Talk me out of/into unschooling

[Veritaserum]

Conventional/institutionalized schooling =/= formal/classical/structured homeschooling

[Tracy]

I am following this thread mostly trying to learn, and I really appreciate what everyone has had to say on both sides of the issue. I am not an unschooler and could never be an unschooler. But I am interested in the philosophy for what I can glean from it.

 

I am really confused about this whole definition of "play." It sounds like some people think that if children are doing something academic, then it cannot be "play" and vice versa. Can I share something that happened recently with my dd7, and can you all tell whether this is "play" or not, "unschooly" or not?

 

Dd7 came to me and asked me for something to read about the Treaty of Paris. (This was completely her thing. It was not anything required for school.) I found something for her to read online, and when she was done reading, she told me she "needed" to write a report. (Apparently she and a friend had formed some sort of club in which they had to learn something and report on it when they next met.) So she dictated to me her report, and I wrote it down for her. I later let her use that for her copywork instead of WWE.

 

To me, this seems like both academics and playing all in one. And if she continue to do this all the time, I likely would not do a writing program at all, so long as she was learning to write on her own.

[Laughingmommy]

I am following this thread mostly trying to learn, and I really appreciate what everyone has had to say on both sides of the issue. I am not an unschooler and could never be an unschooler. But I am interested in the philosophy for what I can glean from it.

 

I am really confused about this whole definition of "play." It sounds like some people think that if children are doing something academic, then it cannot be "play" and vice versa. Can I share something that happened recently with my dd7, and can you all tell whether this is "play" or not, "unschooly" or not?

 

Dd7 came to me and asked me for something to read about the Treaty of Paris. (This was completely her thing. It was not anything required for school.) I found something for her to read online, and when she was done reading, she told me she "needed" to write a report. (Apparently she and a friend had formed some sort of club in which they had to learn something and report on it when they next met.) So she dictated to me her report, and I wrote it down for her. I later let her use that for her copywork instead of WWE.

 

To me, this seems like both academics and playing all in one. And if she continue to do this all the time, I likely would not do a writing program at all, so long as she was learning to write on her own.

 

I'm not sure anymore about homeschooling labels. Your experience sounds similar to mine, though. I just call it life.

 

FWIW, I have learned that with my kids, it's been very useful to read curricula and learn them myself. So much "teaching" has to happen on the fly for me. Sort of a follow-the-flow-of-learning kind of thing. We own so many curricula, and I love them all. None works very well for my kids, but they work wonders for my pedagogical thinking. Just something to keep in mind.

[Veritaserum]

I am following this thread mostly trying to learn, and I really appreciate what everyone has had to say on both sides of the issue. I am not an unschooler and could never be an unschooler. But I am interested in the philosophy for what I can glean from it.

 

I am really confused about this whole definition of "play." It sounds like some people think that if children are doing something academic, then it cannot be "play" and vice versa. Can I share something that happened recently with my dd7, and can you all tell whether this is "play" or not, "unschooly" or not?

 

Dd7 came to me and asked me for something to read about the Treaty of Paris. (This was completely her thing. It was not anything required for school.) I found something for her to read online, and when she was done reading, she told me she "needed" to write a report. (Apparently she and a friend had formed some sort of club in which they had to learn something and report on it when they next met.) So she dictated to me her report, and I wrote it down for her. I later let her use that for her copywork instead of WWE.

 

To me, this seems like both academics and playing all in one. And if she continue to do this all the time, I likely would not do a writing program at all, so long as she was learning to write on her own.

 

I'd call that "child-" or "interest-led learning." Enjoyable or statisfying? Sure. Play? Not in my opinion.

[Iucounu]

I am really confused about this whole definition of "play." It sounds like some people think that if children are doing something academic, then it cannot be "play" and vice versa.

It's confusing only because there's been an attempt to redefine "play" to include anything that a person enjoys. It simply doesn't work; "play" is perfectly fine meaning what it means, and "enjoy" exists as a label for a different meaning. The two are not coextensive; one can be suggested, directed or even forced to engage in play actitivities, and one can enjoy lots of activities that are not play.

 

It sounds like some people think that if children are doing something academic, then it cannot be "play" and vice versa.

I think the disagreement is more along these lines: some have suggested that a child should always learn through play, and followed up by claiming that any enjoyable learning activity is play; others disagree, feeling that play within the ordinary meaning of the word is play and that not all enjoyable activity meets that definition, and that while education is ideally quite enjoyable it need not always meet the proper definition of play.

 

Can I share something that happened recently with my dd7, and can you all tell whether this is "play" or not, "unschooly" or not?

It's not play, since writing reports and doing copywork are not play in and of themselves. Your daughter was not playing a game or doing any of the other things referred to as play activities. The word "playing" means playing, not doing something one likes or wants to do, or chooses for oneself.

 

In my personal opinion, not being an unschooler, this does not meet the definition of unschooling either; it's interest-led learning. One cannot school part of the time and unschool part-time; in that scenario one would just refer to the self-directed parts of the day as free time or something similar. Here, your daughter engaged in learning on a self-chosen topic, and you facilitated, including by making a substitution of assigned work for work related to her chosen topic. That's wonderful, but it's not unschooling because she also is schooled, and because you are imposing educational requirements (good for you and her).

Edited May 14, 2012 by Iucounu

[Kathryn]

I have a lot I'd like to say about unschooling but I feel like I'd offend people. I always read these threads intending to reply and then click away. But, I'm procrastinating badly today.

 

I think there are VERY few children and parents for whom unschooling can truly work and produce a well-rounded student. I think that unschooling often produces children who are woefully ignorant of many areas of academics, who are ill-prepared for the demands of adulthood, and who have an unrealistic expectation of what life is like. Children have plenty of time to pursue their interests without being told that their interests are all that matters. My job as a parent is to prepare my children for adulthood, not to coddle them into believing that they are the center of the universe and that all that matters are their own interests and that they need not do things that they don't find "fun" or of some benefit to themselves. Honestly, I think it's this kind of self-absorption that is so indicative of many of society's ills.

 

Also, children do not possess the forethought to know what will benefit them in the long run. That's why they have parents. I don't know many (if any) children that wouldn't choose to watch tv, play video games, and eat junk food all day if given the option.

Edited May 14, 2012 by kebg11

[albeto]

Dd7 came to me and asked me for something to read about the Treaty of Paris. (This was completely her thing. It was not anything required for school.) I found something for her to read online, and when she was done reading, she told me she "needed" to write a report. (Apparently she and a friend had formed some sort of club in which they had to learn something and report on it when they next met.) So she dictated to me her report, and I wrote it down for her. I later let her use that for her copywork instead of WWE.

 

To me, this seems like both academics and playing all in one. And if she continue to do this all the time, I likely would not do a writing program at all, so long as she was learning to write on her own.

 

If she came to you and asked you to help her create a menu for some alien guests, or a code of conduct for an all-girls club, would you consider that play? Why not a report on the Treaty of Paris? I think you're right that some of the disconnect might be the idea that learning and play are separate. One is a chore, the other is a pleasure. Unschoolers get to have them both be a pleasure, even when it is a chore.

[Iucounu]

No one suggested that learning and play are necessarily separate; that's a misstatement of an opposing position and nothing more. It's been stated that sometimes children should learn things they may not naturally want to learn, and that sometimes in life we need to do things that aren't fun, but those aren't the same as a bare statement that learning and play are separate.

 

The disconnect occurred only because of the suggestion that all learning is and/or should be play, followed by an attempt to redefine that term.

[Veritaserum]

If she came to you and asked you to help her create a menu for some alien guests, or a code of conduct for an all-girls club, would you consider that play? Why not a report on the Treaty of Paris? I think you're right that some of the disconnect might be the idea that learning and play are separate. One is a chore, the other is a pleasure. Unschoolers get to have them both be a pleasure, even when it is a chore.

 

Unschoolers do not hold a monopoly on pleasant or enjoyable learning. ;) My scheduled, structured children are not tortured by their lessons in grammar, math, or whatever. Just because it wasn't their idea to learn about prepositional phrases doesn't mean that they will hate it or not enjoy it. Sometimes they have lessons that are difficult and challenging. They may want to quit. I encourage them and help them through. They find satisfaction on the other side.

 

As a musician, I know that practicing my scales and arpeggios helps my performance of actual pieces. Scales and arpeggios are boring, but I know I need to drill them. When I learn a new piece I may encounter very difficult sections that must be worked on again and again before I can play through smoothly. That can be frustrating, but I know it is necessary if I want to master the piece. The enjoyment of this process is often delayed until I have mastered the work of music. I find satisfaction in having done the hard work. Playing that piece becomes fun because it becomes easy.

 

There are times that I do simply play with music. While enjoyable and fun, those playful sessions are unlikely to increase my skills in the same way that formal practice does. I see unschooling in the same light.

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

I enjoyed your thought provoking post. Thank you.

[TippyCanoe]

.

[Pen]

Wow! I was away briefly and came back to much food for thought!

 

Okay. I had studied what I thought to be unschooling, John Holt and such, and thought it did not work for us. But now I am not sure I even know what it is anymore.

 

1) Let me describe something, and could someone tell me if it is or is not unschooling (for added benefit to OP it had to do with a farm, and whatever it was or wasn't as to type of schooling seemed good to me):

 

A family I knew with 3 children lived on a farm. They called what they did unschooling, would you agree and why or why not? The eldest was "into" gymnastics, which could not be pursued on the farm, so she went to live in a city where it could be pursued and lived with friends there, and attended a bm school, which she had some say in choosing, within what her parents could afford and what existed in the area where the friends she was living with lived.

 

The younger 2 lived on the farm. They learned by doing things around the farm with their parents, for example, I recall math was being learned by working on building with the father and involved measuring and setting angles and so on--and it was clear the way he was doing it that he was going out of his way to make sure there was plenty of math to do in the project. However, I also know that at one point the parents came to realize that reading had been neglected and so assigned reading to be done, with assistance to learn how to read--and this used books etc. (there were no LD's so it was not particularly hard once it was realized that it needed attention). Other than that reading part, I think everything was learning by doing, and interests of the children did govern whether they were working with Dad on the buildings or Mom with the animals and vegetables. There was not any TV so that was not an issue. It certainly had a child driven aspect whether that was to choose to live in town or on the farm, and there was no or almost no use of standard curricula materials, OTOH, it was not necessarily "play".

 

The 3 children are now young adults. The eldest is a stay at home mom now homeschooling her own oldest. The middle boy has become a builder. The youngest boy is taking over the farm gradually from his parents. So, whatever type of schooling it was they seem to have done fine.

 

2) How (specifically) do unschooler parents deal with introducing things like the reading (as above) so that the children are not without such capacities, but so that it still counts as unschool?

 

3) John Holt wrote about things like the seriousness with which a musical instrument would get studied by someone unschooling...how is that fostered in unschooled children if it does not seem to come naturally to a particular child?

 

4) Whereas the farm situation above was suited to the children's interests, "play" was not necessarily much a part of it. OTOH, other forms of education use "play" a lot (like Waldorf), but are very much done as an adult determined and led education with very little scope for child initiative. How does that compare?

 

5) And finally, my most personally important question, how does one get the child to take hold of his/her own learning. To start having more intrinsic motivation rather than to do it because they have to, on the one hand, nor, on the other, for the parent to just shrug, and say well, I guess this child is just meant to live life with a sign asking for handouts on some street corner. Not all children do seem to have that "natural" tendency to pursue learning that unschool advocates seem to believe they have.

[TippyCanoe]

.

But here's how I've always thought about it: pretend learning is like eating. Do I let my kids eat anything they want, any time they want? Of course not, they'd eat junk food and no protein and be really unbalanced and unhealthy. They rely on me to give them what they need, whether they realize and appreciate it or not.

 

It is funny you chose this metaphor, because the radical unschoolers say that you should indeed allow you kid to eat whatever they want, whenever they want. If they want to stay up to 4 in the morning every day playing video games eating junk food, the parents' job is to make "monkey platters" of high cal food always within reach of the child, so they can grab and eat without any distractions for the video game. Somehow the child will learn that this food makes them feel ill and will voluntarily switch to a healthy diet. I am not making this up.

Edited May 15, 2012 by GGardner

[EMS83]

I don't have much to add, except that if you want to stay home bad enough, you'll make it work, and you don't have to unschool to do it! Also, look at what you could be more frugal about around the house if you don't already do frugal things. If unschooling is what you want to do, go for it. But if somewhere in the middle is what you really want, I promise you can manage without the second income unless you have tons of debt or live in a ridiculously expensive area. Mine are still at the beginning of the process, but we are doing a lot of stuff ourselves, or using very moderately priced all-in-one programs (Phonics Pathways, Growing with Grammar, Math Mammoth when it gets too difficult to DIY). The general plan is $500/year (total, not per kid). A small farm sounds awesome! Whatever you decide to do, good luck!! I'm all about moms being awesome at home. I would like a small farm too, but I'm afraid of chickens. :D

[LaughingCat]

To occupy oneself in amusement, sport, or other recreation

 

I don't get the insistence that this definition means that "play" must consist only of light amusement and games, apparently ignoring the other parts of the definition. Very often occupying oneself in "sport or other recreation" involves a lot of work. And it certainly allows for the description of the child creating a club that researches and writes reports or the kids down the street who wrote their own newspaper for a year to still be considered "playing".

 

FWIW: recreation: 1. refreshment of health or spirits by relaxation and enjoyment 2. an activity or pastime that promotes this

 

 

You only have to look at the many free technical forums on the web to see that there are a lot of people who refresh their spirits by enjoying a very work intensive activity.

 

Also I have to disagree with this statement:

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.

because people can and do create strong abilities later in life when the interest or desire is there. The fact that it is not the "standard" or has other negative ramifications (starting a musical instrument or sport later in life tends to be self-limiting), does not negate that it can and does happen.

 

 

In fact I think it is the very fact that these things actually do happen (learning via play and learning via interest) that make unschooling such an attractive proposition - because when they happen there is much enjoyment involved in the learning.

 

 

 

However I do have to agree that relying on interest and play to create a well-rounded educated child seems to be an unlikely chance. For some children, strewing their paths with opportunities might be all it takes, but I believe the majority of children require a little more pushing than that. And for some parents setting up natural learning circumstances comes easily, but for many of us it does not.

 

 

 

I do believe in following interest, learning by play and strewing the path with opportunities but I definitely teach as well and "make" DD9 do things she would strongly prefer not to. In fact "strewing" does not come naturally to me and so far DD9 does not show propensity for driving her own learning, so I expect I will never be considered even close to being an unschooler :lol:

 

 

For OP, I am in agreement with many others on this thread - the cost of homeschooling is not related to whether you are an unschooler or not.

[Iucounu]

I don't get the insistence that this definition means that "play" must consist only of light amusement and games... FWIW: recreation: 1. refreshment of health or spirits by relaxation and enjoyment 2. an activity or pastime that promotes this

Why don't you get it? I'm just sticking to the dictionary definition, instead of redefining "play" to mean "anything that's enjoyed". If you're going to cherry-pick a definition from the Collins English Dictionary, certainly not the last word on the definition of anything, you've got to include the whole definition to be honest:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/recreation

 

"recreation [ˌrɛkrɪˈeɪʃən]n1. refreshment of health or spirits by relaxation and enjoyment

2. an activity or pastime that promotes this

3. (Social Science / Education)a. an interval of free time between school lessons

b. (as modifier) recreation period

 

 

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003"

 

 

It's quite simple. Rigorous study, even when enjoyable, is not play just because it's enjoyed; otherwise the word "play" loses its meaning. Nobody who enjoys their job tells their friends, except perhaps in a joking way, that they're off to play. Why do you think that is? Because "work" has a certain meaning in a particular context, for which it is a label; other words have different meanings, for which they are labels for thos other meanings.

 

Also I have to disagree with this statement: because people can and do create strong abilities later in life when the interest or desire is there.

You can disagree, but you can't disagree and be right. Developing strong math ability, in the opinion of actual experts on the subject, is done by long preparation in laying a foundation based on years of study, not a bare-bones attempt to scrape by in adulthood when one's academic failings come to the fore.

 

In addition though the unschooling community is rife with anecdotes about children acquiring whole bodies of skill in short order in adulthood, in my opinion it is simply dishonest to suggest that this happens often or that the results are as good as those obtained by laying a proper academic foundation. The way this would have to happen is that a child would have to lack any interest in a subject into adulthood, then build up knowledge of abstract concepts based on many that came before in a very short time.

 

Sorry-- that's so obviously false that we can't have a reasonable argument over it. It doesn't work that way with math, nor with language skills. One could acquire a bastardized version of skill in these areas through quick study, but that's not mastery. There are self-taught people who achieve deep mastery, but that occurs through deep focus over time.

 

Like it or not, there are indeed subjects that take a good deal of time to master. One does a child a disservice by letting their childhood inclinations, whether those are to play video games or create flies for fishing, realistically rule out whole areas of possible later study in college. This involves the tradeoff of a sound academic foundation for the hope that the child will gain so much in inner drive that the foundation won't matter; all the failure stories show this is a mistake.

[Tracy]

I don't get the insistence that this definition means that "play" must consist only of light amusement and games, apparently ignoring the other parts of the definition. Very often occupying oneself in "sport or other recreation" involves a lot of work. And it certainly allows for the description of the child creating a club that researches and writes reports or the kids down the street who wrote their own newspaper for a year to still be considered "playing".

 

FWIW: recreation: 1. refreshment of health or spirits by relaxation and enjoyment 2. an activity or pastime that promotes this

 

You only have to look at the many free technical forums on the web to see that there are a lot of people who refresh their spirits by enjoying a very work intensive activity.

 

:iagree: I just don't see how one thing can be classified as play and another as not play, even though the purpose in both cases is recreation. Thank you, llolly, for articulating this in a way that I could not.

 

 

 

I do believe in following interest, learning by play and strewing the path with opportunities but I definitely teach as well and "make" DD9 do things she would strongly prefer not to. In fact "strewing" does not come naturally to me and so far DD9 does not show propensity for driving her own learning, so I expect I will never be considered even close to being an unschooler. :lol:

 

I think that this is key--the ability for the teacher to create those natural learning opportunities, and the propensity of the child to pursue them. There are children out there that are highly motivated and whose parents are excellent facilitators.

 

But I am like you, llolly, in not being a natural "strewer." I have kids that learn a great deal on their own, though, and I try to let them. But I am also aware that they purposely avoid their weak areas. So I create more structure around those weak areas and let them pursue their stronger areas with less requirements from me.

[Iucounu]

Here are a couple of other definitions for anyone still confused about the meanings of these basic terms:

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/play

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/recreation

[Iucounu]

:iagree: I just don't see how one thing can be classified as play and another as not play, even though the purpose in both cases is recreation. Thank you, llolly, for articulating this in a way that I could not.

You just have to go by the dictionary definitions, and it can help to use a bit of common sense.

 

Person A goes to a cubicle and does his drudgery-filled job each day. He does it for the money. Even an unschooler would not claim this was "play".

 

Person B goes to a cubicle next to person A and does the same sort of job. However, Person B enjoys the work. When asked "Where do you work?", Person B is able to correctly identify his place of employment; he is not struck dumb by confusion over the dictionary definitions of "play", "enjoyment", "recreation", "work", etc. When asked, "What are you playing at, there?", he might even proudly retort that he does a good job, even though he enjoys it.

 

Does Person B do the job just for the enjoyment, making it "recreation"? Of course not. He mainly does it because he gets paid; and even though he also enjoys having money, the fruits of his labor, that doesn't magically transform the labor into "play".

 

Person B is so infectious in describing the merits of the job each day that eventually he wins Person A over. Person A thereafter goes to work with a song in his heart; though he now is convinced that he enjoys every second, he performs the exact same set of physical actions that he did previously. Though he enjoys his work, he is doing it for the rewards that come from work, not primarily as recreation. Like Person B, at no point is Person A struck dumb and unable to answer when someone asks where he works. When asked if his job is play, if he is honest, he replies that he works, though he enjoys his work.

 

We can twist words all day long, but it doesn't get us anywhere valuable. In this specific discussion context, an unschooler making an assertion that children learn (or learn best) through play is basing it on information from John Holt etc., who by no miracle based their ideas on early childhoold free play-- doing the sorts of activities people mean when they use the word "play", not a twisted version that's presented here in this thread. Don't argue with me; argue with the words of John Holt if you must.

 

The response is as stated: of course children can learn through play, but play is not necessary in order to learn and certainly not the way people normally learn advanced academic subjects such as higher math. Engaging in sophistry about people enjoying their studies, playing with (i.e. manipulating) models, etc. merely clouds the discussion. People learn best when they are focused appropriately on learning, and enjoying the process of learning is one way to achieve high motivation, but that doesn't mean all enjoyable learning is play.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Iucounu

[albeto]

2) How (specifically) do unschooler parents deal with introducing things like the reading (as above) so that the children are not without such capacities, but so that it still counts as unschool?

 

Reading, like learning how to walk or ride a bike, is a great tool that opens up all kinds of opportunities. Kids are naturally curious and increasingly independent. There's no reason reading shouldn't be encouraged in a natural setting. Letters and words are all around us and there are many ways to foster this interest.

 

3) John Holt wrote about things like the seriousness with which a musical instrument would get studied by someone unschooling...how is that fostered in unschooled children if it does not seem to come naturally to a particular child?

 

Something comes naturally to each child. This is likely one of the biggest stumbling blocks for traditionalists to wrap their heads around. The idea that something could have value is limited to its academic value, traditionally. A child who loves to play the piano or violin finds her time respected but a child who loves to play minecraft doesn't. The philosophy behind unschooling is that within the child's area of interest, information is forthcoming. Within music, there is the opportunity to learn biographies of certain mentors. Biographies lead to history, to whatever interests those mentors had, maybe the technology of instruments, maybe the history of the waltz. An interest in minecraft leads to discussion and exploration of engineering, computer programming, and whatever interests friends on the forums introduce a child to. Because kids have a wide range of interest, these things aren't exclusive and can be used to open up all kinds of new experiences.

 

4) Whereas the farm situation above was suited to the children's interests, "play" was not necessarily much a part of it. OTOH, other forms of education use "play" a lot (like Waldorf), but are very much done as an adult determined and led education with very little scope for child initiative. How does that compare?

 

I'm not familiar with Waldorf, but there is ample opportunity on the farm to play! Children are born with vivid imaginations. This imagination is what inspires creativity and novel approaches to familiar things. Play can be done while doing the chores.

 

5) And finally, my most personally important question, how does one get the child to take hold of his/her own learning. To start having more intrinsic motivation rather than to do it because they have to, on the one hand, nor, on the other, for the parent to just shrug, and say well, I guess this child is just meant to live life with a sign asking for handouts on some street corner. Not all children do seem to have that "natural" tendency to pursue learning that unschool advocates seem to believe they have.

 

I think children do have it, but most of us have been trained to suppress it for the sake of a different kind of success. Learning to suppress one's impulses for the sake of receiving a greater reward at the end of a 40 min lesson (or two week work period) is what contributes to loosing this innate desire for learning. For this reason, unschoolers who are coming into the philosophy from another angle are encouraged to take it slowly, read a lot, ask a lot, observe a lot, try a little at a time, and deschool. Deschooling is understood as allowing a time for the child to pursue what s/he wants to pursue. I've heard "one month for every year of school" but I think that works best when used in accordance to the parent's school experience, not the child's. The parent is the one who has to learn to interpret learning in an unconventional way, not the child.

 

It's very time intensive for parents. They will help their children much more if they're involved with their children's interests. That means hanging out with the kid who plays music, taking him/her to musical events, going to places that introduce different kinds of musical traditions, familiarizing themselves with the history of these different traditions (geography, politics, history, science, and languages are, off the top of my head, subjects that can and do accompany these experiences). The kid who plays minecraft would have a parent who is interested in their latest creation, a desire to explore how to program different things, how to make one's own computer a server, what other computer programming can one do with the tools they have. The parent would be encouraging the child to learn more about computer programming and technology. How can they explore safely using the tools they have? From who can they learn more? The parent becomes a facilitator in the process, helping the child identify and solve problems along the way.

 

One interest can produce an explosion of desire for learning. The parent's role in this is to expose the child to as many opportunities for experiences as possible, constantly working through problems, challenges, and other obstacles with the child. In this way, the child learns other skills such as perseverance, respect for others, conflict resolution, learning how to gain information (youtube tutorials, books, mentors, tinkering in the garage, etc).

 

I think I missed your first question. It seems to me going to school isn't unschooling, even if the child desires it. It doesn't mean it's wrong, just that one can be in school and not in school at the same time, kwim?

[albeto]

It is funny you chose this metaphor, because the radical unschoolers say that you should indeed allow you kid to eat whatever they want, whenever they want. If they want to stay up to 4 in the morning every day playing video games eating junk food, the parents' job is to make "monkey platters" of high cal food always within reach of the child, so they can grab and eat without any distractions for the video game. Somehow the child will learn that this food makes them feel ill and will voluntarily switch to a healthy diet. I am not making this up.

 

That bolded part is not accurate. "Monkey Platters" is no different than "snack foods." My husband comes home from work and we eat late. He's hungry, some sliced carrots and spread are a nice snack. Add some grapes, sliced apples and peanut butter, crackers and cream cheese and with a slice of salome (or whatever you have on hand), and you have yourself a "monkey platter." This doesn't mean families don't eat together at the table, it means if a child stays up late, there's some healthy food for him or her.

 

To intentional[/b]ly make a child feel ill is a rather passive aggressive way to coerce a child into behaving in a way that pleases a parent. Radical unschooling is the exact opposite of that. No coercion. No manipulation. Simple cause and effect, learning how to solve conflicts with mutual respect - that's the goal of radical unschoolers.

[Iucounu]

"Monkey platters" can be filled with healthy foods, but of course many unschoolers also let their children eat whatever they like, including junk foods. Here's a search on "monkey platter" and "junk food".

 

One of my faves:

Right now we are stuck on food. I know that I will have a hard time letting go in this area. The TV, that wasn't hard. But food...this is more concerning to me. We try to eat whole foods and organic when we can afford it, but my husband likes to have chips and similar snack foods, and I eat my fair share of cookies and candy. Here's the problem--suddenly my daughter wants to eat nothing but chips, candy, and cookies.

 

:drool5::drool5::drool5:

 

:nopity:

[TippyCanoe]

.

[Iucounu]

Iucounu, I can certainly see that play is separate from work FOR YOU. Fine and dandy; that's perfectly legitimate, for you and for others who think in the same way and divide their lives/activities into those categories. But I fail to understand why therefore it must necessarily be that way for EVERYONE else, that we all must buy into your particular definition of play and no other, that anyone who disagrees with you is simply dead wrong, that professionals who publicly describe their own work in terms of play are wrong or dishonest, etc. etc.

It's not about buying into my definition; it's about accepting the standard definition without trying to skew things. Either play is play, and children learn some things, especially early on in their development, through play; or play is any enjoyment, when it makes more sense to simply say that learning goes well when it's enjoyable. Structured learning can be quite enjoyable even when it's not play; splitting nonexistent hairs helps no one, and clouds the discussion.

 

I, and others people who have been explaining unschooling and talking about learning as play (although it can also include self-chosen "work") in this thread, are talking about their experiences, about published accounts, about people they know.

You'd present your position in a much more straightforward fashion if you simply stated that an aim of unschooling is to make learning enjoyable. There's no need to confuse the matter with talk of play, in clearly inappropriate contexts. When someone exposes the inaccuracy, don't try to claim that enjoying a study of higher math turns it into play; just say that what you mean is that enjoying your study is a good thing.

 

In part this is a plea for some unschooling advocates here to stop trying to come off as wiser than they are and stop presenting unschooling as having empirical support it lacks, and to simply discuss things in a down-to-earth and honest way.

 

They are not trying to insist that unschooling is the only source of true education, that it is best and right for every person on earth, that it consists entirely and exclusively of play, or that they are the possessors of some educational wisdom no one else has.

Oh yes they are. I recall someone in this thread stating for instance that children learn through play and that she "knows no other way".

 

ETA: Ah, here we are, an unschooling advocate speaking in absolutes, asserting that unschooling is the natural way to learn, asserting hard facts without support, using rhetorical flourishes, and suggesting that her way is the only good way:

 

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. :)

 

They're explaining how unschoolers see the world, how they go about learning, how it works for their own children -- not claiming that this is the ultimate single right way to become educated.

I disagree strongly, just as I object to stating opinions in support of unschooling as fact without providing any support.

 

One thing that has always struck me about unschooling advocates is that they have a hard time admitting that unschooling has any weaknesses at all. Children don't always turn out well-rounded? Well, when they get to college they will be able to fill in any holes as necessary; there is no value to a strong academic foundation that traditionally takes years to accomplish, or it is providable magically within a very short time on demand due to the intense drive of the unschooled. If that fails? Well, that person who failed out of college was just meant to be a handyman, or a garbageperson, or two-bit artist, and their true path just never included academics, as proven by their path. And so it goes; in addition a persistent thread is indeed that ALL people are naturally their own best teachers, even in childhood.

 

Also, the full dictionary definition you cited relegates the "social science/education" definition of play to the last space, because that's not the common or widely accepted definition of the term; it's specific to education-speak

It's specific to an educational context. No more of the sophistry and apologetics, please-- just accept that the previously presented cherry-picked entry had the key part left out for a reason.

 

We can have an honest discussion, or we can go round and round on this, with me pointing out the truth and you trying to redefine the English language. It's simpler not to redefine the English language, and to just discuss things truthfully.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Iucounu

[Kathryn]

It's not about buying into my definition; it's about accepting the standard definition without trying to skew things. Either play is play, and children learn some things, especially early on in their development, through play; or play is any enjoyment, when it makes more sense to simply say that learning goes well when it's enjoyable. Structured learning can be quite enjoyable even when it's not play; splitting nonexistent hairs helps no one, and clouds the discussion.

 

You'd present your position in a much more straightforward fashion if you simply stated that an aim of unschooling is to make learning enjoyable. There's no need to confuse the matter with talk of play, in clearly inappropriate contexts. When someone exposes the inaccuracy, don't try to claim that enjoying a study of higher math turns it into play; just say that what you mean is that enjoying your study is a good thing.

 

In part this is a plea for some unschooling advocates here to stop trying to come off as wiser than they are and stop presenting unschooling as having empirical support it lacks, and to simply discuss things in a down-to-earth and honest way.

 

Oh yes they are. I recall someone in this thread stating for instance that children learn through play and that she "knows no other way".

 

ETA: Ah, here we are, an unschooling advocate speaking in absolutes, asserting that unschooling is the natural way to learn, asserting hard facts without support, using rhetorical flourishes, and suggesting that her way is the only good way:

 

 

 

I disagree strongly, just as I object to stating opinions in support of unschooling as fact without providing any support.

 

One thing that has always struck me about unschooling advocates is that they have a hard time admitting that unschooling has any weaknesses at all. Children don't always turn out well-rounded? Well, when they get to college they will be able to fill in any holes as necessary; there is no value to a strong academic foundation that traditionally takes years to accomplish, or it is providable magically within a very short time on demand due to the intense drive of the unschooled. If that fails? Well, that person who failed out of college was just meant to be a handyman, or a garbageperson, or two-bit artist, and their true path just never included academics, as proven by their path. And so it goes; in addition a persistent thread is indeed that ALL people are naturally their own best teachers, even in childhood.

 

It's specific to an educational context. No more of the sophistry and apologetics, please-- just accept that the previously presented cherry-picked entry had the key part left out for a reason.

 

We can have an honest discussion, or we can go round and round on this, with me pointing out the truth and you trying to redefine the English language. It's simpler not to redefine the English language, and to just discuss things truthfully.

 

As much as it pains me to admit this, because I think she's being terribly argumentative and I don't see the point in it, Iucounu is right here. I've looked up the word "play" in several dictionaries and I've not found any definition in which it can honestly be used correctly in the way that people are using it on this thread. I agree that it's being confused with the word "enjoy." I agree with her other points in this post as well.

[albeto]

You'd present your position in a much more straightforward fashion if you simply stated that an aim of unschooling is to make learning enjoyable.

 

This isn't the aim of unschooling. Learning happens. It's part of human nature. It's what makes us intelligent creatures. Unschooling isn't about making that learning fun, it's about exposing opportunities for the learning to happen naturally, without relying on formally imposed pedagogic schedules.

 

When someone exposes the inaccuracy, don't try to claim that enjoying a study of higher math turns it into play; just say that what you mean is that enjoying your study is a good thing.

 

Higher maths may not be a source of amusement and fun for you, but your experience isn't universal. There are people who do enjoy challenging themselves with math. As a personal example, my son memorized some twenty amino acids years ago for fun. He was like 13, and students in college do this because it's required for a good grade on an upcoming exam. For them, not fun. For my son, fun. Same information learned. It would be silly for them to say memorizing the amino acids isn't fun. Learning is neutral, we subjectively determine its value.

 

In part this is a plea for some unschooling advocates here to stop trying to come off as wiser than they are,

 

Wow, I really touched a raw nerve with you, didn't I?

 

 

and to present unschooling as having empirical support it lacks, and simply discuss things in a down-to-earth and honest way.

 

I am unaware of empirical research done on the subject. I am aware of behavioral sciences that show learning is retained longer when done in conjunction with tangible stimuli, exploration is suppressed when an authority states information rather than letting children explore information, that children as young as 18 months interpret the world through statistical expectations, etc. Using these natural human developments outside the classroom to teach the information offered formally inside the classroom isn't suggesting this is the very bestest thing in the whole wide world with no exception. It suggests learning sufficient information for preparation for satisfactory adulthood [subjectively determined] outside the classroom is possible.

 

Oh yes they are. I recall someone in this thread stating for instance that children learn through play and that she "knows no other way".

 

I can't find this quote anywhere on this thread except here. Can you link to the post please?

 

One thing that has always struck me about unschooling advocates is that they have a hard time admitting that unschooling has any weaknesses at all.

 

Link please?

 

Well, when they get to college they will be able to fill in any holes as necessary;

 

Same as with conventional school, they will learn new things in college. Same as with conventional school, students unprepared for college level education will not do well.

 

there is no value to a strong academic foundation that traditionally takes years to accomplish, or it is providable magically within a very short time on demand due to the intense drive of the unschooled.

 

Again, wrong. If you think math can only be learned in a school setting, you're incorrect. If you think foreign languages can only be learned in a school setting, you're incorrect. If you think history can only be learned in a school setting, you're incorrect. Unschooling values learning outside the classroom environment, it does not value an absence of learning.

 

If that fails? Well, that person who failed out of college was just meant to be a handyman, or a garbageperson, or two-bit artist,

 

Why do you assume handymen, service providers or artists are failures? Unschooling isn't offered as a sure track to academic glory but as a means to provide a child with the skills s/he will use for a satisfying life according to their definition of what satisfying is.

 

and their true path just never included academics, as proven by their path.

 

These comments speak about your personal values - academic proficiency being high. Unschooling isn't designed to help the parent guide their child into what the parent thinks is best, it's designed to allow the child to develop a vast knowledge of those things that are inherently interesting to that child, allowing them the opportunity to organize information such that they can support themselves as adults.

 

And so it goes; in addition a persistent thread is indeed that ALL people are naturally their own best teachers, even in childhood.

 

Unschooling does differ from conventional philosophy that suggests children are empty slates, ignorant and amoral and without direction. Instead, it employs the philosophy that suggests children are constantly learning, eager to apply knowledge critically, natural explorers, and socially wired to be interdependent with others.

[stripe]

It is funny you chose this metaphor, because the radical unschoolers say that you should indeed allow you kid to eat whatever they want, whenever they want. If they want to stay up to 4 in the morning every day playing video games eating junk food, the parents' job is to make "monkey platters" of high cal food always within reach of the child, so they can grab and eat without any distractions for the video game. Somehow the child will learn that this food makes them feel ill and will voluntarily switch to a healthy diet. I am not making this up.

I've seen this too. I have never been able to comprehend why the mother is supposed to race around preparing someone else's food and all the rest.

[Pen]

Reading, like learning how to walk or ride a bike, is a great tool that opens up all kinds of opportunities. Kids are naturally curious and increasingly independent. There's no reason reading shouldn't be encouraged in a natural setting. Letters and words are all around us and there are many ways to foster this interest.

How do you "encourage" reading in a natural setting without violating the precepts of "unschooling" as you understand unschooling. I mean specifically. Would you mean that a family like the one I described would have their kids learn on seed catalogues? Letters and words are not all around everyone--this is a huge presumption to make. That may be true in a city situation, though I am not even sure of that for everyone. It is certainly not true of most households in the rural area where I live. Nor are there any billboards nor many business signs around. There are some street signs. There are words on products labels. Maybe someone could become a good reader based on just street signs and product labels, but I kind of doubt it.

 

 

 

 

Something comes naturally to each child. I've seen many children where what comes naturally when they have no structure is vandalism, however. ETA this is not intended as anger toward you Albeto or anything if it comes across that way. This is just honestly something that I have observed. Kids without structure, without things they are required to be doing, often fall into very destructive behaviour patterns, and it can be much worse than watching non-stop video. The issue of eating candy instead of healthy food has been raised, sodas instead of water or a healthier beverage. But that is not all that can happen without structure as to food choices--it could also be alcohol instead of either soda pop or a healthier beverage. This is likely one of the biggest stumbling blocks for traditionalists to wrap their heads around. The idea that something could have value is limited to its academic value, traditionally. Well, not for me. I still don't know if it was "unschooling" or not, but the family I described I think did well, though academics did not play a strong role. All of them ended up with a path to follow. None went to college, and probably cannot write an essay, but they can be a mom, build a house, or do most of what it takes to run a farm, all admirable in my opinion. I don't really think the world needs another investment banker or even mathematician any more than it could use a good farmer, or a loving mom, or a capable builder. A child who loves to play the piano or violin finds her time respected but a child who loves to play minecraft doesn't. The philosophy behind unschooling is that within the child's area of interest, information is forthcoming. Within music, there is the opportunity to learn biographies of certain mentors. Biographies lead to history, to whatever interests those mentors had, maybe the technology of instruments, maybe the history of the waltz. An interest in minecraft leads to discussion and exploration of engineering, computer programming, and whatever interests friends on the forums introduce a child to. Because kids have a wide range of interest, these things aren't exclusive and can be used to open up all kinds of new experiences.

 

 

 

I'm not familiar with Waldorf, but there is ample opportunity on the farm to play! Well, yes. But it was a lot of hard work, as in get up at 5AM, no matter what the weather, and start working. Sure, it can be considered play, especially for someone who pays for a chance to spend a week on a dude ranch or a summer at a farm oriented camp. For most people actually doing farm work it is quite a lot of work, day in and day out. It also tends to be healthy, enjoyable, and soul satisfying work, if it is a homestead type organic farm as this one was, not the sort of thing where migrant child labor is forced to do the same thing over and over on a large indsustrial farm. Children are born with vivid imaginations. This imagination is what inspires creativity and novel approaches to familiar things. Play can be done while doing the chores.

 

 

 

...

 

It's very time intensive for parents. They will help their children much more if they're involved with their children's interests. That means hanging out with the kid who plays music, taking him/her to musical events, going to places that introduce different kinds of musical traditions, familiarizing themselves with the history of these different traditions (geography, politics, history, science, and languages are, off the top of my head, subjects that can and do accompany these experiences). The kid who plays minecraft would have a parent who is interested in their latest creation, a desire to explore how to program different things, how to make one's own computer a server, what other computer programming can one do with the tools they have. The parent would be encouraging the child to learn more about computer programming and technology. How can they explore safely using the tools they have? From who can they learn more? The parent becomes a facilitator in the process, helping the child identify and solve problems along the way.

 

That would tend to suggest that by this idea of unschooling it would not work for OP...that it would be way too hard on top of trying to deal with a new situation in the country, having some health issues perhaps and so on. Though what the people did who I described and who called what they did "unschooling" might work for OP

 

 

.seems to me going to school isn't unschooling, even if the child desires it. It doesn't mean it's wrong, just that one can be in school and not in school at the same time, kwim?

 

Well, no, actually I don't nkow what you mean here, maybe you can explain more and I would. It seems to me that if a child desires it, then it can fit with "unschooling" just as much as choosing to read a book,or choosing to play a computer game, or attending a high school or community college class, or taking a violin lesson can fit with unschooling. Or are you only allowing totally pure self education to count? The child has to work out how to play the piano for themselves, no piano teacher or instruction allowed, The child has to work out the principles of mathematics, invent the zero, invent written language, etc. ???? I don't think that is the way you are dealing with your own children from what you described. Or is unschooling only appropriate for people who live in culturally rich environments where there are plenty of museums, musical events to attend, etc. etc., and have full time available to help the children follow the children's own interests? And then we come again to if it is the latter, it would seem that it would probably not work for the OP.

 

Certainly I think Sudbury and Summerhill type bm schools see themselves as fitting with unschool philosophies. Interestingly though the daughter did not choose Sudbury even though there was one available in the city she went to. Then again the school she did choose was another alternative school, not at all traditional.

Edited May 15, 2012 by Pen

[Iucounu]

As much as it pains me to admit this, because I think she's being terribly argumentative and I don't see the point in it, Iucounu is right here.

I apologize, and will bow out of further discussions in this thread but will continue to read with interest. Sometimes I get a bit of tunnel vision, and I can be excessively insistent on fairness. Sorry. :blushing:

[LaughingCat]

As much as it pains me to admit this, because I think she's being terribly argumentative and I don't see the point in it, Iucounu is right here. I've looked up the word "play" in several dictionaries and I've not found any definition in which it can honestly be used correctly in the way that people are using it on this thread.

 

See, what I see is Iucounu arguing that if something involves ANY work that automatically makes it not play --- whereas my point at least is merely that play can include work, even hard work, that the definition does not preclude that. All I am saying is - it is possible to be working hard AND learning AND still be playing.

[albeto]

How do you "encourage" reading in a natural setting without violating the precepts of "unschooling" as you understand unschooling. I mean specifically. Would you mean that a family like the one I described would have their kids learn on seed catalogues? Letters and words are not all around everyone--this is a huge presumption to make. That may be true in a city situation, though I am not even sure of that for everyone. It is certainly not true of most households in the rural area where I live. Nor are there any billboards nor many business signs around. There are some street signs. There are words on products labels. Maybe someone could become a good reader based on just street signs and product labels, but I kind of doubt it.

 

Okay, I see your point. I don't live in a rural area, although I grew up in a small, rural town, there were no billboards (or even stop lights!). I'm assuming there is writing, books, catalogs, etching one's name in the sand, etc. I don't know how people unschool in very rural areas without access to things like books. How did pioneer and homesteaders teach their children literacy before the school houses opened?

 

Something comes naturally to each child. I've seen many children where what comes naturally when they have no structure is vandalism, however. ETA this is not intended as anger toward you Albeto or anything if it comes across that way. This is just honestly something that I have observed. Kids without structure, without things they are required to be doing, often fall into very destructive behaviour patterns, and it can be much worse than watching non-stop video. The issue of eating candy instead of healthy food has been raised, sodas instead of water or a healthier beverage. But that is not all that can happen without structure as to food choices--it could also be alcohol instead of either soda pop or a healthier beverage.

 

Unschooling does not equal no structure. One can have a very predictable, structured environment. On another thread around here someone posted some things she does with her family that are, in my opinion, examples of structured living. But let's not forget that poor eating habits and destructive behaviors are not limited to unschoolers. I suspect that reality suggests there are other motives to [self]destructive behaviors. I personally think it might be more directly related to stress and not having the skills to effectively and socially appropriately address things that are stressful in life. Structure helps to keep that stress down because predictability is equated with security for many people (spontaneity being equated with adventure for others), but it's not the only means of addressing those things that cause stress.

 

Well, no, actually I don't nkow what you mean here, maybe you can explain more and I would. It seems to me that if a child desires it, then it can fit with "unschooling" just as much as choosing to read a book,or choosing to play a computer game, or attending a high school or community college class, or taking a violin lesson can fit with unschooling. Or are you only allowing totally pure self education to count? The child has to work out how to play the piano for themselves, no piano teacher or instruction allowed, The child has to work out the principles of mathematics, invent the zero, invent written language, etc. ???? I don't think that is the way you are dealing with your own children from what you described. Or is unschooling only appropriate for people who live in culturally rich environments where there are plenty of museums, musical events to attend, etc. etc., and have full time available to help the children follow the children's own interests? And then we come again to if it is the latter, it would seem that it would probably not work for the OP.

 

In my opinion, a child taking a class through the local high school, community college, or online would be part of unschooling. Being in a school where each subject is organized ahead of time and formally taught, would not. I don't put any value on either one as a choice, just trying to compartmentalize the two, or at least offer my own compartments.

 

Certainly I think Sudbury and Summerhill type bm schools see themselves as fitting with unschool philosophies. Interestingly though the daughter did not choose Sudbury even though there was one available in the city she went to. Then again the school she did choose was another alternative school, not at all traditional.

 

What's a "bm" school?

 

My daughter wants to go to the local charter school which is project based. She's working to that goal. She picks up her math text book and works on the next chapter as she is motivated. I do consider that unschooling. When she's in class 7 hours per day, I will not consider that unschooling, even though it's her choice.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

You just have to go by the dictionary definitions, and it can help to use a bit of common sense.

 

Person A goes to a cubicle and does his drudgery-filled job each day. He does it for the money. Even an unschooler would not claim this was "play".

 

Person B goes to a cubicle next to person A and does the same sort of job. However, Person B enjoys the work. When asked "Where do you work?", Person B is able to correctly identify his place of employment; he is not struck dumb by confusion over the dictionary definitions of "play", "enjoyment", "recreation", "work", etc. When asked, "What are you playing at, there?", he might even proudly retort that he does a good job, even though he enjoys it.

 

Does Person B do the job just for the enjoyment, making it "recreation"? Of course not. He mainly does it because he gets paid; and even though he also enjoys having money, the fruits of his labor, that doesn't magically transform the labor into "play".

 

Person B is so infectious in describing the merits of the job each day that eventually he wins Person A over. Person A thereafter goes to work with a song in his heart; though he now is convinced that he enjoys every second, he performs the exact same set of physical actions that he did previously. Though he enjoys his work, he is doing it for the rewards that come from work, not primarily as recreation. Like Person B, at no point is Person A struck dumb and unable to answer when someone asks where he works. When asked if his job is play, if he is honest, he replies that he works, though he enjoys his work.

 

We can twist words all day long, but it doesn't get us anywhere valuable. In this specific discussion context, an unschooler making an assertion that children learn (or learn best) through play is basing it on information from John Holt etc., who by no miracle based their ideas on early childhoold free play-- doing the sorts of activities people mean when they use the word "play", not a twisted version that's presented here in this thread. Don't argue with me; argue with the words of John Holt if you must.

 

The response is as stated: of course children can learn through play, but play is not necessary in order to learn and certainly not the way people normally learn advanced academic subjects such as higher math. Engaging in sophistry about people enjoying their studies, playing with (i.e. manipulating) models, etc. merely clouds the discussion. People learn best when they are focused appropriately on learning, and enjoying the process of learning is one way to achieve high motivation, but that doesn't mean all enjoyable learning is play.

 

Well, I really enjoyed this post. I very, very much enjoyed it, because I am now in the business of tutoring radically unschooled children who (just today!) were delighted to be finally told what subtraction even means. And one of my students informed me that she's noticed plankton doesn't come up in casual conversation very often so she's glad she's studying marine biology now. Her brother felt the same way about number lines. He never did play his way to a number line.

 

I apologize, and will bow out of further discussions in this thread but will continue to read with interest. Sometimes I get a bit of tunnel vision, and I can be excessively insistent on fairness. Sorry. :blushing:

 

I hope you'll talk about it in a different thread, then. I've been on your side for the whole fight, though I lack your passion on the topic.

[Matryoshka]

How did pioneer and homesteaders teach their children literacy before the school houses opened?

 

I think many used the Bible, as well as the standard McGuffy Readers, Webster Spellers, Ray's Arithmetic type books that were used in the schools (if they had access to them). Look at the Little House books - Laura's mother taught the kids explicitly, they had lesson times, they had to memorize a lot. When she did get to school, she just said where in the standard reader or speller she was.

 

This is also how she placed the kids who came to her when she was a teacher. If they hadn't had schooling at home, they had to start at the beginning. If they learned to read, it wasn't by unschooling.

 

ETA: I taught myself to read at 3, I realize that many kids are capable of that, but I was in a word-rich environment, books everywhere, and I was read to constantly. My dad, on the other hand, grew up on a rural farm with no books at all (except the Bible). I really don't see how unschooling reading would work in an environment like that.

Edited May 15, 2012 by matroyshka

[Kathryn]

I apologize, and will bow out of further discussions in this thread but will continue to read with interest. Sometimes I get a bit of tunnel vision, and I can be excessively insistent on fairness. Sorry. :blushing:

 

No need to apologize or bow out! I just think that you have developed a bit of tunnel vision on the "play" topic and it doesn't seem to be going anywhere with those you're arguing with. You did cause some of us to wonder what the big deal was and look it up ourselves and see that you were right, so it wasn't completely in vain.

[TippyCanoe]

.

Edited November 21, 2012 by Doodler

[momma2three]

I think many used the Bible, as well as the standard McGuffy Readers, Webster Spellers, Ray's Arithmetic type books that were used in the schools (if they had access to them). Look at the Little House books - Laura's mother taught the kids explicitly, they had lesson times, they had to memorize a lot. When she did get to school, she just said where in the standard reader or speller she was.

 

This is also how she placed the kids who came to her when she was a teacher. If they hadn't had schooling at home, they had to start at the beginning. If they learned to read, it wasn't by unschooling.

 

ETA: I taught myself to read at 3, I realize that many kids are capable of that, but I was in a word-rich environment, books everywhere, and I was read to constantly. My dad, on the other hand, grew up on a rural farm with no books at all (except the Bible). I really don't see how unschooling reading would work in an environment like that.

 

Honestly, unless they went to school, most were just illiterate. In sustenance farming, there just isn't very much time to sit around teaching your child the times tables. A pioneer woman was spending every minute of the day just making sure the family could survive. It was a very hard life.

 

The Ingalls girls had an "educated" mother, so they grew up in a household that valued education. They also lived near schools (despite what's in the books) and Laura started school when she was 3. Children who didn't live near schools usually got little education beyond memorizing a few prayers.

 

Access to formal education is one of the hallmarks of civilization, and it's something that most parents have strived to provide for their children throughout all of history. There has always been a drive, you can consider it evolutionary or social or whatever, to make sure your kids have opportunities that you don't. And that's pretty much always included schooling. As someone said earlier, it takes an awful lot of privilege to turn your back on that and decide that your kids can learn everything they know by just watching you do housework.

[albeto]

Well, I really enjoyed this post. I very, very much enjoyed it, because I am now in the business of tutoring radically unschooled children who (just today!) were delighted to be finally told what subtraction even means. And one of my students informed me that she's noticed plankton doesn't come up in casual conversation very often so she's glad she's studying marine biology now. Her brother felt the same way about number lines. He never did play his way to a number line.

 

The children you tutor are unschooled?

Edited May 16, 2012 by albeto

[Kathryn]

Honestly, unless they went to school, most were just illiterate. In sustenance farming, there just isn't very much time to sit around teaching your child the times tables. A pioneer woman was spending every minute of the day just making sure the family could survive. It was a very hard life.

 

The Ingalls girls had an "educated" mother, so they grew up in a household that valued education. They also lived near schools (despite what's in the books) and Laura started school when she was 3. Children who didn't live near schools usually got little education beyond memorizing a few prayers.

 

Access to formal education is one of the hallmarks of civilization, and it's something that most parents have strived to provide for their children throughout all of history. There has always been a drive, you can consider it evolutionary or social or whatever, to make sure your kids have opportunities that you don't. And that's pretty much always included schooling. As someone said earlier, it takes an awful lot of privilege to turn your back on that and decide that your kids can learn everything they know by just watching you do housework.

 

:iagree:

[AuntPol]

I think there are many myths about unschooling and much of it comes in because of the radical homeschooler movement. I've been on those groups and I disagree with much of their philosophy.

 

Children don't know what they need to know in the future. What about math/writing/foreign language that need years of practice.

 

I agree that children don't know. There is no unschooling law that says you can't tell them. If you work on your relationship and have one of mutual trust and they see that you are often right on other matters, then they are going to trust you when you say that you need 2-3 years of foreign language and you need to be ready to start Algebra in the 8th grade, etc if you want to get into college. My 7th grader attended a Getting Into College lecture this year and is fully aware that she will have to write an essay, take the SAT, what is on the SAT, etc.

 

Unschooling doesn't mean standing back and just waiting for them to find something. You often have to offer and sometimes you got to give a sales pitch with that offer!

 

Children won't learn to perservere through hard stuff

 

First of all, it is unclear to me why perserverance can only be taught via academics? My son has spent hours working out to get stronger and working on his baseball skills. Two years ago, he only got on base if he got lucky and was walked. He was not a good player at all. Now, he's one of the better catchers and a solid hitter. My daughter is working hard to get a split for her dance class. She works at it everyday. She thinks the stretches are boring but she does it anyway. She has spent hours decorating a cake only to have to start over because something went wrong.

 

Oh and my 6th grade son is perservering through radicals in algebra right now.

 

Children won't learn how to be bored or do boring stuff or just do things they don't want to do

 

Ummm. Dishes still need to be done. Bathrooms still need to be cleaned. Groceries need to be bought. We have to attend recitals or games of sibling. We have to make boring drives to visit family.

 

My kids also compromise with each other. Just today, my dd did swordfighting with my son so that he would be in her video. She also played Druidawn and he helped her make pretzels.

 

They will play video games or watch tv all day or eat junk food all the time

 

Now I know the Doddites won't approve of this but you can't eat junk food unless it's in the house. You can't watch tv unless you have one (or in our case, we have a tv but no cable or converter box to get local stations). Who is buying all these video games? YOU are the parent deciding what comes in your house in the first place.

 

My kids mostly want to play video games when a) It's new and they want to play it a few days and then it will get boring b) They are utterly bored and wanting to tune out c) I am ignoring them because I'm working (which usually leads to b lol)

 

If all they are wanting to do is play video games and it's not just a new game phase, then I know something is wrong. Unschooling is learning through life experiences and excessive video game is not experiencing real life, it's tuning out life.

[Lang Syne Boardie]

The children you tutor are unschooled?

 

Yes, that had been the parents' plan and understanding. They subscribed to their own interpretation of Moore's Better Late than Early and then continued with their own interpretation of unschooling.

 

If the point is that the parents' allowing or seeking help proves that they are not unschoolers, I entirely disagree. The kids in question are fourteen and sixteen years old. They've been asking their parents for help with school for years and the response has always been, "If you really want to learn you'll find a way." Only now the children are insisting, and the parents must concede that their children were not able to find a way without any help from them. They weren't able to teach themselves, after all, although in the girl's case she certainly tried.

 

I love John Holt. I re-read some of his books nearly every year, because Holt was my first exposure to homeschooling. My mother wanted very much to homeschool us but was unable to because of her other responsibilities, but she left Holt's books out where we could read them. I wanted to learn like that.

 

I notice, though, that in Holt's world when the child becomes interested in something the parent is at hand with a guiding word, a resource or two, or at least a suggestion where the child can go next with his curiosity if the child is so inclined. I could do that. My mother could have done that.

 

Some people can't do that. They don't understand, themselves, what the child is up to. They don't know to which branch of knowledge the subject belongs, or how to find further resources or help. Someone who can't even help to find answers when the child repeatedly asks for help should not be unschooling.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Tibbie Dunbar

[Pen]

Okay, I see your point. I don't live in a rural area, although I grew up in a small, rural town, there were no billboards (or even stop lights!). I'm assuming there is writing, books, catalogs, etching one's name in the sand, etc. I don't know how people unschool in very rural areas without access to things like books. How did pioneer and homesteaders teach their children literacy before the school houses opened? A PP answered the question for pioneer families very well, I think. Of course, many people in those days did not have the sorts of education that are now mostly legally mandated to at least theoretically be provided via compulsory schooling laws. And there was much illiteracy and innumeracy, but also many more avenues for a fullfilling life without needing such skills...Rose's friend, in the Rose series of books, for example, does not go to school.

 

As to rural area situation: I see relatively few books around except where people are homeschooling and have gone out of their way to get these. In that case the very choice made by the parents is already a form of directing the children toward what the parents think valuable. One could learn to write in the sand, I suppose. I think Frederick Douglass did that--but he had help by someone who already knew how to do what he wanted to do.

 

 

 

Unschooling does not equal no structure. One can have a very predictable, structured environment.

 

Could you explain, very specifically, how the structure is done without it being anything that is imposed by the parent on the children?Would it be something like, you do not have to do anything, but you cannot leave the house without supervision, perhaps? I don't see how the structure fits with the child deciding what to do and how and when and where freely. My recollection is that the Summerhill book author (cannot recall his name just now) said he allowed broken windows and so on if that's what the children in his school wanted to do, but the children had to pay to fix them (that meant probably that the children's parents had to pay).

 

On another thread around here someone posted some things she does with her family that are, in my opinion, examples of structured living. But let's not forget that poor eating habits and destructive behaviors are not limited to unschoolers. No. Absolutely not. I agree with that totally. I suspect that reality suggests there are other motives to [self]destructive behaviors. I personally think it might be more directly related to stress and not having the skills to effectively and socially appropriately address things that are stressful in life. Structure helps to keep that stress down because predictability is equated with security for many people (spontaneity being equated with adventure for others), but it's not the only means of addressing those things that cause stress.

 

 

 

In my opinion, a child taking a class through the local high school, community college, or online would be part of unschooling. Being in a school where each subject is organized ahead of time and formally taught, would not. I don't put any value on either one as a choice, just trying to compartmentalize the two, or at least offer my own compartments.

 

 

 

What's a "bm" school? Sorry. Bricks and mortar.

 

My daughter wants to go to the local charter school which is project based. She's working to that goal. She picks up her math text book and works on the next chapter as she is motivated. I do consider that unschooling. When she's in class 7 hours per day, I will not consider that unschooling, even though it's her choice.

 

When you say she is working toward the goal of going to the local project based charter school, could you elaborate? Is she working to earn money to pay fees for it, if any? Or working to pass some entrance exam? Or in what way working toward that goal?

 

I think I would tend to consider a school she wanted to go to, her choice, her decision, a viable unschool option...especially if it were ungraded in addition to project based. To me that still fits very well with what I understood from what I read in John Holt. But, as I said, the more I read here the less I think I know what unschool really does mean.

[albeto]

As to rural area situation: I see relatively few books around except where people are homeschooling and have gone out of their way to get these. In that case the very choice made by the parents is already a form of directing the children toward what the parents think valuable. One could learn to write in the sand, I suppose. I think Frederick Douglass did that--but he had help by someone who already knew how to do what he wanted to do.

 

Okay, gotcha.

 

Could you explain, very specifically, how the structure is done without it being anything that is imposed by the parent on the children?Would it be something like, you do not have to do anything, but you cannot leave the house without supervision, perhaps? I don't see how the structure fits with the child deciding what to do and how and when and where freely. My recollection is that the Summerhill book author (cannot recall his name just now) said he allowed broken windows and so on if that's what the children in his school wanted to do, but the children had to pay to fix them (that meant probably that the children's parents had to pay).

 

Unschooling refers to learning academic subjects in a non-traditional way. Perhaps you are thinking about radical unschooling in which this philosophy is extended beyond academics? I don't know that "radical" is such a valuable adjective because this is more a matter of parenting style than academic. I know many people who navigate their families like this, families whose kids have gone to school since day one.

 

I don't ask my kids to keep up with particular academic subjects on any kind of schedule, so I consider us unschoolers. I don't have a traditional family in which the parent is the default authority and the child is raised to be obedient first, and autonomous as s/he learns to respect that authority. We were like that a long time but that fell by the wayside as I encountered others who were having more success doing things differently. In our home that doesn't mean windows get broken but it does mean that we do our best not to manipulate or coerce our kids into compliance by means of holding off some reward/privilege or threatening with punishment. Instead, we work to resolve our conflicts in a way that is mutually respectful.

 

But in answer to your question, if I'd like my child to do something, I make a request. If the child doesn't want to comply, s/he lets me know why. We discuss it, like adults do. They're at various places in their development so just like a baby moving on to toddlerhood, some areas they are more independent, some they are less. Those areas in which they are less dependent I keep in mind the goal of helping them gain that skill independently, or as my sister says, "putting myself out of a job." I discuss with them the same way I discuss things with my husband - we take turns talking, listening, doing things for each other just because, cracking jokes when we can, grunting when irritated, and moving on.

 

When you say she is working toward the goal of going to the local project based charter school, could you elaborate? Is she working to earn money to pay fees for it, if any? Or working to pass some entrance exam? Or in what way working toward that goal?

 

She is catching up on her math (a difficult subject for her) so she can be prepared to take the class in the fall. She's reading up on history so she's familiar with what the other students will already know. Things like that. It's a public school and close by so there are no fees and she can bike there.

 

To me that still fits very well with what I understood from what I read in John Holt. But, as I said, the more I read here the less I think I know what unschool really does mean.

 

I think defining "unschooling" is rather like defining a particular religion - it's subjectively identified based on personal understanding and experiences. There are certain qualities that are shared by most, but not all, and those qualities may be different between any two people. Because there is no one Unschooling Authority, it's really a matter of exploring a principle, an ideology, not quite as difficult as nailing jell-o to the wall, but much more tasty.

[albeto]

Some people can't do that. They don't understand, themselves, what the child is up to. They don't know to which branch of knowledge the subject belongs, or how to find further resources or help. Someone who can't even help to find answers when the child repeatedly asks for help should not be unschooling.

 

I see what you mean, and I agree with this. Those kids are fortunate to know you.

 

:)

[TippyCanoe]

.