM
Wasnt unschooling started by the Trancendentalist movement?
Havent run into any unschoolers, and predict I will have the same reaction you do. Fine for other people's kids if thats how they want to do things, but I can look back on my own life and see where the value of "forced" skills woud have done me some good. I tested out of college freshman English, and yet, three years later, after a professor explains tht my writing was like a data dump, realized that perhaps taking those classes might have given me the edge I needed to be the kind of student I wanted to be in my chosen major. I "chose" what interested me, and suffered for it.
best,
Posted by: Sharon Ferguson at November 29, 2005 11:02 AM
There's a reason colleges developed in addition to the trade schools. Trade schools were for the "unschooled" method - you just learn what you want and how to do it very well. Colleges for a well-rounded background in a variety of subjects.
Could I tell you much about French now? or Chemistry or even Advanced Calculus (home of the Delta-Epsilon Proof)? Probably not in much detail since I don't use them in daily life.
Like you said, both have benefits, but the structured learning still allows a great deal of what a person really wants to concentrate in. I haven't seen a kid yet who didn't jump ahead of a class if it was a subject they really enjoyed.
Posted by: Mark L ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.caerdroia.org/116/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 29, 2005 12:48 PM
And once again I find myself nodding in agreement with Stephanie. Funny how often that happens. ;o)
Posted by: Jill, The Crib Chick at November 29, 2005 2:44 PM
How does that saying go? When you're driving down the highway, anyone going faster than you is a maniac and anyone going slower than you is an idiot. So if you're on one extreme end or the other, then EVERYONE is either a maniac or an idiot, depending on your perspective.
The comment that always grates on me is when someone will post some interesting link, prefacing it with, "those of you who homeschool might find this really cool!" because, you know, since my kids attend school, they are no longer allowed (or interested) in learning anything after 3:00 p.m. on school days...
Posted by: angie at November 29, 2005 4:47 PM
The problem with fanatics is that they are almost always also evangelists — and often EVANGELISTS. And the problem with EVANGELISTS is that they cannot stop until you are converted to their way of belief to the point that you are also an EVANGELIST. Otherwise, how would they know if the conversion had worked? Maybe you are secretly considering Shi'a, or giving your kids a list of good books to read, or speaking harshly to your child who just ruined your computer by marking the screen with a permanent marker, or lowering government regulation in order to encourage free enterprise — and if so than you are not just insufficiently converted, you are probably outcast! unclean!
The thing is, for the EVANGELISTS, the world is one dimensional: you are their kind of fanatic or you are barely — if at all — human. And the only way they stop is when they die; a fanatic does not tend to wake up one day saying, hey, I was a bit overzealous about all that stuff.
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at November 29, 2005 5:09 PM
I was having this discussion with another homeschooler last week. We are so looking for those rare few homeschoolers in the middle: between the religious zealots who creep me out, and the extreme unschoolers, who I just cannot relate to when I am busy reviewing curriculum while eating a cheeseburger!
I think, more and more, those of us middle grounders are standing up and making our voices heard, so that in years to come, homeschoolers cannot simply be dismissed as a large group of extremists, with no substance in the middle!
Posted by: Angela,Mother Crone at November 30, 2005 7:54 AM
We were heavily influenced by hard core unschoolers when our kids were young. When I started becoming increasingly uncomfortable with the concept, and decided that we wanted more structure, and gradually started moving us to the WTM, I got no end of flack. Even though I was really careful to not "proselytize" they apparently couldn't help but take it personally as a criticism of their educational methods and I lost friends over it....
Posted by: hornblower at December 2, 2005 5:55 PM
I meant to reply to this earlier in regards to the term evangelize. not sure where it came up. the wiki def is: The word evangelist comes from the Koine Greek Koine Greek (Κοινή Ἑλληνική) is an ancient Greek dialect which marks the 2nd stage in the history of the Greek language. Other names are Alexandrian, Hellenistic or New Testament Greek. Koine Greek is not only important word εὐάγγελος ("eu-angelos"), meaning bringer of good news.
if i share the "good news" of my homebirth does that make me an extremist? Of course not, but the term evangelism has been co-opted to be just that. Homeschooler, unschoolers, breastfeeders, family bedders, we all hear that we must be evangelists because the side we take is so far outside of the mainstream. of course none of this address how we do manage to share the good news, of anything! without ending up with a label.....I feel the same way about the word nazi. Am I a food nut in regards to my kids? you bet. am i a nazi? well. NO. obviously. sorry to go off on a tangent. but the common usage and the real meaning of words does tend to muddy things. I wish there was some safe way to safe "the good news" whatever that might look like, without getting labelled as an extremist.
Posted by: e at December 6, 2005 12:33 AM
Lynx, I enjoyed your post. You made several good points. I wish your post had made it into Andrea's Carinval of Unschooling:
http://atypicalhomeschool.net/general-information/carnival-of-unschooling-1/
You might consider submitting this, or a similar post, in a couple weeks for the next Carnival of Unschooling.
Posted by: Henry Cate at December 12, 2005 1:25 PM