Talk me out of/into unschooling

[Veritaserum]

Ah, I remember being an ardent defender of unschooling as THE way to avoid "hate of learning" and a sapping of intrinsic motivation. :tongue_smilie:

 

Then I realized that my children don't know what they don't know and my assigning specific tasks and skills is part of helping them develop into functional adults. :)

 

They still find personal satisifaction their increased knowledge and skills. ;)

[heidirenata]

Here are my thoughts on homeschooling cheaper. You mentioned using Oak Meadow. That is going to be really expensive if you're buying the entire curriculum new. Used is pricey too most of the time. Also a lot of the books OM suggests can be found at the library or bought for quarters at Salvation Army stores, Goodwill, thrift shops, consignment, used library booksales, local homeschool groups have booksales, online forums etc.

 

 

:iagree:

I ABSOLUTELY believe that you can provide a wonderful education for a child with a very limited budget. I know this because I have friends who do it, but you will make the sacrifice in time. It takes time to search online for the freebies or great deals. It takes time to make all those library trips, but mostly it takes time to have a plan. Trust me you can save a bundle if you have a plan and stick to it.

Curriculum and homeschool supply shopping without a plan can be a lot like going to the grocery store without a list and a meal plan for the week. You buy items not realizing you already have them at home. You impulse buy and often because it is last minute you pay full price.

One of the things that has saved me a lot of money was keeping lists of books, especially literature, history and science books in my purse not only for this year but for future years. You won't believe how many times I've found books I need for next year or older grades for a quarter or a dime at library book sales and yard sales. If I had to pay $5-$7 for every paperback or childrens book on our shelves it would break our homeschool budget, but I never miss a handleful of change every week or two. I also take the time to download free ebooks and unit studies from sites like TOS whether a study of bees or flight is on the lineup for this year or not because it may come up next year or the year after and I already have a (free) head start.

[Aspasia]

Only in America, in this century or the last, could a woman like Sandra Dodd ever even exist to share her stories. There has never been another time when the getting of a living was so taken for granted, when comfort was so easy to come by, where concern over where one will get his next morsel of food and understanding to fight off oppressive powers, could produce someone with this type of parenting philosophy.

 

I would wager to guess that she and most radical unschoolers are all at least 3rd generation Americans. They have not had to suffer the extreme poverty that my friends from Haiti have experienced, or seen the opposite, which is my friends from Haiti who were medical doctors, and could escape that poverty only by the means of extreme measures from childhood on...of extreme sacrifice of parents and children to provide their child with a proper education and attendance to college. My educated Haitian friends tutor their children in mathematics after school every day. They seek Charter schools for pre-med or mathematics. They value formal education because they see what it means for their children. It literally means escape from poverty and generations of children who can have clean running water, electricity, clothes on their back and medical care themselves!

 

Formal education is the difference between the Protestant Reformation, or remaining in the Middle Ages indefinitely. Without Martin Luther's formal education, would he have been able to read the BIble for himself? Would he have been able to argue with Erasmus? Would he have been able to write the many books and letters?

 

Formal education is what made the writing of our constitution possible.

 

Now hear me: By "formal education" I do not necessarily mean institutionalized learning. Formal education can be accomplished at home, by oneself, by a tutor, by mother, in a school, and in many other means. But formal education means hard work and sacrifice, at some point and at some level, and usually means guiding children to get to the plateau where they have the tools to do whatever they are called to do.

 

Our own benefactor here, Susan Wise Bauer, had an extremely interesting life full of farming, travelling, racing horses, (or something to that effect)...read her blog. THis is a woman who really had a lot of fun, experienced life first-hand, and lived through her Latin studies to tell the tale. Formal education made her book, and therefore these forums, possible!

 

I am not advocating for an extreme. Early formal education does seem to have its detriments. Too much formal education to the detriment of play, exercise, and free time has its detriments. Formal education that does not fit the student can have detriments.

 

But to espouse a theory that all children should always choose what to learn, when to learn, and how to learn is, to me, just so obviously a product of the prosperous times we have been in.

 

Wow. I think this is so powerful. And so true.

[Farrar]

It occurs to me that, as many of us have strong opinions or reactions to unschooling, the OP may be a bit lost... but I think there are really a few things that most of the posters here agree on...

 

* There are lots of ways to renew a love of learning and taking an unschooling path is only one potential way.

 

* Lowering the cost of homeschooling and relaxed homeschooling or unschooling don't necessarily go together.

 

* There are lots of creative ways to lower the cost of homeschooling.

 

* There are nearly as many ways to "unschool" as there are to formally homeschool.

[Five More Minutes]

It occurs to me that, as many of us have strong opinions or reactions to unschooling, the OP may be a bit lost... but I think there are really a few things that most of the posters here agree on...

 

* There are lots of ways to renew a love of learning and taking an unschooling path is only one potential way.

 

* Lowering the cost of homeschooling and relaxed homeschooling or unschooling don't necessarily go together.

 

* There are lots of creative ways to lower the cost of homeschooling.

 

* There are nearly as many ways to "unschool" as there are to formally homeschool.

 

:iagree: Beautifully put.

 

I would also add that lowering the cost of homeschooling usually means more time and effort on the part of the parent. If you are working full-time outside of the home, then it will be very difficult to find the time to find and implement less costly or free homeschool solutions.

[albeto]

Hmm, I think the idea that young children understand long term goals and intrinsically know what's best for themselves in every aspect of their lives actually goes against all research-based theories of child development.

 

Interesting interpretation. It's not what I said, however, and I am unaware of anyone making that suggestion except you. I would disagree with that statement myself.

[Nikki -TX-]

Ah, I remember being an ardent defender of unschooling as THE way to avoid "hate of learning" and a sapping of intrinsic motivation. :tongue_smilie:

 

Then I realized that my children don't know what they don't know and my assigning specific tasks and skills is part of helping them develop into functional adults. :)

 

They still find personal satisifaction their increased knowledge and skills. ;)

 

:iagree: and can relate!

[albeto]

Only in America, in this century or the last, could a woman like Sandra Dodd ever even exist to share her stories. There has never been another time when the getting of a living was so taken for granted, when comfort was so easy to come by, where concern over where one will get his next morsel of food and understanding to fight off oppressive powers, could produce someone with this type of parenting philosophy.

 

I hope you don't mind my jumping into this comment for the sake of a friendly point-counter point reply. It's not my intention to persuade anyone to unschool, not even the OP. It's not my intention to advocate it as a superior educational paradigm. It's my intent only to offer what its ideology consists of, rather than the stereotyped misrepresentation that is commonly passed around as valid.

 

As I understand, ancient Greece offered a particular social atmosphere including political and economic security and social stability enough to afford people to take the time to ponder such questions as would give rise to the fields of philosophy, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, etc. Division of labor allowed people to take the time to focus on the arts as careers in such a way as to inspire the world around them and be preserved throughout the centuries. For this reason, I'm not sure why a favorable environment would be a strike against the ideology. I recognize there are many strikes against it, but this seems a bit unnecessary, imo.

 

I would wager to guess that she and most radical unschoolers are all at least 3rd generation Americans. They have not had to suffer the extreme poverty that my friends from Haiti have experienced, or seen the opposite, which is my friends from Haiti who were medical doctors, and could escape that poverty only by the means of extreme measures from childhood on...of extreme sacrifice of parents and children to provide their child with a proper education and attendance to college. My educated Haitian friends tutor their children in mathematics after school every day. They seek Charter schools for pre-med or mathematics. They value formal education because they see what it means for their children. It literally means escape from poverty and generations of children who can have clean running water, electricity, clothes on their back and medical care themselves!

 

But what does this have to do with one who does have the opportunity to provide an enriching, educational childhood without conventional lesson plans?

 

Formal education is the difference between the Protestant Reformation, or remaining in the Middle Ages indefinitely. Without Martin Luther's formal education, would he have been able to read the BIble for himself? Would he have been able to argue with Erasmus? Would he have been able to write the many books and letters?

 

I would wager critical thinking is more important than formal education, and formal education functioned to provide critical thinking skills as well as those rote skills such as reading and writing. For example, I understand these early universities and formal schools are contributions from the Catholic Church, again focusing on critical thinking and the scientific method to explore the world rather than accept common beliefs to explain the mechanics of nature.

 

Formal education is what made the writing of our constitution possible.

 

I think it was critical thinking, applying enlightenment ideals to current economic and political situations. How much of these enlightenment ideals were taught in schools and how much were inspired by private, informal meetings and gatherings between like-minded people who valued challenging each other's philosophy and knowledge?

 

Now hear me: By "formal education" I do not necessarily mean institutionalized learning. Formal education can be accomplished at home, by oneself, by a tutor, by mother, in a school, and in many other means. But formal education means hard work and sacrifice, at some point and at some level, and usually means guiding children to get to the plateau where they have the tools to do whatever they are called to do.

 

Hard work, and sacrifice, and guiding children to get to the plateau where they have the tools to do whatever they want to do [i don't know what "called to" means] can be, and are, achievable without formal lesson plans. Unschooling doesn't reject that, it simply offers another way to meet those same goals.

 

But to espouse a theory that all children should always choose what to learn, when to learn, and how to learn...

 

Unschooling doesn't advocate children learn what to learn in terms of academic subjects. It advocates the fact that children learn through play and this doesn't stop at age 5 when children are typically asked to play less and pay attention to lessons more.

 

 

 

...just so obviously a product of the prosperous times we have been in.

 

So too is driving cars and keeping all our teeth into old age. Parents who want to offer their children the best possible education, for whatever reason, have many valid options in this country. Unschooling is but one of them.

[Chrysalis Academy]

Oh that does make sense now! I think for some reason I had interpreted "pretend" to modify the kind of learning.

 

derp

 

 

 

Gotcha, and thanks.

 

 

:lol: I'm so glad someone else explained my probably incoherent post! I had forgotten about this thread, and checked back today to see the question asked, and answered. Yes, I did mean "pretend" as a verb, not an adjective. :D

[Crimson Wife]

Artificial schedules and doing something you think is pointless just because someone in authority tells you to is part and parcel of most jobs out there. Even entrepreneurs have to file & pay their quarterly taxes by certain arbitrary dates (why the 15th of April/June/September/January rather than some other set of dates 3 months apart? Who knows?) and so on.

 

The sooner the child learns that the universe does not, in fact, revolve around his/her whims, the better IMHO.

[Ellie]

Ellie,

 

I don't want to highjack the OP's thread, but I wonder if you could share why you moved away from unschooling?

I didn't really move away from it very much. :-) I lost my mind one year and required the dc to do a book for every single subject, every single day, even park days. By Thanksgiving, when we normally put away the Official School Stuff, we were all burned out; I didn't do anything with the dc until the next fall, when we started KONOS (Tues./Thurs. KONOS, EG Mon/Wed, park day on Friday. I think there might have been some Saxon math in there somewhere, but I can't swear to that.). Somewhere around March, dds began looking at me out the corners of their eyes, and finally one of them asked if we were going to Do School, and I said NO. They both heaved sighs of relief and went on about their business. :D

 

Somewhere between January and, oh, June, Mary Harrington started doing Latin with several hsers; older dd was in that group. Mary's dd paved the road to hsers getting into one of the community colleges in August; older dd began the next January.

 

Anyway, our KONOS was pretty relaxed, and except for requiring younger dd to do EG when she was 10 or 11, we just unschooled our way through until community college at 14yo. Ok, there was a brief sidetrack with a small school I started at my church, which younger dd attended for a year, but yes, that was pretty relaxed, too. :)

[...................]

As far as I see, You made no inroads into my points. They all still stand. So I'm

Not up for taking the time to respond.

[albeto]

The sooner the child learns that the universe does not, in fact, revolve around his/her whims, the better IMHO.

 

On what are you basing this expectation that children who don't sit for math 40 minutes per day five days per week won't figure this out?

[Farrar]

Artificial schedules and doing something you think is pointless just because someone in authority tells you to is part and parcel of most jobs out there. Even entrepreneurs have to file & pay their quarterly taxes by certain arbitrary dates (why the 15th of April/June/September/January rather than some other set of dates 3 months apart? Who knows?) and so on.

 

The sooner the child learns that the universe does not, in fact, revolve around his/her whims, the better IMHO.

 

I think you and I have a very different idea of the word "pointless." To me, doing something that helps you keep a job that pays you money is not something that's pointless, even if you don't personally think it's necessary for the company you work for. Yes, deadlines may be arbitrary, but not following them can lead to consequences you don't like, therefore you follow them for your own sake.

 

On some level, I think this whole discussion is completely an aside from unschooling. Some unschooling parents do seem to create an environment where the child's personal desires trump everything else and where there are no deadlines and the parents shield them from consequences. But other unschooling families encourage their children to find real world experiences that are full of the sorts of deadlines and tasks that you're talking about - contests with arbitrary rules and deadlines, apprenticeships with tasks that the student may not see the meaning behind, clubs and social experiences that are full of rules.

 

The difference is that in most unschooling familes, if a young person didn't like those work, apprenticeship, club or contest rules or procedures, the parents wouldn't say, "Just follow the rules and do what you're told because sometimes life is like that." Instead, they'd encourage the child to decide if the learning experience or payoff was worth the negative aspects. Sometimes the child would decide it was, and sometimes not. Just like, as an adult, sometimes it's worth it to stay in a job or a friendship or a contest and deal with the tedious parts and sometimes it isn't.

 

I think that's where Calming Tea's points about how unschooling is a position of privilege come into the discussion. In order to feel you can make those decisions about your life, there has to be some level of security and safety. You can't decide to leave a job or stop learning about something if you feel that you have no choice. On the other hand, I don't have any interest in raising children who simply go along in life because they feel they must follow a certain course. There are always choices to be made. The world as a whole doesn't revolve around one's whims, but the course your life takes does revolve around your choices of which tasks to do and which to forgo. So I hope my kids see the point in the whims they choose the follow.

Edited May 8, 2012 by farrarwilliams

[Laughingmommy]

The sooner the child learns that the universe does not, in fact, revolve around his/her whims, the better IMHO.

 

Really? I'm totally of the opposite opinion! :tongue_smilie: I guess that's why I'm an unschooler, though lately I've taken to abandoning that label 'cause I'm sick of the restrictions placed on the label of unschooler. I hope my kids all learn that the universe revolves around them. That each person is the center of his or her universe and must act out of that responsibility and power. I hope they find that connection deep within them to all that is around them and all who are around them. I find that when we place our center outside of ourselves (care very much about what others think or feel), we are not able to act fully out of our conscience. And I believe we all have that conscience, that connection to our soul or spirit, or connection to the divine. Of course, I don't expect my kids to stay true to themselves in the face of authority, but that's the struggle, isn't it? I never force my kids to do academics. I almost never force my kids to do anything. I take it literally that they are responsible for their choices. Yet, I also tell them my true opinions and concerns. I think it works really well this way. My oldest chose to go to school this year. She's learning about the world outside where self-motivation is not well-supported. She's encountering authority figures who abuse their power rather than use their power to guide and nurture. She's also learning how the differences between the two (use and abuse) are not always clear. Life is full of such possibilities to explore. How does one effectively explore looking through someone else's eyes and taking someone else's word for things? I hope my children will always remember who they are in the face of authority and allow their universe to revolve around their own truth, not anyone else's whims.

 

Yet, I really wonder how much of this discussion is really looking at the same "truth" from different perspectives. The truth is, we all wish for our kids to grow up in some good way, whether that's authority-respecting or self-determining, or whatever. Who is more capable of making that choice than a parent? I mean, the parent is endowed legally and morally with that great responsibility. Who else is in a better position to decide what lifestyle, what educational approaches, what diet, what dress code, what social circle, what everything a child shall grow up with? We can never know if we make the "right" choice. There's no such thing. The fact that we make that choice makes that choice right 'cause we're the ones responsible for making that choice. I think parents (not crazy ones, of course) all take this responsibility of parenting seriously. We all hope to give our kids what we think are important for them to have: toughness, popularity, prettiness, intelligence, respect for others, compassion, self-awareness, whatever. Isn't it silly to ask other parents to forgo their conscience and parent the way we do?

 

Sorry for being long-winded and irrelevant. I greatly respect all of you with your enormous collective hive IQ (which must exceed infinity!) and hope the conversations continue without shutting down with polarization. I love these conversations! :001_smile: Wisdom coming from all your sides... how do you beat that? ;)

Edited May 8, 2012 by Laughingmommy

[Laughingmommy]

But to be fair, I don't think kids often understand the point of many things. That they are never asked to do things other than what they want to do seems like a bad idea. I haven't exactly experimented with that, but I have met radical homeschooling families and I'll admit their children were often miserable to be around.

 

Not mine! My kids are great to be around! They are an unschooling anomaly at gatherings, though. We are VERY strict unschoolers. We don't allow our kids to do things without reflection. The thing about doing whatever you want is you gotta take responsibility. Full responsibility. I find my kids ask me for help and structure 'cause, upon reflection, they are aware of their own limitations of age, circumstance, time, energy, money, resource, whatever. They learn to ask for help instead of my forcing my help upon them. My kids are the ones who ask me politely if we could work on math together, if we could read poetry together, if I could help them learn Greek, Japanese, Latin, whatever. I supply them with lots of conversation about what I think about stuff, what other people think about education, what new ideas I come across.

 

My kids get tired of the "unschooling" kids who don't seem to connect their actions with the consequences. I don't know, though, how these unschooler will be one day. Maybe their "misbehavior" is part of the journey to becoming responsible and empowered adults. I don't know. But we don't try to join in the unschooling activities anymore.... too chaotic and loud! :lol:

[Iucounu]

Hi, again, OP. This old thread may help provide additional perspectives:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=263016

 

What does one do when a child shows no interest (ever) in learning something that ought be learned?

 

It's a bit like the theory that given healthy food and junk, children will intuitively choose good food that makes them feel good. It's lovely in theory... It just doesn't play out that way.

 

I think "unschooling" demands tremendously confident parents. I'm currently watching two radically unschooling families do life and what I see are bright, well-rounded, interested, curious children. They seem like happy, well-adjusted children with all sorts of wide-open space to develop into who they truly are -- I like that. These parents are confidently watching their children and enjoying the surprise of seeing how they unfold.

 

What I see as a potential "failure" of an unschooling situation (and they wouldn't see this as failure so it's a perspective issue and who am I to say that my perspective is somehow more or less flawed than theirs) is this: a solid foundation for some skills, like writing, spelling, grammar, mathematical concepts, languare study is built over time. If an unschooler decided at some point to attend university, I think they might be confronted with a pile of basic academic skills that they would need to sift through in a relatively short period of time...

 

Writing is important; there is no way around needing solid research and writing skills if a student wants to attend university. I'm not sure how unschooled children magically pick up the basics of writing without practicing a skill that can be tedious. Same with mathematics and language learning -- there are skills that need daily, repetitive interaction in order to attain mastery. (I can hear my unschooler mom-friends saying to me: if a child doesn't have a certain skill set and didn't find it on their own, than it wasn't meant to be.)

 

The unschooling parents I know are very confident that their children will dig out a path that brings a meaningful and joyful life. As a parent, I don't have the confidence to allow my children that same luxury . . . if the perfect plan doesn't fall into place, I want to make sure they my children have some "back-up" skills (of the academic sort) which will ensure university admittance.

 

I'd hesitate before using applying a hit-or-miss ideology to my own children. A good education is too important to leave to chance, based on the idea that people naturally, coincidentally seek out and develop in themselves the skills to be successful in college, or will magically develop a strong academic foundation in a very short time when they feel like it later. Anecdotes exist about such things happening to other unschoolers' children, repeated by the faithful, but then again there are all the reports of failure, plus common sense to deal with. (And yes, I will not feel like I did right by my children if they don't at least have the ability to go to competitive schools at age 18; I would love them as garbagepeople, but still feel like I'd failed them.)

 

The strangest thing to me about unschooling is that it attempts to solve a non-existent problem. There is no problem with schooling per se; there are only problems with poor schooling. It's the worst case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater that I've ever seen. Almost the entirety of the world's greatest minds have been the products of teaching that would not fit the definition of unschooling.

 

All that's needed to fix unschooling is a bit of common sense. Allow the child to have a huge hand in her own learning, sure, but don't intentionally give up the responsibility for guiding your child when she needs guidance.

Edited May 8, 2012 by Iucounu

[Laughingmommy]

Only in America, in this century or the last, could a woman like Sandra Dodd ever even exist to share her stories. There has never been another time when the getting of a living was so taken for granted, when comfort was so easy to come by, where concern over where one will get his next morsel of food and understanding to fight off oppressive powers, could produce someone with this type of parenting philosophy.

 

I would wager to guess that she and most radical unschoolers are all at least 3rd generation Americans. They have not had to suffer the extreme poverty that my friends from Haiti have experienced, or seen the opposite, which is my friends from Haiti who were medical doctors, and could escape that poverty only by the means of extreme measures from childhood on...of extreme sacrifice of parents and children to provide their child with a proper education and attendance to college. My educated Haitian friends tutor their children in mathematics after school every day. They seek Charter schools for pre-med or mathematics. They value formal education because they see what it means for their children. It literally means escape from poverty and generations of children who can have clean running water, electricity, clothes on their back and medical care themselves!

 

Formal education is the difference between the Protestant Reformation, or remaining in the Middle Ages indefinitely. Without Martin Luther's formal education, would he have been able to read the BIble for himself? Would he have been able to argue with Erasmus? Would he have been able to write the many books and letters?

 

Formal education is what made the writing of our constitution possible.

 

Now hear me: By "formal education" I do not necessarily mean institutionalized learning. Formal education can be accomplished at home, by oneself, by a tutor, by mother, in a school, and in many other means. But formal education means hard work and sacrifice, at some point and at some level, and usually means guiding children to get to the plateau where they have the tools to do whatever they are called to do.

 

Our own benefactor here, Susan Wise Bauer, had an extremely interesting life full of farming, travelling, racing horses, (or something to that effect)...read her blog. THis is a woman who really had a lot of fun, experienced life first-hand, and lived through her Latin studies to tell the tale. Formal education made her book, and therefore these forums, possible!

 

I am not advocating for an extreme. Early formal education does seem to have its detriments. Too much formal education to the detriment of play, exercise, and free time has its detriments. Formal education that does not fit the student can have detriments.

 

But to espouse a theory that all children should always choose what to learn, when to learn, and how to learn is, to me, just so obviously a product of the prosperous times we have been in.

 

Well, I'm an immigrant myself, as is my husband, and we unschool. I haven't experience what I would call extreme poverty, but my Mom often peeled "bad parts" of vegetables off at the cash register (so it wouldn't be weighed) only to put it all back in the bag to cook at home later. :tongue_smilie:

 

Is it wrong to be a product of prosperity? I'm not sure. I know that I complain sometimes about how so-and-so feels SOOOOO entitled. But then I gotta think, aren't we privileged as well? What motivates my desire to criticize or look down upon someone else's sense of entitlement? I'm not totally sure. I do know this, though. Entitlement and victimhood are flip sides of the same coin. They both come from a place of powerlessness and lack of self-esteem. Rather than use one's accomplishments to define one's self, an entitled person uses their privilege. Even if they profess and believe themselves to love it, inside, there is a hollowness. Or not... I am only conjecturing based on my own self-examination.

 

I guess for me, though, I've had the privilege of attending prestigious learning institutions, and I can, with minimal reservation, bear witness to my own experiences of intellectual joy. I let my kids know: these were my trials, these were my shortcomings, these were my strengths, these were my goals, these were my desires, these were my dreams. And I ask them, what path shall you take? They are still young (almost 12 and 10, 4, 2), so they haven't "rebelled" against my life's experience. And I don't know that they will. I haven't tried to impose my experience on them. I wait with baited breath to see what amazing things they will one day create. They might win Nobel Prizes, they might display art in galleries, they might be hobos living in remote woods. I don't know, but I know whatever they choose to do, I will be equally amazed. I see in them divinity, and as creatures with spiritual purpose, what is there to judge? The only thing I will not tolerate is their not processing their experiences. That is the only regret I would never be able to live down, that I fail to instill in them the desire to be mindful and conscientious.

 

For my kids, formal education is very important. For them. They ask for it, I simply supply. I am grateful that their world views align with mine. They don't have to, though. It's just practical that my kids are greatly gravitated towards intellectual studies, 'cause I'm pretty much a moron when it comes to everything else. If one aspired to be a personal organizer or a sports star.... well, I might have to outsource the parenting and schooling!!! :lol:

 

I think it's a great privilege to live in a time of prosperity (for us, not in the world everywhere). I would feel uncomfortable if my kids used that privilege and abused it. Yet, at the same time, I would feel uncomfortable if my kids did not use that privilege of having many options. That's like throwing away a spiritual gift. Of course, Buddha (Siddhartha) renounced his worldly abundance, and that seems to be awesome too. But I think I have the responsibility to explore what can be explored with privilege and prosperity, to the best of my abilities (which is somewhat limited because of previous times of less prosperity). My husband and I talk about this a lot. We are naturally very fearful and negative, having been raised that way. But that is not our children's past, at least not the main portion of their past and identity. We hope our kids will learn from our stories and opinions and perspectives. We hope they will grow solidity in their own perspectives.

 

I used to lament, for many years, how my kids will never be able to relate to me. They'll never get that steely core that I got from striving for survival. Well, years later, as it turns out, they didn't need that. They're developing steely cores from other trials and tribulations that come up in their own lives. And boy, can our takes differ sometimes! In the process, I've learned to enjoy prosperity more: I've gone hog-wild with curriculum. With art supplies. With outdoor toys. With organizational purchases. I'm doing totally impractical things like sketching, notebooking, printing in color (!!!), knitting, learning, and just enjoying what a non-poverty-stricken mindset can feel like. I think it's no less a challenge than feeling poor, mentally that is, obviously physically it's far worse to be poor.

 

My apologies for the long post, this discussion has been so thought-provoking for me! Thanks everyone! :grouphug:

[Pen]

Hmmm.

 

I see on here, but now I can't find it to quote it, a sense of unschool as using play as the way to learn (Albeto)--others are talking about it as the free choice for the child aspect.

 

Could some of you please explain and clarify?

[albeto]

Hmmm.

 

I see on here, but now I can't find it to quote it, a sense of unschool as using play as the way to learn (Albeto)--others are talking about it as the free choice for the child aspect.

 

Could some of you please explain and clarify?

 

Children learn through play. An unschooling philosophy advocates learning the skills necessary for independent, responsible, satisfactory adulthood through natural exposure to, and interaction with, life. That means learning how to read and write is done naturally, as the child develops the desire to learn this helpful skill. That means learning the purpose of mathematical concepts is done in a natural setting when it is relevant. That means learning history, and science, and language arts, and health, and economics, and budgeting time and money, and all the kinds of subjects traditionally covered in formal education are learned naturally, through interacting with real life experiences that expose these concepts. Children learn more when interacting with a tangible application of a concept, and we learn and retain what we learn more when the subject is interesting to us personally. Unschooling allows the child to have full access to this kind of learning. In this way, the choice is always the child's to decide how to use his/her time. I don't know any other way.

 

Hope that helps. :)

[Iucounu]

I think it's a bit silly to suppose that a strong math foundation, for example, will be gained through play alone. Throughout history most of the world's great minds have been cultivated through quite directed teaching; there's no indication that that doesn't work, while there are indications that trusting in children to lay the correct academic foundations through trial and error, through natural inclination, doesn't work well.

 

When's the last time a child learned to work quadratic equations through play? :bigear:

 

Stating vaguely or generally that children learn through play doesn't mean that they learn all things, or all things well, through self-directed play.

[albeto]

Stating vaguely or generally that children learn through play doesn't mean that they learn all things, or all things well, through self-directed play.

 

Things that interest and fascinate us inspire us to learn more, and "play" looks different to a 16 yo than it does to a 6 yo. Children whose interests naturally gravitate towards concepts that require mathematical knowledge will get that mathematical knowledge, not because it's required from an outside authority but because its a part of their interests and necessary to obtain a desired goal. The parent's responsibility in this scenario is to provide those opportunities that will offer this information. At a younger age that means attention to the child's interests and accommodating them as much as possible. It's not uncommon for this to be replaced with a community college class or other formal lesson in high school.

 

One of the values of unschooling is the knowledge that any goal worth obtaining requires a strong foundation. Not all this work is fun or entertaining or immediately gratifying, but if the goal is highly motivating, then that grunt work isn't interpreted as a burden but as a means to an end. This is learned in play at a young age (no lego structure worth feeling really good about can be put up in a short time), and as the child matures, they continue with the knowledge (no goal worth having can be done without lots of work, attention to detail, identify and solve problems as they come up).

[Iucounu]

Things that interest and fascinate us inspire us to learn more, and "play" looks different to a 16 yo than it does to a 6 yo.

You're now apparently not discussing play, but "play". Thank you for admitting that higher learning does not generally occur by playing in an unstructured way. As an adult, when I undertake a study of a subject, I don't delude myself by thinking I am playing, or "playing" for that matter. No 16 year old studying quadratic equations really fools himself into thinking he is "playing" either.

 

One of the values of unschooling is the knowledge that any goal worth obtaining requires a strong foundation. Not all this work is fun or entertaining or immediately gratifying, but if the goal is highly motivating, then that grunt work isn't interpreted as a burden but as a means to an end.

Reports of unschooling failures show that it's a mistake to simply believe that children will tend to know how to obtain strong foundations on their own, or view the end result of mathematical prowess based on a strong foundation as a highly motivating goal.

 

There are many problems with unschooling, but here are some big ones:

* Children do not naturally tend to become well-rounded; they have different interests and will focus on areas of interest to the exclusion of areas of less interest

* It's a happy fantasy that a child can build a strong foundation in a trice later in life; anecdotes of the faithful are not data. There is no way to become a strong writer in short order in college, after neglecting writing skills up to that point; ditto for math.

* Children enjoy doing things of little to no academic value, such as playing video games and eating junk food-- there's no way to cultivate a good work ethic while frittering away one's time

* If it ain't broke, don't fix it; almost the entirety of the world's greatest minds have been educated just fine without unschooling. There's no need for unschooling.

* ... but unschooling itself is broke, as shown by the many reports of failure, despite the lack of statistics

Edited May 12, 2012 by Iucounu

[albeto]

You're now apparently not discussing play, but "play". Thank you for admitting that higher learning does not generally occur by playing in an unstructured way.

 

Higher learning comes with increasing structure. Unschoolers don't have to be ignorant of structure, organization, or executing complex plans. When I come to this forum, I am "playing." I choose to use my time in a way that appeals to my interests. The value I get from reading other posts and finding resources inspires me to come back, but I'm not unaware that this is nothing more than my choice to use my time in a way that gives me pleasure. That's what play is.

 

Reports of unschooling failures show that it's a mistake to simply believe that children will tend to know how to obtain strong foundations on their own, or view the end result of mathematical prowess based on a strong foundation as a highly motivating goal.

 

By this logic, reports of formal education failures show that it's a mistake to simply believe that children will tend to know how to obtain strong foundations by listening to lessons and memorizing rote skills. Stereotypes are only so helpful. It should go without saying that a child doesn't learn anything on their own - we are social creatures and we learn from others around us as well. Unschooling isn't a hands-off approach.

 

There are many problems with unschooling, but here are some big ones:

* Children do not naturally tend to become well-rounded; they have different interests and will focus on areas of interest to the exclusion of areas of less interest

 

This happens in traditional schools, too. The only difference is the child has to wait until completing a diploma to focus on their chosen interests.

 

* It's a happy fantasy that a child can build a strong foundation in a trice later in life; anecdotes of the faithful are not data. There is no way to become a strong writer in short order in college, after neglecting writing skills up to that point; ditto for math.

 

This fantasy doesn't apply to reality in unschooling homes. Foundations of knowledge go beyond the Three R's. These foundations are learned in conjunction to the formal lessons of traditional education, unschooling simply allows these same lessons to be learned in a way that works with the child's natural development rather than in a way that works with the teacher's schedule.

 

* Children enjoy doing things of little to no academic value, such as playing video games and eating junk food-- there's no way to cultivate a good work ethic while frittering away one's time

 

Children also learn that playing video games and eating junk food are fun only for so long. Interacting with the many things life has to offer is more gratifying than doing one thing exclusively. Playing video games also appeals to one's interests within traditional subjects such as engineering, math, history, and computer technology. Further, it inspires one to learn patience, strategy, social skills and other executive functioning skills in an enjoyable way. Just like one cannot appreciate classical music by listening to 15 minutes of Mozart, one cannot appreciate the values gained by video games in 15 minutes. The hubris of this generation to declare something lacking value because they are unfamiliar with it is not lost on the younger generation.

 

* If it ain't broke, don't fix it; almost the entirety of the world's greatest minds have been educated just fine without unschooling. There's no need for unschooling.

 

You might want to consider checking your history a little more. "Great minds" have come from all kinds of backgrounds, including not traditional education, or "unschooling."

 

* ... but unschooling itself is broke, as shown by the many reports of failure, despite the lack of statistics

 

If anecdotal evidence is not acceptable for success, it is not acceptable for failure. If it is, then anecdotal as well as statistical evidence for any instance of failure of traditional schools ought to be considered. And perhaps a clarification of "success" would be in order here. Academic knowledge may or may not contribute to independent living or a self-declared satisfying life. There are more things to learn about life than are included in academic subjects. a

 

I'm interpreting your post to be addressed to the idea that I'm advocating unschooling for all children. This is not the case. I'm explaining what unschooling is against the misrepresentations presented here.

[Iucounu]

When I come to this forum, I am "playing."

When it comes right down to it, we can all assign whatever new meanings to standard words that we like, after we use that standard word in an incorrect way.

 

You might want to consider checking your history a little more.

No need. Nearly the entirety of the world's greatest minds have not been formed by unschooling. The statement is perfectly accurate and stands.

 

If anecdotal evidence is not acceptable for success, it is not acceptable for failure.

Anecdotal evidence is just fine for direct reports of failure-- some of them made on this very forum-- unless you are prepared to call the reporters liars, without any motive to lie but a motive against (no one wants to admit they made a bad choice and wasted educational time for their child, sometimes for years). Anecdotal evidence is not acceptable for success for two reasons: 1) re-reports are not direct reports-- this is the "everyone has a rich/famous/expert uncle" problem; and 2) a few bona fide reports of success don't mean the technique is successful in general. A means of education should give a reasonable likelihood of success before it's chosen.

 

I'm interpreting your post to be addressed to the idea that I'm advocating unschooling for all children. This is not the case. I'm explaining what unschooling is against the misrepresentations presented here.

I'm glad you're not advocating unschooling, just trying to explain it a bit. That's not how you're coming off, though.

[TippyCanoe]

.

[albeto]

When it comes right down to it, we can all assign whatever new meanings to standard words that we like, after we use that standard word in an incorrect way.

 

My comment fits the standard definition of the word.

 

No need. Nearly the entirety of the world's greatest minds have not been formed by unschooling. The statement is perfectly accurate and stands.

 

The idea that you can have identified the world's "greatest minds" is revealing to your idea of what it means to be "great" as well as your goal for education. Unschooling advocates raising a child to be well-rounded, academically, socially, environmentally, and in all ways a person interacts with the world around them. Brilliant minds will excel in any educational format in which they are put, even unschooling. Here is the first list I came across of recognizable people who excelled in their fields of interest without the benefit of a formal high school education. Unschooling isn't analogous to no education, it just isn't a formal education.

 

Anecdotal evidence is just fine for direct reports of failure-- some of them made on this very forum-- unless you are prepared to call the reporters liars, without any motive to lie but a motive against (no one wants to admit they made a bad choice and wasted educational time for their child, sometimes for years). Anecdotal evidence is not acceptable for success for two reasons: 1) re-reports are not direct reports-- this is the "everyone has a rich/famous/expert uncle" problem; and 2) a few bona fide reports of success don't mean the technique is successful in general. A means of education should give a reasonable likelihood of success before it's chosen.

 

You sound angry with me and I'm not sure why.

 

Are you suggesting anecdotal evidence is find for direct reports of failure but not for direct reports of success? Are you surprised that on a forum dedicated to classical education, there are not direct reports of the success of unschooling? Would my direct report of success count?

 

I'm glad you're not advocating unschooling, just trying to explain it a bit. That's not how you're coming off, though.

 

The OP asked about unschooling and a couple posts ago someone asked for clarification. I'm supporting the unschooling philosophy. Please don't misunderstand that for trying to convert classical education homeschoolers to do things my way.

[TippyCanoe]

.

[Iucounu]

My comment fits the standard definition of the word.

No, it does not. I consulted a dictionary.

 

The idea that you can have identified the world's "greatest minds" is revealing to your idea of what it means to be "great" as well as your goal for education.

I certainly can have. I am willing to exclude history's greatest minds that are unknown to us if you are. I suppose that in your corner we may place Ogg or whoever his name may be, inventor of the wheel, who was surely unschooled. In my corner are Einstein and just about all of the world's greatest minds-- as well as most of all of the rest of them, too. The points we may draw from this? That unschooling is not providing something that cannot be gained without unschooling, so it's not really necessary.

 

Unschooling advocates raising a child to be well-rounded, academically

No, it absolutely doesn't. It advocates letting a child learn what they like and also avoid learning whatever they don't like.

 

Here is the first list I came across of recognizable people who excelled in their fields of interest without the benefit of a formal high school education.

That's a list of dropouts.

 

Unschooling isn't analogous to no education, it just isn't a formal education.

It directly advocates the possibility of no academic education, if it's taken to the radical extreme. At its best, it's a completely self-directed education by someone who is not an education expert, who doesn't know what subjects should be learned in sequence for a solid math foundation, and who likely doesn't have completely well-rounded interests.

 

You sound angry with me and I'm not sure why.

I'm not responsible for how you perceive my words on this discussion board, but I'm certainly not angry with you. I think it's fair to say that I'm scoffing at some of the things you say, but I'm certainly not angry.

 

Are you suggesting anecdotal evidence is find for direct reports of failure but not for direct reports of success?

I'm coming right out and saying the things I came right out and said; I'm not going back to edit anything. I don't think it's wise or completely honest to advocate such a hit-or-miss ideology for adoption by others, to present it as having research support when the truth is that there's no statistical evidence reported on it whatsoever, and to say that you're not advocating for it when you make such statements as you've made here.

[MrsBear]

Unschooling is a term coined by John Holt to describe those who did NOT go to school-hence, "unschooling." The term now means whatever folks want it to mean. If you are really interested in the methodology of unschooling as it was originally intended I'd suggest reading Holt, Colfax's, Llewlleyn, and Farenga.

However, lots of parents I know personally SAY they are unschooling and extol the virtues of it (much like your friend) and talk about how much their kids are learning with little to no effort or exertion on their part. Here's the reality check. You don't get something for nothing. The people I know irl who unschool (in the traditional sense of the word) are incredibly intentional about their kids learning. The people that I know irl who claim to unschool and talk about how advanced their kids are just because they are inquisitive and "want to learn' are often justifying thier own lack of purpose, intentionality and laziness. Just being real, here.

 

If you are looking to put more JOY into learning, that's a whole different thing. What most people forget is that learning is often done on a bell curve. You have to climb UP a hill to get to the top of the bell where things are easier. You have to lay down a foundation. That being said, when things get rough around here and the kids fell buried we change thigns up: we use a LOT Of CD's in our homeschool. We use flashcards (VP hx cards are gorgeous) DVD's, on-line resources, and go to the library 2-3 x's a week, memorize stuff, do plays, etc.

 

We also make sure the kids are getting physical exercise and spend time talking together. My own experience in 22 yrs of homeschooling is that JOY is found when kids experience a sense of accomplishment and pride in their work. Last summer ds 17 memorized Macbeth from the Dover ed of Shakespeare's Macbeth for a public performance. He part required him to perform and have memorized sections for over an hour. He nailed it. He felt JOY in the accomplishment.

 

There are lots of ways to get homeschooling resources on the cheap. Set a budget that would allow you to stay home- sell stuff, trade, barter, go through netflix, the library, etc. You need to have a clear plan and budget for what you are doing. Frankly, I have found classical to be the LEAST expensive way to homeschool. There's not a ton of guessing, I have 2-3 suppliers I purchase all most of my curriculum from and much of what I own is not (or doesn't have to be) consumeable.

 

:iagree:

 

I can't say I unschool because I absolutely don't....I do, however, take a relaxed/eclectic approach to many things for our homeschooling, all tied to a classical foundation.

 

If I left it to DS to pursue what he wanted, he'd watch TV all day. I know this. I capitalize on it too, choosing videos and documentaries he'll learn through watching....Netflix and Discovery Education are awesome resources to use when you have a visual kid - so much easier IMO than having to read aloud, with him rolling his eyes, saying are we done yet? Watching videos or documentaries, on the other hand, works for him at this point, so why not do it? He also loves listening to audiobooks, another great resource we use.

 

Or he'd want to play video games. Ya know the saying "there's an app for that?"....well there really is, for almost any subject! So, I do stealthy learning opportunities for him with apps and computer software that he can "play". And I'll take this opportunity to thank whomever created Stack the States, it gave DS the geography bug!

 

Or maybe he'd prefer to build all day with legos. Yup, there's physics integrated right into play if you plan it out right - everything from simple machines to forces, etc. can be learned through play.....same with other science areas using other materials, projects or activities or games to learn without a ton of book work.

 

Field trips are huge with us, DS is visual and kinesthetic too, so going out to do....DO.....is really what turns on his brain, so we go out and do, go to places to do, and/or figure out something, like a project, to do....all the while we discuss and talk about the whys, but it's the doing that really, I think, cements things for DS to remember.

 

The list goes on, but at the end of the day, it comes down to working within DS's interests while still getting the job done of him learning what's in the plan for the year.

 

Some things aren't fun, like reading until recently, but are necessary to plug away at, so you do. I don't have to make the day a non-stop fun adventure, but in many ways I do that because it works for DS....but I also see that he needs those challenges too, where he has to just do it, even if it's hard, or boring, or not what he wants to do at the moment, because it has to be done.

[Iucounu]

P.S. I also do not understand why "anecdotal evidence" of unschooling successes can be dismissed and/or not taken seriously, while "reports" -- i.e. more anecdotal evidence -- of unschooling failure are apparently bona fide. This has nothing to do with belief in any educational philosophy whatsoever. I simply do not understand what logic is at work here.

You have to read what I wrote a bit more carefully, and maybe I need to be more blatant in the future. A means of education should give a reasonable likelihood of success before it's chosen. That means that when you have scads of reports of failure, for common-sense and obvious reasons, you can't take anecdotal reports of success (especially the second- or fifth-hand reports about the unschooled miraculously shoring up their weak areas upon arriving at college) as proof that unschooling is a method that really works.

 

My own take, after reading what I've read, in the absence of any actual statistically solid data, is that unschooling either fails a vast majority of the time to produce people with a well-rounded education, or else it's not true unschooling as implemented, i.e. the parents exert some control but conduct interest-led education.

[albeto]

No, it does not. I consulted a dictionary.

 

Interestingly, it fits within the parameters of the definition of the first online dictionary I found:

 

"1. To occupy oneself in amusement, sport, or other recreation"

 

Works for me, not for you. Got it. Moving on...

 

The points we may draw from this? That unschooling is not providing something that cannot be gained without unschooling, so it's not really necessary.

 

You can draw the same conclusion that a formal education is not providing something that cannot be gained without a formal education, so it's not really necessary. It's convenient for many good reasons, but a formal education is not actually necessary to live a productive life and contribute positively to society, as referenced by such people I shared in the link.

 

No, it absolutely doesn't. It advocates letting a child learn what they like and also avoid learning whatever they don't like.

 

May I ask, from what are you getting your information about unschooling? Why do you assume kids don't naturally like to learn a variety of things, and why do you assume unschooling parents don't introduce new things to their children?

 

That's a list of dropouts.

 

A list of people who made a noticeable contribution to society without the benefit of a formal education in the later school years.

 

It directly advocates the possibility of no academic education, if it's taken to the radical extreme.

 

Please provide a reference for this advocacy of no academic instruction. It's not familiar to me.

 

At its best, it's a completely self-directed education by someone who is not an education expert, who doesn't know what subjects should be learned in sequence for a solid math foundation, and who likely doesn't have completely well-rounded interests.

 

Perhaps I'm not the only one who sees the irony of making this statement on a forum inspired by a book, created to provide just that resource. That's what home educators are - completely self-directed people who are not education experts, who learn what subjects are necessary for a solid foundation in a variety of subjects.

 

I'm coming right out and saying the things I came right out and said; I'm not going back to edit anything. I don't think it's wise or completely honest to advocate such a hit-or-miss ideology for adoption by others, to present it as having research support when the truth is that there's no statistical evidence reported on it whatsoever, and to say that you're not advocating for it when you make such statements as you've made here.

 

If someone wants statistics and evidence for unschooling, I do hope s/he hasn't been waiting for me to provide it! Good grief, I'm just offering my opinions and experiences to someone who asked.

[Iucounu]

Interestingly, it fits within the parameters of the definition of the first online dictionary I found:

 

"1. To occupy oneself in amusement, sport, or other recreation"

 

Works for me, not for you. Got it. Moving on...

Yes, it works only for you, not by the dictionary definition. Learning quadratic equations occurs as part of study, not "amusement, sport or other recreation".

 

You can draw the same conclusion that a formal education is not providing something that cannot be gained without a formal education

Nope. As I've stated ad infinitum at this point, a correctly conducted formal education ensures that a student receives a well-rounded set of skills, something completely unaddressed by unschooling. In any event your attempt to turn this point on its head fails-- the point is that since schooling works well, unschooling doesn't need to exist, especially with its many problems.

 

as referenced by such people I shared in the link

A few outliers who were high achievers in spite of a lack of schooling doesn't disprove the value of schooling. In addition, if you actually read the page to which you linked, perhaps following up to actually learn about the lives of the people referenced, you'd learn that many of them dropped out of high school fairly late 17 etc.), so presumably gained something of value from their experience; returned later to school, after initially dropping out for family reasons; etc. Your page is actually unhelpful to this discussion, and certainly not helpful to prove any point you're attempting to make.

 

May I ask, from what are you getting your information about unschooling? Why do you assume kids don't naturally like to learn a variety of things, and why do you assume unschooling parents don't introduce new things to their children?

You quoted research support for unschooling. Where is the support for the idea that children will study things in a well-rounded way, somehow bootstrapping themselves into solid academic foundations through play (or "play" as the case may be)? In your answer, please attack as unfounded the statements of the people on this site who have directly reported that their children won't tend to become well-rounded, may even watch TV to the exclusion of much else, etc. Actually, never mind-- you've already done that.

 

Perhaps I'm not the only one who sees the irony of making this statement on a forum inspired by a book, created to provide just that resource. That's what home educators are - completely self-directed people who are not education experts, who learn what subjects are necessary for a solid foundation in a variety of subjects.

When we're talking about the folly of letting children be self-directed self-educators and trust that they'll become well-rounded, it's just a red herring to draw a parallel to a self-directed parent. You see:

 

completely self-directed student <> completely self-directed parent

completely self-directed parent <> parent relying on educational resources and advice

irony <> drawing a false parallel

 

If someone wants statistics and evidence for unschooling, I do hope s/he hasn't been waiting for me to provide it! Good grief, I'm just offering my opinions and experiences to someone who asked.

Yes, it's impossible to provide and will always be. Yet you've been strongly advocating for unschooling and against schooling, vaguely referring to research support for unschooling, but not providing any proof that homeschooling is a method that works well.

[Veritaserum]

You have to read what I wrote a bit more carefully, and maybe I need to be more blatant in the future. A means of education should give a reasonable likelihood of success before it's chosen. That means that when you have scads of reports of failure, for common-sense and obvious reasons, you can't take anecdotal reports of success (especially the second- or fifth-hand reports about the unschooled miraculously shoring up their weak areas upon arriving at college) as proof that unschooling is a method that really works.

 

My own take, after reading what I've read, in the absence of any actual statistically solid data, is that unschooling either fails a vast majority of the time to produce people with a well-rounded education, or else it's not true unschooling as implemented, i.e. the parents exert some control but conduct interest-led education.

 

:iagree: We abandoned unschooling when I came to my senses and realized that not only was it not facilitating the education I knew would best prepare my children for future success, it was unlikely to do so in the future. Furthermore, formal education does not preclude many opportunities to "play" with complex subject matter nor does formal education preclude a love of learning new or more difficult ideas.

Edited May 13, 2012 by Veritaserum

[Halcyon]

I find this discussion very interesting. I toyed with the idea of unschooling when we first began homeschooling, and i do love Holt's books. But I Realized it was not for me, for many reasons. Mynhomeschool group otoh, does have a few unschoolers, including my closest friend. I truly believe she is doing her children a disservice, and have suggested this, gingerly, to her. Over the course of the last year pr so she has begun to add in more formal academics because she has come to the conclusion that "my kids need to learn to apply themselves to difficult things.", somethingnshe says they were not doing on their own. They were playing upwards of 6 hours a day on computer and video games, watching a lot of television, and the oldest, at 9 could not add or subtract. Not only that, the oldest was beginning to notice that she was "different" from her peers (she joined our math club) and instead of feeling motivated, or inspired to dig in and learn, she felt embarrased, ashamed and "dumb". It didnt help her confidence at all when my 6 year old tried to help her with a sticky math problem. I do believe some children dow ell with less structure, and some children need more. Sme children have the sort of personality that says "Let me at'em!" when they realize they have a deficiency, other children just shrink from it, beginning to believe the worst about themselves. My friend found that when she posted on a popular radical nschooling board about 1) her 6 year old's abiding interest in violent, mature video games she was told that to prohibit them would be wrong, controlling,, and tha she should "let him find his own way." and 2) when she posted that her younger asked her to teah him how to read, most board members discouraged her from any direct instruction whatsoever.

 

Of course, this was a radical board, and there are unschoolers who perhaps don't go to that extreme. Nonethesless, i do think this particulAr brand of unschooling is becoming more commonly associated with unschooling in general.

[Laughingmommy]

Yes, it works only for you, not by the dictionary definition. Learning quadratic equations occurs as part of study, not "amusement, sport or other recreation".

 

I must be crazy! I LOVED proving the quadratic equation. One of the (very few) highlights of a sucky (for me) high school math education. :lol: Seriously, though. You all don't love learning? Photosynthesis, literary analysis, trigonometric proofs? Not fun, not play? I guess I'm a nerd leading a team of nerd kids! Yikes!

 

I don't know that unschooling would work for everyone. I'm sure it wouldn't work for all parents and educators. But the assertion that it works for no one seems so misguided. Even if it has never worked for a single person, it might still work for me. Isn't that how innovation happens? If all those extraordinary people stayed true to those ideas of smallness: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and "why aspire to what has never been done before".... what an uninspired world we would find ourselves in!

 

I think the model of schooling is sometimes so wonderful. I've had inspiring teachers, and I've seen inspiring homeschooling parents. I've also seen awful teachers and parents. I mean, of course, awful in my eyes. I mean, honestly, all these statements about how learning is not play, that learning is antithetical to play.... that to me is awful parenting and teaching. How can one hope to inspire a lifelong love of learning when you begin with the assumption that it's an obligation to be suffered? Gosh! :001_huh:

 

Of course, whoever is pitting learning against playing probably doesn't mean what I'm making it out to seem. I emphasize how my kids use a structure while they learn whatever they're playing with (I suppose you could call it intellectual or academic play, though for us, it's just play). Yet, someone else might emphasize how their kids learn within a structure while enjoying some degree of enjoyment. In reality, these two models could be the same thing, just differently identified.

 

I wonder how you all "play." What do you do for play? For the longest time, I tried to "play" with my kids and I had a tough time. Over a decade later now, I accept how playing with toys is not my forte, though I still keep at it. I've learned that exploring the world with humility and intellect is the "funnest" play of all. What are your concepts of play? Maybe that's the holdup with understanding unschooling...?

Edited May 13, 2012 by Laughingmommy

[Laughingmommy]

I like to say, "oh, it hurts so good!" We find it amusing that doing fun things can be so painful, whether it's muscle-ache or brain-drain. It's all good. :chillpill:

[Iucounu]

I must be crazy! I LOVED proving the quadratic equation. One of the (very few) highlights of a sucky (for me) high school math education. :lol: Seriously, though. You all don't love learning? Photosynthesis, literary analysis, trigonometric proofs? Not fun, not play? I guess I'm a nerd leading a team of nerd kids! Yikes!

I'm going by the standard meaning of the term "play", that's all. Sure, one can have fun learning anything; one can be amused by a concept one's studying in any sort of way; but feeling like you're having fun or being amused doesn't mean you're playing. I don't think most children would tend to learn quadratic equations just for their own amusement.

 

What are your concepts of play? Maybe that's the holdup with understanding unschooling...?

I think I understand it well enough. I think what's going on with what I consider to be the misuse of the word "play" is that an idea about children learning many foundational skills etc. during early free time (actually playing games, playing with toys, roleplaying with other children etc.) is turned into an overarching statement about how children optimally learn all things. After that ensue many discussion board exchanges where some people attempt to show how even structured learning is play, and others keep pointing back to what play really is.

 

I think that encouraging a love of learning is a great thing, and so is interest-led learning, which tends to encourage it.

[Laughingmommy]

I find this discussion very interesting. I toyed with the idea of unschooling when we first began homeschooling, and i do love Holt's books. But I Realized it was not for me, for many reasons. Mynhomeschool group otoh, does have a few unschoolers, including my closest friend. I truly believe she is doing her children a disservice, and have suggested this, gingerly, to her. Over the course of the last year pr so she has begun to add in more formal academics because she has come to the conclusion that "my kids need to learn to apply themselves to difficult things.", somethingnshe says they were not doing on their own. They were playing upwards of 6 hours a day on computer and video games, watching a lot of television, and the oldest, at 9 could not add or subtract. Not only that, the oldest was beginning to notice that she was "different" from her peers (she joined our math club) and instead of feeling motivated, or inspired to dig in and learn, she felt embarrased, ashamed and "dumb". It didnt help her confidence at all when my 6 year old tried to help her with a sticky math problem. I do believe some children dow ell with less structure, and some children need more. Sme children have the sort of personality that says "Let me at'em!" when they realize they have a deficiency, other children just shrink from it, beginning to believe the worst about themselves. My friend found that when she posted on a popular radical nschooling board about 1) her 6 year old's abiding interest in violent, mature video games she was told that to prohibit them would be wrong, controlling,, and tha she should "let him find his own way." and 2) when she posted that her younger asked her to teah him how to read, most board members discouraged her from any direct instruction whatsoever.

 

Of course, this was a radical board, and there are unschoolers who perhaps don't go to that extreme. Nonethesless, i do think this particulAr brand of unschooling is becoming more commonly associated with unschooling in general.

 

I feel for your friend. I never went for the violent media. I did relent with anime for an 11-year-old, though we watched it together (very enjoyable!). Those "radical unschoolers" your friend found sound awful! I had disapproving looks thrown my way when my oldest started showing interest in reading at 2. Not unschoolers, though, WALDORF! But is is not really Waldorf. Like all communities, you can understand the philosophy and apply it to reality, or you can take the philosophy and take how people adopt it as dogma. Homeschooling can be so hard: finding community, figuring out your parenting/schooling/life philosophy, applying it to actual kids and situations. I'm glad for your friend, that she took cues from her kids in terms of what they needed. Video games 6 hours a day is usually not fun or play. For me, anyway... I find it's a lot of work! It's what I do when I'm exhausted, though it does nothing to help me rest. It does help me stop and reassess what I'm doing in my life, the choices I'm making. You know what it reminds me of? SCHOOL! The tedium, the suffering, the constant jumping through hoops, the arbitrary grading.... :lol:

[Laughingmommy]

I'm going by the standard meaning of the term "play", that's all. Sure, one can have fun learning anything; one can be amused by a concept one's studying in any sort of way; but feeling like you're having fun or being amused doesn't mean you're playing. I don't think most children would tend to learn quadratic equations just for their own amusement.

 

 

I think I understand it well enough. I think what's going on with what I consider to be the misuse of the word "play" is that an idea about children learning many foundational skills etc. during early free time (actually playing games, playing with toys, roleplaying with other children etc.) is turned into an overarching statement about how children optimally learn all things. After that ensue many discussion board exchanges where some people attempt to show how even structured learning is play, and others keep pointing back to what play really is.

 

I think that encouraging a love of learning is a great thing, and so is interest-led learning, which tends to encourage it.

 

Iucounu, I suspect I misunderstand your definition of play then. I understand play to mean using something to have fun, like playing with a doll or playing with a concept, or play-acting. It sounds like a much more broad definition than yours.

 

I really like that you're separating love of learning and interest-led learning from unschooling. Unschoolers hardly corner the market on those things! In fact, it's highly-disputable what allows someone to follow their interests. I think structure is necessary for creativity. You need a structure to resist, co-opt, explore, play with, and manipulate. I guess maybe I include "work" in my notion of "play." I mean, even if you're playing with blocks, it's WORK! :D

 

For me, play had always been a lot of work. I was very result-driven (i.e. knitting to make the thing, studying to get the grade, playing blocks with the kids so they grow their brains). Just recently, I made a New Year's resolution "to not try." And since then, I've been slowly discovering that I like to play. But I'm not doing anything differently. It's just that everything I do now seems fun and exciting.

[TippyCanoe]

.

[Iucounu]

That all sounds good, but is unconvincing as a redefinition of "play" in this context. "Playing around with a concept" and similar sorts of wordings are just attempts to skew things. When one's at work, one can call it "play" if one likes, but the truth is that it's an assigned task, not at all the sort of activity that people mean when they talk of a child playing. It's as I said: unschooling's claims about play are rooted in ideas about early childhood development; it's simply overstating the case to say that structured learning of advanced abstract topics is play. Words can be twisted, but in the end after the twisting is done, the original meaning has gone by the wayside. It's not such a harmful thing to admit that one is wrong.

[Laughingmommy]

That all sounds good, but is unconvincing as a redefinition of "play" in this context. "Playing around with a concept" and similar sorts of wordings are just attempts to skew things. When one's at work, one can call it "play" if one likes, but the truth is that it's an assigned task, not at all the sort of activity that people mean when they talk of a child playing. It's as I said: unschooling's claims about play are rooted in ideas about early childhood development; it's simply overstating the case to say that structured learning of advanced abstract topics is play. Words can be twisted, but in the end after the twisting is done, the original meaning has gone by the wayside. It's not such a harmful thing to admit that one is wrong.

 

I understand better now that the "play" in "playing around with a concept" isn't the "play" you're talking about. So what is? I really do want to know. I know someone cited: "1. To occupy oneself in amusement, sport, or other recreation" as a possible definition. I wonder if there's a distinction between study and play. Is there? I mean, sure, there's work in play and play in work. Like, you can play computer games at the office, and you can "study" the rules of a board game. But are they just inherently different? I'm really curious. I mean, can chores ever be play (to put the notion of work in terms I can relate to)? I mean, you can talk all about laundry sorting fun and all kinds of cleaning games. And I think they can be fun. But we're still trying to make something inherently "work" MORE play, or LESS work. It's hard for me to imagine laundry as play.... though I will allow that it might be possible for somebody else. Maybe work and play exist on a continuum? Or maybe they're two different and separate quantities in each situation.

[albeto]

Yes, it works only for you, not by the dictionary definition. Learning quadratic equations occurs as part of study, not "amusement, sport or other recreation".

 

This brings up a couple issues with respect to the ideology of unschooling. First, if a child enjoys solving problems, why wouldn't equations be fun to figure out? They are for many children. Science is fun for other children, history or literature or music is fun for others. The thing about unschooling is whatever catches the attention of a child is a means of introduction to all kinds of knowledge. My oldest is interested in science. He was introduced to anatomy, then explored physiology, then neurology. Along the way he's learned botany, earth sciences, chemistry, physics, and the higher math concepts that support these subjects. He's picked up history and political science simply because he's aware of the world around him and wants to know the "mechanics" behind why people do what they do. It's no different than from wanting to learn why the liver does what it does and learning about cellular biology. I have three kids, the others have their own trajectories, one with arts and literature, one with engineering. I've known people who do enjoy math and find math as the most fascinating way to interpret the world in which we live. Why wouldn't quadratic equations be a part of this process?

 

The other thing this brings up is the idea that subjects are separated from each other and some are "boring." Traditional schools train children attend to the information offered by the teacher at the teacher's convenience. Math just before morning recess, for example, is a way to inspire kids to buckle down before their blood sugar from breakfast is completely gone and they have time to work out all their wiggles before language arts. Students who aren't expected to stop exploring or experiencing a particular activity have no reason to assume a certain aspect of that activity is "boring." Math isn't separated out into its own thing - instead it's an integral part of whatever is being explored. History isn't a burden, it's a part of the interesting topic the child has chosen to pursue.

 

As students get older and realize what it is they like to spend their time learning/doing, they find there are a number of opportunities to help them gather the tools they'll need to succeed at reaching their goals. College is but one of a number of tools for preparation of the liberty of adulthood. Those who are college bound learn to focus on those requirements that colleges will be asking for. If these required subjects aren't learned naturally through their own experiences, high school, community college, or online classes are a good way to meet this need. Unschooled kids recognize from a lifetime of experiences that goals require foundations. Classes is part of that foundation. If the quadratic equation isn't particularly interesting to someone, but a college degree is, then the quadratic equation is learned for the sake of getting into college. A person getting into college will have as "well-rounded" an education as the college requires. A student getting into art school or culinary school or other trade schools will have a different kind of "well-rounded" education. A student who is an entrepreneur will be learning the skills necessary for their chosen approach. And on and on it goes.

 

the point is that since schooling works well, unschooling doesn't need to exist, especially with its many problems.

 

Not surprisingly, I'll disagree with you here. I don't agree that conventional schooling necessarily works well. I think the formula for today's schools worked fine enough during the Industrial Revolution, because that approach was a valid solution to the problems of the day. Mass producing subjects, like mass producing car manufacture, is a convenient way to produce a large quantity, but is not necessary for producing quality. The many over-crowded schools and poorly prepared teaching staff suggest this style has lost its relevancy in much of today's society. Students are graduating in an era in which they need to think independently and creatively to be competitive. Knowledge can be gained readily enough, knowing how to identify and pay attention to detail, and critically analyze and apply that detail in novel ways is what will set them apart from their peers. This takes time and experience, things that are better offered interacting with the world at large, an opportunity offered unschoolers in the kind of quantity and quality that conventional schooling cannot provide by virtue of a different approach to the budgeting of time.

 

Stress for production contributes to habits that "relax" a person, habits that can become self-destructive. Alcohol, drugs, sex, porn, and other behaviors are examples of things that can become addictive in hopes of relieving the kind of stress conventional educational production often creates. Arguing with family members, "power struggles," defiance, lying, and other behaviors parents struggle with their children can be reduced when the child is granted the kind of autonomy conventional schooling cannot provide. These social skills, in addition to a feeling of confidence, all contribute to a person's sense of "success" and "satisfaction" as adults. Force-feeding the quadratic equation teaches the quadratic equation, but it also teaches another lesson - the stronger person wields more power (or, might makes right). Unschoolers avoid this secondary lesson without losing the first.

 

You quoted research support for unschooling. Where is the support for the idea that children will study things in a well-rounded way, somehow bootstrapping themselves into solid academic foundations through play (or "play" as the case may be)? In your answer, please attack as unfounded the statements of the people on this site who have directly reported that their children won't tend to become well-rounded, may even watch TV to the exclusion of much else, etc. Actually, never mind-- you've already done that.

 

Are you suggesting the answer to my question, from where are you getting your information about unschooling, is from people on a pro-classical education homeschooling forum who tried but ultimately changed to a classical education approach? That's hardly advocacy for unschooling. If you have an actual resource of unschooler advocates promoting "the possibility of no academic education," please do share. Otherwise, you're ignorance of the philosophy is duly noted.

 

Yes, it's impossible to provide and will always be. Yet you've been strongly advocating for unschooling and against schooling, vaguely referring to research support for unschooling, but not providing any proof that homeschooling is a method that works well.

 

For evidence, one might look to those who advocate the unschooling ideology. Wiki includes this list:

 

John Holt

Sandra Dodd

John Taylor Gatto

Ivan Illich

Grace Llewellyn

Wendy Priesnitz

Catherine Baker

Chaley Scott

 

 

I like Joyce Fetteroll's joyfully rejoicing as an introduction to the mechanics of the ideal. There are unschooling yahoo groups, some are radical in their approach (applying the ideal to all learning, not just academic subjects), but not all. For someone who is truly interested, these would be good resources for learning.

[TippyCanoe]

.

[Iucounu]

I understand better now that the "play" in "playing around with a concept" isn't the "play" you're talking about. So what is?

The common meaning of "play", including the decent definition from the dictionary that was cited before. When you redefine "play" in this context to just mean "have fun" or "enjoy", you discard the playing aspect and you just wind up with a synonym for "enjoy", or whatever else you've redefined "play" to mean. Play as used in discussing early childhood development includes many activities already mentioned: playing games, playing with toys, role playing, etc.; schooling activities have their own words to describe them.

 

I think a previous poster painted herself into a bit of a linguistic corner by essentially redefining play to include any learning activity that's enjoyable. Traditional schooling and flexible interest-led learning (relaxed homeschooling) often of course include such activities. There's no need for unschooling to provide this.

 

I did a quick Google search on terms related to "unschooling" and "play". Here is what I quickly found:

 

http://childplay.wordpress.com/unschooling/

Makes reference to "free play", which of course would not include the sort of structured activities traditionally leading to higher math knowledge; no mention is made of a quadratic equations game either. :D

 

http://saramcgrath.suite101.com/unschoolers-learn-naturally-through-play-a146974#ixzz1unArSwn7

"Play is useful, meaningful, and fun. It might include fantasy, make-believe, poetry, song, drama, art, and on and on. Children use these activities to explore and understand the world. They play at doing adult work. They play at finding their place and contributing to their communities." I suppose quadratic equations or other higher math might be learned through poetry, but it seems a round-about approach.

 

http://sandradodd.com/playing

"I have known people who stopped playing, but I was never one of them. In my last year of high school, my boyfriend who had already graduated built a kind of playhouse in the woods to be 'our house.' It was a hole under the roots of a cottonwood, dug out a little better, covered with branches and sticks found by the side of the Rio Grande behind the high school. I ditched school there a couple of times and met him. Was it dignified? No, it was like Neverland! In college I had another boyfriend and we had a running fantasy "plan" to live in the 1600s in England and run a really sweet, peaceful orphanage, filled with music. It wasn't long before I was involved in medieval doings with the Society for Creative Anachronism, which is an international medieval-themed life-size game. As with all games, and all playing, there was reality too. We really made things and learned music and researched and made clothing and armor. We cooked real food. Then we put on our new clothes and our new names and played elaborate games. My three children grew up around adults who played, not just putting on feasts and tournaments and building medieval-looking camps, but also playing strategy board games and mystery games, having costume parties when it wasn't even Halloween, and making up goofy song parodies on long car rides. "

More play-as-games-and-fantasy. No play-equals-any-enjoyment aspect I can see there.

 

Searching inside "How Children Learn", by John Holt, gave these results:

Page 14 …and catch with my pencil my niece's prattle as she plays ab…

Page 29 …sense and nonsense are mixed. Many children like to play a g…

Page 30 …to spend some of their time doing the same: either trying to play by …

Page 33 …the game would start again. A lot of the games little children play …

Page 35 ... This is an absolutely foolproof game to play with little children…

Page 36 ... likes to play is the "you-can't" game. Sometimes it begins wit…

Page 37 …always was. An older child, playing this game, might well play it…

Page 42 …playing this game with her. After a while, she invited us to play th…

Page 43 After watching this a while, she insisted on being allowed to play ...

Page 46 …run everything. Her big brother, a grownup to her, often plays a …

Page 47 …and get rid of Lisa by giving her a few extra pieces to play with…

Page 48 …on, or hears one mentioned, she immediately wants to play.

Page 52 …them far in advance, but we probably will get them if we play …

Page 54 ... If you can't play a game the way it is supposed to be played, …

Page 55 …and a half old. I often used to watch him in his crib, talk to him, play…

Page 56 …long in this spirit the babies will soon refuse to playor if they do, play…

Page 57 ... now and then, in the middle of their play, casting quick glances at m…

Page 64 It began with watching his older sister, Lisa, work it. She plays i…

Page 66 …perforated rod, which in turn made the piano play ...

Page 69 …come in, we would talk a little, and soon he would say, "Let's play …

Page 70 …bored in school and went only to see his many friends, and to play…

Page 71 …I took the bugle out. I gave it a tentative Nat or two (I can't play i…

Page 73 They all do what I have described aboveif they have seen me play f…

Page 88 …work in Bill Hull's fifth grade, he used to have the students play …

Page 89 …why peek-a- boo games are such fun for small babies to play ...

Page 90 …(mentioned earlier) was very small, I was watching him play.

Page 112 ... Sometimes one of us, learning our part, will play the wrong…

Page 124 …period. In that time the children could read, or draw, or play g…

Page 127 …and, seeing that it had holes in it, like a recorder, began to play a…

Page 128 …was happening that we did not understand, and let the little boy play …

Page 130 ... she began to change the rules of the game, to play it in a diff…

Page 131 …charts however she wanted, give her time to fantasize and play with…

Page 139 …my hunches, but keep saying to myself, after every note I play, …

Page 159 ... We had put up in the yard a tent for him to play in, and he immedia…

Page 171 ... easily be taught both to record and play back on them with…

Page 183 …was content to have me tow him around, or to hang on and play…

Page 188 …sports period in the afternoon. Only in the afternoon could we play…

Page 189 ... If, instead, they had had a chance to play with, and see, and…

Page 195 …real likenesses of things or people seemed, as being able to play m…

Page 218 …various colors, sizes, and shapes, with which children can play…

Page 219 …digested them, so to speak, they were then ready and willing to play …

Page 221 ... But she could not, or would not, play this childlike game. After som…

Page 238 ... I always give her our old checks to play store with and she often…

Page 239 …we spent many happy hours in various kinds of fantasy play.

Page 242 ... just let the children play with them however they wanted, call…

Page 244 …the children would learn faster if they were allowed to play free…

Page 247 …the world around them, children use fantasy and play in ...

Page 248 …very crude; they have little experience. But in their fantasy play…

Page 250 …these children (and many others like them) do in their play i…

Page 259 ... While an adult plays a piano or guitar, the children are invited, i.e. t…

Page 280 …be interesting in school, say with fourth- or fifth-graders, to play a ga…

Page 283 …announcers, as in every land, talked learnedly about the play…

Page 286 …that language will be built. There are other ways to play the …

Page 287 …game without answers, this what-goes-on-here game that I play…

Page 298 …upside down, can or even wish to resist the temptation to play thi…

 

I see an awful lot of references here to games. Perhaps someone who owns this book can chime in if there is any reference in this book to play equalling anything that is perceived to be fun.

 

Work of course can be fun, but it's not redefined as play just because of that. Twisting words is not a way to have a useful debate.

[Iucounu]

The point about intellectual play, and the work that some very prominent professionals have described as play, is that it, like unschoolers' topics of study and/or interest, are self-chosen. They're not talking about obligatory duties or things that have to be done or are assigned by others, but about things the person is driven to understand or learn more about, that the person can't imagine NOT doing or learning, that the person would do even if not required to.

Perhaps, but those aren't play by the standard English definition of the word. The fact that someone might use the word "play" in a random discussion of their work doesn't at all mean that any non-obligatory, self-chosen learning activity is play. That's the sophistry we're trying to get past here.

[Laughingmommy]

I fully understand that not everyone gets to work in a job of their own choosing that they so evidently thrive in, that many jobs do not offer scope for defining and following one's own projects, and that some people prefer a very serious work life which they separate diligently from sources of play in their lives. But for others, intellectual play and work/study go together inextricably.

 

I'm really curious about this notion of a dichotomy between play and study. I suppose I am definitely in the "intellectual play and work/study go together inextricably" camp. Honestly, I'm having a tough time figuring out (I don't mean here, I mean in my life in general) if some people are "destined" for academic study and if some people just don't benefit from it. If some people "naturally" have inner drive and others don't. And how much of these things are inherent and how much circumstantial. I ask in earnest when I ask what "play" means to people. I'm starting to get that people don't all mean the same thing! But I still only understand what I think "play" means. For me, "play" and "work" are synonymous, and they are both synonymous to "life." Maybe I need to go find my husband and badger him until he gives me an adequate explanation of what other people mean when they say "play." :confused:

Edited May 14, 2012 by Laughingmommy
oops - "play" instead of "work"

[Laughingmommy]

The common meaning of "play", including the decent definition from the dictionary that was cited before. When you redefine "play" in this context to just mean "have fun" or "enjoy", you discard the playing aspect and you just wind up with a synonym for "enjoy", or whatever else you've redefined "play" to mean. Play as used in discussing early childhood development includes many activities already mentioned: playing games, playing with toys, role playing, etc.; schooling activities have their own words to describe them.

 

I think a previous poster painted herself into a bit of a linguistic corner by essentially redefining play to include any learning activity that's enjoyable. Traditional schooling and flexible interest-led learning (relaxed homeschooling) often of course include such activities. There's no need for unschooling to provide this.

 

Ahhh.... I see. Thanks for explaining this. I knew there was something I wasn't quite getting. So this is like a technical definition of "play," as in "play" in child development terms.

 

Gosh, then I guess my kids "play" very little after a certain age! I can see how "play" learning would be incredibly labor-intensive. So, probably I wouldn't say we do play-based learning since we don't use games to learn anything. We sort of learn as a consequence of living. "Life-based learning"? And I don't know that it's accurate to say we into "child-led" 'cause I still supply limits and resources and guidance, so it's like "co-directed."

 

Perhaps rather than call ourselves radical unschoolers, I can start to say we are "life-based, parent-and-child-co-directed, academic-resource-rich, interest-driven learners"... something like that? ;)

 

My kids hate that kind of "play learning" - they always find it patronizing and condescending. They like their academics deeply-meaningful and non-nonsense. "Play learning" always seems so weird to me, but maybe because I find academics inherently satisfying and pleasurable.

[Laughingmommy]

So, I looked up "play" in the dictionary, and true enough, nothing about fun or pleasure. Some about sexual innuendos, though. Interesting.... And nothing about amusing, either, though lots about amusement, as in recreation or sports. (though "playful" seems different) I might have to change my casual usage of "play." How could I ever say now casually, "oh, they're playing outside"?