check this article-structured vs unschooling

[happycc]

http://blog.denschool.com/2011/09/results-from-study-comparing.html#.TrYiqPSAqU9

 

Makes sense to me.

[Jay3fer]

Actually, though I'm happily CM/classically educating my own kids, this aired a couple of months ago on my local hs forum, and I'd like to point out, first and foremost, that this is NOT a study about structured vs unstructured homeschooling.

 

Here's one blog post that (I believe fairly) critiques the study:

http://gaither.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/a-new-study-on-academic-achievement-of-homeschoolers/

 

Criticisms from this blog post, and from my own head:

- First, there were only 74 kids - 25 "structured" and 12 unschoolers (not enough to say anything, really, as the study authors point out)

- The authors didn't set out to study differences between hs methodologies; in truth, they were only looking at hs vs school, and then muddled the data AFTERWARDS when apparent differences emerged. This is very poor study design and not at all good form, scientifically. (if you combined the 2 groups of homeschoolers, homeschooling might not fare so well against traditional school)

- Do kids educated a certain way simply TEST better? This is my own question, not from the blog post I cited. I could certainly spend all day training my child to take tests, but that wouldn't be what I'd consider a "structured" homeschool education. I'd consider it "irresponsible" education, period.

- Where do we draw the line between structured and unstructured? I have an unschooling friend who does a lot that could pass for Charlotte Mason...she's always reading to her kids, and I swear, she spends more time educating her children than I do. While some "structured" homeschools can sometimes end up looking a lot like unschooling.

 

It's true that the study was better-designed than some others in the past, and perhaps free from bias, BUT...

[Faithr]

I also heard may criticisms of this study. First of all, the population studied is way, way, way too small to draw any conclusions from. The terms used are way too vague (structured vs. unstructured). Also they studied children from ages 5 to 10! I read an article about this test that said that the unschooled students were one to 4 years behind. Uh? Does that mean the 5 year old was acting like a one year old? The conclusions don't even make sense! Also, I am currently reading the book Boys Adrift about the strong lack of motivation in boys nowadays. This book deals with boys who are schooled not homeschooled. The author noted that 4th grade boys tested slightly above their age group did in past years for reading comprehension. But then he goes on to note that by 12th grade they have dropped significantly behind in reading comprehension. Who cares where a 10 year tests? It is when the student is on the cusp of adulthood that where they are in terms of reading, writing and math matters. I've seen unschooled kids really excel in their late teens because they are motivated to become something, a writer, a musician, an entrepreneur. They aren't burnt out. They don't have years of being forced to do busy work behind them to dull their ambitions and kill their motivation.

 

So I just don't trust this study at all. I think it is very weak and the little bit of research I did on it made me think that folks are kind of grasping at straws to prove their point by taking a study that didn't even focus on structured vs. unstructured and misusing it to reflect (very inconclusively) on that aspect. It is just sloppy.

[mandiana]

This 2 part pro-unschooling article from the same site gives a good explanation for why the unschoolers tested the way that they did:

 

http://blog.denschool.com/2011/10/public-vs-homeschool.html#.TrgX9EOXuso

[ChandlerMom]

I really don't have a horse in this race, and I doubt the study authors would try to argue their study was definitive on different homeschooling styles, but as a scientist myself I wold argue that:

 

1) it is common, extremely common, for studies to draw conclusions beyond the original question of the study. That's why they collect additional data at the start, so they can address questions that come up during the data analysis without starting a whole new study. If they hadn't asked about style of homeschooling and then drew conclusions about style, then that would be a reach. [in contrast, I've read several medical articles that excluded groups without data to support their exclusion simply because they were not getting the result they expected! That's bad science!]

 

2) Studies aren't about trusting or not -- they are about evaluating the data, looking for other studies that confirm or contradict the findings, and developing further studies.

 

3) most dev psych studies I've ever read involve small groups and small number statistics. There are a few, very rare long-term studies of large populations of kids.

 

Aside from the small numbers, I really didn't see much validity in the blogs attacking the study. They weren't deciding which style of education was best, just which resulted in the best performance on academic tests. I think their conclusions were valid and correct FOR THE GROUP STUDIED. What that exactly means on the larger scale, I cannot say. What that means for any individual child, I cannot say. More importantly, I don't think the authors would have an answer either, and would be the first to suggest larger studies are needed.

 

I can say this study should give some unschoolers pause. If your child is likely to end up being enrolled in ps, unschooling may well put them at a disadvantage and you should consider what you might want/need to do to prepare them before transitioning to ps. It does not mean that an unstructured approach is not the best for YOUR child. Ultimately, we're here to educate our OWN children and I support the individual choice of schooling style.

[Iucounu]

I also heard may criticisms of this study. First of all, the population studied is way, way, way too small to draw any conclusions from.

I disagree. All 12 of the unschooled children performed poorly; this isn't likely just due to random chance. In any event a small sample doesn't mean that results are meaningless, just that they aren't as meaningful as results using a larger sample.

 

The terms used are way too vague (structured vs. unstructured).

They don't seem overly vague to me. Substitute "unschooling" for everywhere you find the use of "unstructured homeschooling" to be objectionable. The press release contains a fair enough definition: "The study included a subgroup of 12 homeschooled children taught in an unstructured manner. Otherwise known as unschooling, such education is free of teachers, textbooks and formal assessment."

 

Also they studied children from ages 5 to 10! I read an article about this test that said that the unschooled students were one to 4 years behind. Uh? Does that mean the 5 year old was acting like a one year old? The conclusions don't even make sense!

They aren't going to make sense if you assume that the most-behind students have to be the youngest ones... but that's not exactly in the article, either. The article and press release make more sense if you read the words for their plain meaning.

 

Let's pick apart a couple of assertions, made by the study's press release and the article, which seem to have given you some trouble:

 

1. Participants in the study were from 5 to 10 years old. Since nothing is said specifically regarding the age range of the unschooled children, the youngest unschooled child might well have been older than 5.

 

2. "'Compared with structured homeschooled group, children in the unstructured group had lower scores on all seven academic measures,' says Martin-Chang. 'Differences between the two groups were pronounced, ranging from one to four grade levels in certain tests.'" This asserts, among other things, that the youngest unschooled child (with the rest of them) was at least one grade level behind the structurally-homeschooled children on each academic measure. It doesn't state or imply that the youngest unschooled child was the one that was most behind on any measure. You might have a bone to pick regarding the study's comparison with the other homeschooled children (for example, whether it was a comparison to the average of the non-unschooled children's performance on each measure, something I'm sure you could learn from the study) but it's not true that the article doesn't make sense.

 

My take:

 

This small study is quite useful, since unschooling tends to be shrouded in mystery as to its actual results. Anecdotes about unschooled children receiving scholarships abound, alongside less-well-publicized discussion board posts from parents, which surface every so often, about switching to more structured schooling methods after finding that unschooling isn't working for them.

 

It's certainly true that testing skills are important for doing well on tests, which might cloud the waters when testing unschooled children. But it's undeniably true that many subjects such as math and science aren't typically learned by osmosis; just as certain that not all children will love them well enough to self-school to proficient levels; and that in general, few if any children will just happen to have the exact set of aptitudes and interests that will result in a well-rounded college freshman.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Iucounu

[zenjenn]

Do kids educated a certain way simply TEST better?

 

I rarely buy into this. While being prepped for tests can artificially inflate the accomplishments of a student, I really don't think this applies a great deal to basic language and math testing of elementary students.

 

At the age level they are talking about, we're talking about academic fundamentals. Whatever approach one takes to education, a competently educated child should be able to demonstrate abilities on a standardized test. It is not as if these exams are high level or test on obscure content. Three grade level differential between those traditionally educated and those unschooled is not something you can blow off as a margin of error.

 

Valid criticisms would be insufficient sampling and an unclear definition of "unschooled". Even first-hand I've seen VAST differences in how people unschool, some of which are a disservice to the children.

 

One key point is this:

 

The children whose parents answered they “rarely” or “never” used premade curricula and structured lesson plans scores averaged one-half to one and one-half grade levels below their grades in each of the seven areas tested.

 

The self-proclaimed "unschooling" families I know would not be able to answer that they "never" or "rarely" use premade curricula. Some use premade curricula for one or more core subjects (writing, math) and unschool for everything else. Others unschool for everything but still purchase curricula for their children to have available for study and use, but the children make interest-driven choices on how and when to study and use those materials. One of the homeschooling families I respect the most purchases FAR more pre-made materials than ANYONE I know - so that their children have ample materials to choose from and study and that plenty of options are available on a spontaneous basis. Her house is practically floor to ceiling books, games, curricula, etc. I completely respect what she is doing and her kids are well-educated. IMO she unschools the ideal way. (Personally it would drive me batty in my own home.) I think the term "unschooling" gets bandied about by people who are just being lazy, and it distorts what it is supposed to be for those who intentionally and thoughtfully unschool.

Edited November 7, 2011 by zenjenn

[bbkaren]

I'm reading "Teach Your Own" right now and from my understanding of unschooling thus far, of course they wouldn't pass tests that are based on traditional school progress.

 

They're learning different things at different times, according to their own schedule...

 

Now, do they turn out to be comparably successful adults as the structured students? That'd be interesting to find out.

 

I get the impression that the unschooled kids would probably wind up being great at a different set of skills than the structured kids.

 

That said, I'm only halfway through the book so...just my impression from what I've read so far.

[zenjenn]

They're learning different things at different times, according to their own schedule...

 

That would be a valid explanation if they were highly accelerated in one area and behind in another.

 

If they are across the board low, however, that indicates there's sufficient learning going on, IMO. How can you spend all day learning and then score low on every subject?

 

Now, do they turn out to be comparably successful adults as the structured students? That'd be interesting to find out.

 

That would be tricky. How do you measure success? There are successful paths in life that require very little traditional education.

 

The point of education, though, is to keep as many of those doors open as possible. A child who has the potential to be a great engineer may have those doors closed or obstructed if his mathematical education is lacking. He may still go on to be a "success", but just not with the same kind of freedom and choices he would have had with a thorough education.

[Iucounu]

... and as I'm sometimes fond of saying, the world needs garbage people. Nothing wrong with that.