Let's discuss radical unschooling....

[Liberty]

I would never in a million years implement radical homeschooling/unparenting, but ever since someone on here mentioned Dayna Martin and I went to her website, I've been utterly fascinated that people actually live this way.  So, basically she is saying that she has NO rules for her kids.  If they want to jump on the trampoline at 2 a.m., that's fine.  She never tells them they can't do something.  They have no bed times or schedules. When her 12yo son wanted his septum pierced, that was fine by them (and they'd have allowed tattoos, if it were legal).  If all four want different things for dinner, she makes four different meals, because "she trusts that their bodies are craving what they need."

 

I don't mean to sound judgemental (I am sincerely curious), but I can not wrap my mind around this lifestyle......

 

What if her son's body decides to crave alcohol one day?  Or cigarettes?  Or his entire face tattooed?

 

Does she ever take them to doctors?  If so, how did she get them out of bed if they didn't want to get up?

 

What if the kids never want to learn to read?

 

What if her daughter, age 16, decides she wants to have a baby herself?  How do they address sex education, I wonder? 

 

Basically, her kids never learn consequences, so how will they get along in a world full of them?  I mean, you can't drive a car without following rules, or hold down a job.

 

I don't know if anyone on this board would even know the answers to these questions, but I just had to share them out loud because they are driving me crazy.

[BoZeeCo's Mom]

Wow. Just, wow. I'm off to read her website. Although I don't know much about this, i know I've heard a few stories on our local unschooling board that remind me of this. I don't think it's common, but there are elements that are surprisingly common in the unschooling world.

[LaxMom]

There is a very real difference between radical unschooling and unparenting.

 

Parents of unschooling children (because parents don't unschool, the children do) are actively engaged in encouraging and facilitating their children's learning, following their children's lead.

 

The families I know who embrace unschooling (not just call doing nothing all day "unschooling" to legitimize it) have no problem saying no to their children, or asking them to operate with respect for others. They may not think too much about jumping on the trampoline if everyone is up at 2 am and they don't have neighbors, but they would not allow a child to disrupt everyone else on a whim.

 

I think the perception problem is that people who call themselves "non-coercive" and parent without even a suggestion of a path to follow, or what a child might have interest in, because that would be a form of "coercion", are drawn to unschooling because it is also child led. But they're not so inextricably linked as to be synonymous.

[WishboneDawn]

 

 

Keep in mind that what you were reading was the Dana Martin version of radical unschooling. I was a radical unschooler and much of the things you're imagining would not have been okay.

 

At its core unschooling is about a certain approach to education. That often goes along with certain parenting styles but not always. Sandra Dodd has a different take. I don't know if David Albert calls what he does radical unschooling but it certainly fits the bill and is altogether different from Martin and Dodd`s view.

[Rebecca VA]

But what if a child doesn't want to learn anything?  What if he feels in his heart that he shouldn't learn algebra?  What if he just knows that the first draft of his essay is superior, and he shouldn't have to do anything to improve it?

[Pamela H in Texas]

The first time I read the Taking Children Seriously website, I thought it was plain ridiculous.  I most certainly was going to "coerce" my children.  They were going to be raised with limits, rules, morals, etc. When I read that if kids didn't want to get into the carseat, we could just walk, I was appalled.  I wasn't in walking distance from my children's doctor!  On the TCS forum, there was discussion of a mother wearing Depends because the child didn't want to go into the bathroom at the mall.  Uh, no.  Then there is the fact that my God REQUIRES parents to inculcate (instill by persistent teaching) His commands into their hearts day in and day out.  

 

Through the years, I noticed myself less offended. I, in fact, seemed to use many of the same arguments as I discussed positive and non-punitive discipline. I absolutely believed my first children and I were a team to problem solve together.  And we did. With one more challenging child and one *really* easy child, we have a very peaceful home.  Very.   But when it came down to it, I most certainly was willing to "pull rank" as necessary.  Again, I do believe children are given to parents to be taught and guided.  

 

And now I have these children.  They need a LOT more empathy and kindness.  And yet they need a LOT more in terms of limits, teaching, help, boundaries, correction, etc.  Now, I most certainly want to continue to calm down and be *very* mindful in how I parent them.  I have learned that a lot of things CAN be, even SHOULD be, overlooked or handled with empathy.  It is *hard* to be empathetic the 15th or 115th time your kid poops on himself because he's mad at you.  There have been behaviors that took away from time I needed for myself, to do foster care related documentation, etc.  There was a behavior that was repulsive to me and I wasn't able to handle it the way I wanted because of "the system" (btw, that was the biggest blessing we've had because waiting until I had a strong relationship with the child enabled us to handle it better when we finally did and when there were "relapses").  

 

In a LOT of ways, I *really* wish we could get to the point that I could raise them like I did my big kids.  Unfortunately, they are not well enough for that to work.  They would be terribly insecure without strict boundaries, limited choices, firm limits, consistent handling.  In time, I'm hoping they, like my big kids, will internalize, learning self-discipline rather than having ME impose these things on them.  I think that is a reasonable goal.  It was just easier to do with children who hadn't been "hurt children" to start with. 

 

In the end, for my children, I need to find a balance.  Well, and really, that is the case for everyone.  People who use non-coercive parenting seem, imo, to be bowing to the child's every whim.  That doesn't seem healthy for ANYONE involved.  

 

Some examples:

 

Jumping on the trampoline at 2am.  No.  Fact is that children need sleep and there are key times that really ARE better for everyone to be sleeping.  Additionally, *I* need my sleep.  My kids won't be up at 2am because *I* won't be up at 2am.  And then if neither of those are good enough reasons, respect for neighbor would be the deciding force.  My neighbors don't want to hear trampoline springs, giggling children, etc at 2am. 

 

Six different suppers?  No.  Now, we do adjust meals based on preference and needs. Swimmer gets twice as much food as anyone else.  He also gets twice as much butter and a number of other things.  And if I know kid doesn't like A, then I give her/him more of B.  Ace and Champ don't like tortillas (weird...lol); so I give them food differently.  I think one way to have everyone involved would be to work up a menu together.  If that was something my family was interested in, I'd probably do that, at least much of the time.  As it is, I might say, "so what veggie should we have with our roast chicken?" Just yesterday, my son chose.  And the day before my daughter did.  Cool.  But a family works TOGETHER and being a short order cook isn't respectful to ME.  

 

In the one video I watched trying to find the WS video, she encourages the woman to simply move around the yard so the child can get on the hammock (or something).  Well, if that is your only kid or you can move so you can see where all the children are, GREAT.  But if that isn't the case?   How do you watch one kid ride his bike in the street and the other jump in the backyard? Then it is the child who coerces the sibling the best? That is what would happen HERE.  They all would dig in, but eventually, the one wins because the consequence of that one not winning is too great OR the other wins because the personality is stronger.  SO how is THAT fair?  And no, I'm not taking the trampoline apart enough to get it through the fence so it can be in the front yard!  

 

And btw, ever notice how coercive to other parents non-coercive parenting is?  One thing I love about Beyond Consequences is that it is empathetic to the parent also!  Obviously if I'm having a reaction, it is because *I* too am a person with feelings about the situation and/or things from the past.  I love that taking care of myself, being kind to myself, etc is part of the paradigm.  Non-coercive parenting is *very* judgmental and coercive of parents!  Well, or at least its proponents, including D.M. have been (though she did do it nicely and the lady had asked).  

 

ANyway, sorry to ramble.  I really just believe in balance.  I think that a family who teaches problem solving and cooperation and respect can have a home that looks pretty non-coercive the great majority of the time.  I also believe parents need to be real to themselves and take their role as PARENTS seriously. A balance.  

 

 

 

 

[Laura Corin]

FWIW - two of my cousins were brought up by very loving parents who chose not to give them strong boundaries.  The family had some challenges to deal with - unrelated to the parenting style - and in the end the children chose to go to boarding school.  I wonder whether the loose parenting style made it harder to deal with the upheavals and made them crave structure.  I don't know.

 

L

[Halcyon]

I've met several radical unschooling parents over the years.  I have tended to end up in unschooling homeschool groups because they seem to be more open to people who aren't religious.  For the most part they were highly intelligent and cool people.  Their children?  Not so much.  Sorry, but the way their kids acted and the way their parents handled it made it downright miserable to be around them.  I'm pretty low key with my kids.  They don't have a ton of rules.  They don't really have a bedtime.  I don't even limit electronics.  But no I don't let them bite people or hit people or tear up someone's property.  That's the sort of extreme we are talking about. 

That's been my experience too. Down here in Florida, there seem to be the religious homeschoolers, and the unschoolers. I tend to hang out with more unschoolers for the same reasons as you: more accepting, open-minded, and chill. I have been lucky down here in Florida; the unschoolers and their kids are pretty great. But in NYC, where I used to live, some of the unschooled kids were very disheveled, rarely showered, ate whatever they felt like, were rude to their mom and others, wouldn't share toys/books and that was "okay" with their mom, even when they were rude about it..etc etc.

 

Even down here, the unschoolers allow unlimited electronics, no bedtime, no chores, very few "requirements" at all. One family that I know well has tried to transition to more academic homeschooling, and the kids (who have no experience doing things they don't feel like doing) are VERY resistant to doing any work at all. It has been a struggle for my friend as she tries to balance her desire to let them be "free" and her desire that they learn how to add (the oldest is 10). 

[FaithManor]

I think what is described by this author has nothing to do with education in and of itself. It's not an educational philosophy or method, it's a parent abdicating the responsibility of giving guidance, and parenting with enough love and logic, to help their child grow and mature into a responsible human being. It's a lot like raising feral cats! She's not doing them any favors because at some point they will probably get a very rude awakening when they find out that the rest of the world will not twist itself into knots for their whims and pleasures. That's not really related to homeschooling in general though I can see how it could be construed as that since those that would absolutely refuse to make their children do anything would not force said feral humans to go to school, and claiming to home educate in an unregulated state would be lucrative because it would keep the truancy officer off the front steps.

 

In my area true unschooling - ie. child lead education - takes two forms. The first is a very proactive parenting form in which the kids are taught formally to read, write, and do math and usually fairly well...it forms the foundation for whatever they will choose to learn later. After that, the parents make a supreme effort to have access to a HUGE array of quality books, teaching videos (one family has every single Great Courses lecture in mathematics, science, and art history or close to the entire collection, and a back-up text for each subject with an instructor's manual should the child choose to pursue the skill), and conversation...it's not uncommon to "go find an expert" if the child wants to know something outside the parent's specific expertise. So, these kids end up at 13, hanging around the community college campus picking the brain of other students as well as the instructors, etc. The kids are oft times learning to play unusual instruments and being ferried to Detroit to find instruction, or getting art lessons, or apprenticed out at the auto body shop, or the florist shop, or whatever. Also, many times they are studying higher level academics because they've been exposed to such a deep academic world, they've found some niche interest like genetics, or aeronautical engineering, or computer programming, or classical languages, or whatever that has grown into serious pursuit. These kids will make it. It's unorthodox, gaps and sometimes rather big gaps too, do happen. But, the kids have the tools of learning solidly in their grasp, and they'll make up for whatever is missing if they need to because they are driven to pursue these goals. But, in order to get these kids doing all of these things and at this level, it's taken a lot of parenting, a huge, unbelievable amount of dedicated hardwork from mom and dad. The interesting thing is the two families I know that do this are somewhat dejected because they see the success we are having with our kids in formally, neo-classically educating them, something they had utterly rejected as ruining a child's natural interests and forcing them into a box, and have figured out that while dh and I may work hard to give our kids this education, they are working at a much more exhausting pace as parents. It seems to them, and to us looking in on it, that successful unschooling is harder than successful formal education, but maybe that's just a misperception.

 

The above is not common.

 

What is common in this area, and the reason that we have very little to do with most other homeschoolers outside of the ones that attend our church where homeschooling is becoming very popular and seems to be pursued diligently, is what I like to call lazy schooling. Yes, I'm being judgmental! I try not to, but I can't keep it a secret. These kids are not going to be employable as adults. They will be unable to hold down even simple jobs. This is why....the parents homeschool for reasons completely and utterly unrelated to academics. That would be fine if actual academics were still a part of the day. But, once it takes more than an hour for each to child to do their work, mom pretty much fizzles out on it. So, the kids read to maybe, at best, a fourth grade level, and they can BARELY add, subtract, multiple, or divide, and that's about as far as it goes. Mom is busy, she doesn't have time for this, so when the hour is up...it's up. Part of this philosophy is that they'll learn while working around the house or the farm. Hmmmm....that's a noble thought if the parent proactively teaches a skill while working around the place, but that's not what happens. Many times the kids are great with animal husbandry and what not, but they never learn enough business math to fill out any paperwork, balance a checkbook, make up a market book so they can sell their steer, figure up how much hay they are going to harvest off 200 acres at X bushels per acre, or how much fertilizer to buy, or how much milk production will drop off due to heat and drought, or ....the list goes on and on...to run a business one needs math skills and one needs to be literate. Of the kids that we have some contact with that are now late teens (several that we are acquainted with, just not developing friendships) the dads have expressed absolute LIVID ANGER towards their wives when they realize they have 16 year olds on their hands that will never have jobs that they can support themselves on, nor can they ever really help run the farm or family autobody shop or whatever because the kids are illiterate in both reading and math. Some of the dads have forced the issue and their kids are in the PS now and very, very far behind with IEP's that place them in special ed despite not having LD's. Some will never graduate because they'll be too old to attend day school and alternative night school for students over 19 was cut due to budget issues. After a couple of years of remediation at the PS, they may get to the place they can take the GED...maybe...the GED in Michigan tests to a 6th grade reading level and nothing higher than 6th or 7th grade standard mathematics....no algebra or geometry, and limited metrics, conversions, and simple word problems. Most employers in our area will not accept the GED. However, if they got it, they could head down to the local community college which offers skills remediation classes which will eventually lead to being allowed into freshman coursework for their certificate programs. Essentially, these kids are very far behind the local Mennonite students who typically only attend school through the 8th grade and then move on to apprenticeships. But, the difference is that the Mennonite children went to the schoolhouse from 1-8th grade and had textbooks, and were made to do academic work. It was important to the community that they learn to read very well, learn to write and spell, learn to do their arithmetic and basic business math, pre-algebra, pre-geometry, etc. so that whatever they were going to do as adults, they'd be able to move forward in their teen years and get the appropriate education to do that and some do go into the local high schools, graduate, and go to college, even nursing school, medical school, etc. So, the 1-8th grade education afforded at these little country schools is very thorough in basic skills. That is NOT what these unschoolers are giving because the parent in charge isn't willing to do the work.

 

We've seen it play out in the community, and it's not pretty. 18 year olds only motivated to play video games, and help out around the house but with no inner drive to actually do anything to become independent. Kids who sometimes do develop an interest, but are so fundamentally undereducated that the sheer amount of years and hard work it's going to take to catch up in order to finally pursue their interests is so vast, they give up before they really even get started.

 

Fortunately, for the most part, this is not the norm. In our church, we have nine families that homeschool, representing anything from rather traditional looking schooling, to relaxed educating - but not relaxed enough to prevent good quality learning from going on -  to neo classical homeschooling, to unschooling, and in all of these families (we know all of them pretty well), whatever their approach, learning is very, very important in these homes and the kids are getting good, solid educations. Due to the wide range of educational choice, we don't have a co-op or homeschool group. No one could agree on exactly what it would look like or what they would want out of it, and my friend T and I are the senior moms...the ones with teens prepping for STEM careers, and we are in the middle of ACT prep, pre-calculus, chemistry, rocket team, you name it. The other families wnat us to organize it and lead it, and we don't have time or interest in that so we don't get together a lot socially, but still, enough that we do interact with these kids and the parents are getting the job done.

 

Whatever form homeschooling takes, REAL homeschooling, REAL home education as a legitimate alternative to what is happening in our local PS's is parent intensive. This is what I tell new homeschooling wannabe parents. It's not all rainbows and unicorns, flowers and daisies, and happy, happy fun, fun. Yep, there can be those days somewhere in the mix, but to truly educate a child is hardwork. It's not for cowards, the feint of heart, the lazy, or the over-committed. I make that pretty clear in my little speeches when I teach introductory homeschooling 101 (that's what the local librarian calls the seminar). And I do represent unschooling as a legitimate option, but the good kind, the parent intensive kind that leads to a well rounded, well educated individual who does have the skills necessary to learn whatever it is his or her heart desires. It's not my cup o tea, but it is a legitimate educational philosophy when done right. It's that "done right" part that is the catch 22. Most of the parents I know that have embraced the idea, haven't embraced the work ethic that should go with it.

 

 

[Seasider]

I could not live that way.

 

I like the new term "unparenting" and the distinction between that and unschooling. There is certainly a difference.

[Ravin]

I think when you cross the line that the parents have to always be the ones who NEVER get their way, you've gone too far. What's non-coercive about letting a child constantly hold everyone prisoner to her whims? It has to be a two way street, with appropriate compromise and collaborative thinking. Not just turning the traditional top-down family dynamic on its head.

[Night Elf]

Hmm.. I don't want to write a novel, so I'll try to be brief. My parenting style is that of a radical unschooler's life. We unschooled for quite a while too. They were always learning stuff. They just didn't use textbooks and workbooks. As far as my parenting, in a nutshell we parent respectfully. We treat the kids like they are people in their own right and not someone who needs to be disciplined to learn how to behave. Only once did I implement a discipline system and that is something I will always regret. I was trying to get my son to stop having tantrums. Later he was diagnosed with Aspergers so his tantrums made 100% perfect sense. So I was trying to correct something he was simply neurologically not capable of doing. That was a parenting fail. Besides that, we've never had rules, chores, or forced consequences. To be honest, we never needed them. My kids didn't misbehave. They didn't treat each other or others unkindly. They weren't disrespectful to me and DH. They self-monitored video games, bedtimes and food. And now I have 3 very decent, respectful young adults. I feel very privileged to be their mom.

[FaithManor]

I suspect that doesn't really play out that way at home.  They talked a lot about "natural consequences".  So if the parent is irritated by the child he'll say so.  As an example of where it got stupid, is if the child bit or injured another child.  The parents thought "natural consequences" and didn't interfere.  Um so if I naturally feel like slapping your kid upside the head to protect my child you are going to stand back and let me?  I'm not one to discipline or even correct someone else's child and I won't let my child retaliate.  That's probably similar to how many parents would behave in that situation.  Sure, in the real world, as an adult if you bite someone you might find yourself arrested or knocked out by the victim in self defense.  When it's a kid though that's different.  So the whole reasoning really is just bizarre to me. 

I agree. What is the natural consequence? I guess maybe being eventually shunned from the community, having NO family that will ever want you around, and siblings that will pummel you if you come near them because you bite! Get real is that an ideal worth pursuing? Wouldn't it be much better for your child to be given a consequence on the spot, and guidance to prevent further issues then waiting until they are old enough to realize that no one wants to be anywhere near them?

 

My aunt did that with my cousin. It did not turn out well. She was 8 and ended up expelled from school. Yes, expelled, as in "do not ever bring her back"...it was all biting. She'd been a biter from the beginning and auntie just couldn't bring herself to discipline the little snowflake. Eventually, they weren't even invited to family Christmas or Easter at my grandparent's home due to the issue. Everytime snowflake got upset, she bit someone. She bit enough kids at school that the principal got sick of her. So, my uncle, the parenting lump, in desperation to get her to stop biting before she entered the expensive private school they now had to pay for, bit her back one day....really, really hard...drew blood, left a bruise.

 

She quit biting, and I suppose in the realm of Mutual of Omaha's "Wild Kingdom" applied to parenting humans, it was the natural consequence of her behavior, and it worked. However, one has to question that action and especially when if they'd gotten off their butts when she was two and parented her appropriately, she would not have been expelled, and they wouldn't have had to resort to something that some would consider abusive in order to make the point that the behavior is unacceptable.

 

I guess the natural outcome of not making your kids learn anything is what....unemployed, and sleeping on the couch at 32???? Jail bait???  I dont' know, but definitely not a lifestyle I am willing to embrace.

[MusicMama]

 

 

 

Whatever form homeschooling takes, REAL homeschooling, REAL home education as a legitimate alternative to what is happening in our local PS's is parent intensive. This is what I tell new homeschooling wannabe parents. It's not all rainbows and unicorns, flowers and daisies, and happy, happy fun, fun. Yep, there can be those days somewhere in the mix, but to truly educate a child is hardwork. It's not for cowards, the feint of heart, the lazy, or the over-committed. I make that pretty clear in my little speeches when I teach introductory homeschooling 101 (that's what the local librarian calls the seminar). And I do represent unschooling as a legitimate option, but the good kind, the parent intensive kind that leads to a well rounded, well educated individual who does have the skills necessary to learn whatever it is his or her heart desires. It's not my cup o tea, but it is a legitimate educational philosophy when done right. It's that "done right" part that is the catch 22. Most of the parents I know that have embraced the idea, haven't embraced the work ethic that should go with it.

I totally agree!

[Guest submarines]

I suspect that doesn't really play out that way at home.  They talked a lot about "natural consequences".  So if the parent is irritated by the child he'll say so.  As an example of where it got stupid, is if the child bit or injured another child.  The parents thought "natural consequences" and didn't interfere.  Um so if I naturally feel like slapping your kid upside the head to protect my child you are going to stand back and let me?  I'm not one to discipline or even correct someone else's child and I won't let my child retaliate.  That's probably similar to how many parents would behave in that situation.  Sure, in the real world, as an adult if you bite someone you might find yourself arrested or knocked out by the victim in self defense.  When it's a kid though that's different.  So the whole reasoning really is just bizarre to me.

I'm just curious about the biting incident you keep referring to. How old were the children? Were they good friends or just playmates?

 

After the incident, were they already figuring it out in some way, or they went to their parents and the parents demonstratively didn't comfort, didn't talk to them, didn't offer any guidance?

 

I know that the dynamics between two of my children can seem odd to an outside observer. They are the best of friends and buddies and are extremely close, but they do have their own explosions at each other. Yes, there was a biting incident when they were younger, but it was at home.

 

I hardly ever intervene or apply an consequences because they are phenomenal at figuring it out, and I've seen them to grow in their relationship and become closer because of this. They communicate really well with each other, and within minutes of an incident (which aren't as frequent anyway) they apologize, they talk about what happened and how to proceed, and they are usually hugging and starting their new adventure.

 

If one of them has a conflict with my first born, however, I need to intervene, because they don't communicate nearly as well.

 

So if you saw them fight at a playground and me doing nothing, you might think that I'm un-parenting them. In reality, I'm most likely watching very carefully, trying to estimate the situation, and ready to intervene if needed, though mostly I wouldn't.

 

I also noticed that many unschooling parents choose to intervene later, rather than earlier, so this also might seem like non-intervention.

 

It is bizarre to me when parents hover over their children and micromanage every their interaction, but to each their own.

[elegantlion]

We are not unschoolers. However, life has its own form of consequence. I parent much more hands off than I did when ds was younger. Instead of "rules" we have lessons on how to treat others with respect. Much like Night Elf, I've tried to teach ds mutual respect. Fortunately, ds is easy-going, but stubborn as a bull. 

 

While we don't unschool, ds's schooling is very much his design. Some subjects are my requirements. I believe we all want to teach our children how to make good and responsible choices, some of us see different paths to getting there. 

 

As far as drinking, tattoos, smoking, and sex, those will be out of my hands anyway. Arming your kid with information and letting them decide is something we have to face anyway. At 18 in college my ds could do all 4 in one evening mostly likely. Will he? I don't know. I don't think any degrade the moral fiber of a human being. Smoking would be my least approved activity because it's expensive and so hard to quit. 

 

Even if we were unschooling, there would still be lots of conversation about family beliefs and practices. 

[Ravin]

Yeah, the way natural consequence would work with a small child biting is removal from interaction with the victim, with an explanation that biting hurts and the other child won't feel safe if he is worried he will be bitten again. Natural consequence is not the same as no consequence.

[Wildiris]

What I find interesting is on Dayna martin's website is the picture of her family. Clearly her experiment in radical unschooling is far from over. Her kids are still very young. 

 

I think there are some kids that can thrive in the uncontrolled environment of radical unschooling. These kids seem to have an internal guidance system that drives them. However, there are also those kids that need firm boundaries and copious amount of structure. These kids need to hit these boundaries many times before the lesson(s) is learned.

 

To let kids do whatever they want whenever they want and how ever they want is not respectful to others or themselves. One of the hardest parts of growing up is understanding what ones does and how it affects others. It isn't all about the "me" it is really about the "us/we." 

[FaithManor]

We are not unschoolers. However, life has its own form on consequence. I parent much more hands off than I did when ds was younger. Instead of "rules" we have lessons on how to treat others with respect. Much like Night Elf, I've tried to teach ds mutual respect. Fortunately, ds is easy-going, but stubborn as a bull. 

 

While we don't unschool, ds's schooling is very much his design. Some subjects are my requirements. I believe we all want to teach our children how to make good and responsible choices, some of us see different paths to getting there. 

 

As far as drinking, tattoos, smoking, and sex, those will be out of my hands anyway. Arming your kid with information and letting them decide is something we have to face anyway. At 18 in college my ds could do all 4 in one evening mostly likely. Will he? I don't know. I don't think any degrade the moral fiber of a human being. Smoking would be my least approved activity because it's expensive and so hard to quit. 

 

Even if we were unschooling, there would still be lots of conversation about family beliefs and practices. 

But, see you.are.teaching. That's the point...life lessons. Not just hands off, feral children will eventually civilize themselves. What you, Wendy K, and Night Elf describe is intensive, interactive parenting...learning by example, learning by leading, learning through role models, learning through interaction.

 

What I've seen as radical unschooling is largely, just lazy parents who simply will not take the time to teach period! They are too self involved, too this, too that, to actually parent. There are several methods of raising decent human beings, and proper unschooling again as Wendy K and Night Elf have described is one, but just because it's less formalized or rigid and more child lead, that doesn't mean the parents are abdicating their roles in the child's life as the mentor, the teacher, the role model...the parent is VERY actively parenting.

 

So, I do think the term radical unschooling is really, unparenting. Unparenting is not a pretty sight, and in my not so humble opinion, can result in a fair amount of disaster. My nephew has been, and he really doesn't have much of a future now. 18, unemployable, no one wants to be around him, disrespectful, lazy,....life is going to be a misery for him if he doesn't get a grip soon.

 

What you ladies describe to me is very intentional parenting. Maybe not the orthodox route, but VERY intentional. That's the point. Unparenting is literally, not parenting at all. Not role modeling appropriate behavior, not teaching lessons of respect and manners, etc. it's raising wild animals.

[fairfarmhand]

I think unschooling/unparenting might be successful for certain dynamics of kids/families. I have a friend whose son is so so very mellow, has been ever since he was tiny. He had a very young understanding of actions and consequences and just has a cautious, thoughtful demeanor. My friend has really not had to apply severe consequences to him.

 

My dd was a totally different animal. She would have been a monster had we not intensely set limits.  She has no concept of self-moderation. Left to herself at young ages, she would eat until she made herself throw up regularly. When I was around, I would not allow her to eat enough to make herself sick, but her grandparents did several times. She never got the connection. If I don't set TV or computer limits, she will spend most of her day in front of a screen, and then complain because she feels bad.

 

She has an extremely strong personality and wants to win every battle. If I did not intervene in her relationships with her sibilings she would bully them until she got her way every time. I believe that is extremely unfair to my younger kids, so I do intervene. I dream of the day when she has the maturity to understand moderation and consideration for others.

 

Unschooling/unparenting would be a massive fail for most of my kids, but especially my oldest dd.

 

I don't believe it is a good fit for all families.

 

For some kids, it would result in intelligent, considerate kids. For other kids, it would result in a self-centered felon.

[Parrothead]

I'm just curious about the biting incident you keep referring to. How old were the children? Were they good friends or just playmates?

 

After the incident, were they already figuring it out in some way, or they went to their parents and the parents demonstratively didn't comfort, didn't talk to them, didn't offer any guidance?

 

I know that the dynamics between two of my children can seem odd to an outside observer. They are the best of friends and buddies and are extremely close, but they do have their own explosions at each other. Yes, there was a biting incident when they were younger, but it was at home.

 

I hardly ever intervene or apply an consequences because they are phenomenal at figuring it out, and I've seen them to grow in their relationship and become closer because of this. They communicate really well with each other, and within minutes of an incident (which aren't as frequent anyway) they apologize, they talk about what happened and how to proceed, and they are usually hugging and starting their new adventure.

 

If one of them has a conflict with my first born, however, I need to intervene, because they don't communicate nearly as well.

 

So if you saw them fight at a playground and me doing nothing, you might think that I'm un-parenting them. In reality, I'm most likely watching very carefully, trying to estimate the situation, and ready to intervene if needed, though mostly I wouldn't.

 

I also noticed that many unschooling parents choose to intervene later, rather than earlier, so this also might seem like non-intervention.

 

It is bizarre to me when parents hover over their children and micromanage every their interaction, but to each their own.

It is one thing when it is your kids in conflict with each other. It is a totally different thing when Family A's kid bites (or otherwise assaults) a kid who belongs to Family B. sitting back and doing nothing if your kid is the biter is unacceptable no matter the parenting style.

[Night Elf]

This is mostly like me.  I do make my kids do school.  That is never negotiable, but I do allow input in terms of how they want to go about learning stuff I want them to learn.  I suppose this is what makes me odd because it is the one area I'm pretty hard core about.

But in terms of the rest of it I'm pretty relaxed.

 

I insisted on school once they reached high school age, but we discussed it first. I mean, it was non-negotiable for us because education is simply important in our society, but we did listen to our children and address their concerns. We involved them in choosing the school and then the classes. My oldest dd graduated and has not gone on to college. She said she might some day in the future, but she works full-time and is a hard worker. My youngest decided to go to public school. Talk about rigid structure! But she jumped right in and thrived. She's so excited about her second year starting next week. She knows she can come home at any time though. My son is my only homeschooler. No, he doesn't love school, but he does understand its importance. He works at his classes very diligently. He gets the work done each day and then moves on. He doesn't think about school stuff outside of school.

 

When we were unschooling, it was hard to keep up with them. We went places and bought books, games and activities that interested them. I can actually say that unschooling was more difficult than the structured school we do now. Now, we just open the books, do the assignment, finish up and move on with our day. With unschooling, they were never just finished with something. It lasted all day! I can also say, however, that structured schooling has changed how our kids think about learning. They see it as a chore. Both my young ones gave up pleasure reading because school required reading was enough for them. That really makes me sad.

[Guest submarines]

I don't think it is micromanaging to not allow one's child to injure another.  The bite caused bleeding and bruising.  We are not talking about a simple tiff here.  I don't micromanage, but yes I will get involved if things get to that extreme.  I don't want my children acting like jerks to other people and yes I think they need to be told that sometimes.  I don't know that that comes naturally to all people that they know not to act like asses.

 

I have been around people who don't interfere much.  That is nothing like what I encountered.  It was like being in Lord of the Flies.

This truly sounds awful. I'm sorry you had to experience this. I've been to 4 unschooling groups (we moved a lot) and I haven't seen anything like this.

[Night Elf]

To let kids do whatever they want whenever they want and how ever they want is not respectful to others or themselves. One of the hardest parts of growing up is understanding what ones does and how it affects others. It isn't all about the "me" it is really about the "us/we." 

 

I agree with this. I'm sad that some of you have experienced such sad examples of unschooling. Every unschooling family I knew personally taught their children respect while at the same time giving respect. It was like modeling the correct behavior I guess. The kids were redirected when inappropriate behavior happened. While our kids didn't live with rules, they learned that there are non-negotiable rules that just have to be dealt with. A great example I can give about my family is money. We talked freely with our kids about how much we were spending on mortgages, utilities, cars, groceries, and other expenses. We never came out and told them DH's salary, but they knew what we were spending. They understood that we couldn't buy everything they wanted and learned how to be good stewards of their money. Heck, all 3 are better at saving than I am! And that's the truth. Because they knew that money was not inexhaustible, they didn't ask for expensive things. Or if they did, they always presented it with a plan for getting it later when we could save up the money.

 

I do understand that kids are different. I will freely admit that DH and I feel lucky that our family dynamics have played out the way they have. To be honest, I don't know how I would have handled a child that needed firm boundaries. I'm just not a firm parent. I would have been out of my element. So I try not to be judgmental about other families because I can't know they family dynamics.

[DawnM]

We have a mom locally who follows this. She only has ONE child though, so he can get whatever he wants, whenever he wants.

 

Many have criticized her because her child doesn't follow any rules in groups, is a whiner, and is otherwise a frustrating individual.

 

I have no idea how he will survive in real life. I really don't.

[Lolosoli]

Truthfully, Radical Unschooling/Parenting is the reason I no longer refer my style of homeschooling as unschooling anymore.  It was a few years ago "radical" unschooling started to become more popular and mainstream and the thought of being associated with that did not sit well with me. 

 

We now refer to ourselves as "life learners" and we've always been Attachment Parenting advocates.

 

I have never seen anything positive come from radical unschooling (although I have seen lots of positive things come from unschooling!!!!) and I have nothing positive to say about radical unschooling...so, I'll just end the discussion here!!! LOL

 

 

[bolt.]

 

 

I've been utterly fascinated that people actually live this way.  So, basically she is saying that she has NO rules for her kids.  If they want to jump on the trampoline at 2 a.m., that's fine.  She never tells them they can't do something.  They have no bed times or schedules. When her 12yo son wanted his septum pierced, that was fine by them (and they'd have allowed tattoos, if it were legal).  If all four want different things for dinner, she makes four different meals, because "she trusts that their bodies are craving what they need."

 

I don't mean to sound judgemental (I am sincerely curious), but I can not wrap my mind around this lifestyle......

 

What if her son's body decides to crave alcohol one day?  Or cigarettes?  Or his entire face tattooed?

 

Does she ever take them to doctors?  If so, how did she get them out of bed if they didn't want to get up?

 

What if the kids never want to learn to read?

 

What if her daughter, age 16, decides she wants to have a baby herself?  How do they address sex education, I wonder? 

 

Basically, her kids never learn consequences, so how will they get along in a world full of them?  I mean, you can't drive a car without following rules, or hold down a job.

While I would NEVER live this way, I have sufficient imagination to envision how it is possible and what the possible benefits might be. (I can also well imagine the 'down side' -- but that's not really the question you want answered, so I won't go into it.)

 

In reality, the aspects of this unparented life play off each other to help things that 'would be a problem' (standing alone in an average lifestyle) 'not be a problem' when they are folded into the whole lifestyle. For example, jumping on the trampoline at 2am is less of a problem if kids can simply sleep themselves out afterwards, without it bothering anyone in any way. They wouldn't be over tired if *both* things were going on.

 

Additionally, I think these kids encounter "real hard practical" consequences and barriers much more often than regular kids. So it's hardly correct to think they are not learning about consequences. They are learning about actual consequences, rather than parent-mediated consequences. Kid A learns the consequence, "If I won't wear my mittens, mom doesn't let me play in snow any more today." Kid B learns what mild frostbite feels like.

 

Specifically, I imagine:

 

- I imagine that many parents (not just radical unschoolers) are fine with parent-moderated low levels of teen alcohol consumption. Alcohol-phobia is a social construct of N. America that isn't always universally applied.

 

- I imagine that the cost of cigarettes would be a "real hard practical" barrier to childhood smoking.

 

- I imagine tattooing is a personal choice, granted to the teen when it is granted by the law.

 

- I imagine teens are bright enough to absorb the idea that doctors will help with what ails them (if anything ails them).

 

- I imagine that non-urgent childhood appointments are made at times that are anticipated to be 'good' for the child's usual habits, and probably rescheduled if it turns out not to be 'good' for the child. Appointments probably follow whatever 'going out' process is already in place for, say, shopping.

 

- There are plenty of "real hard practical" consequences of being illiterate. People who are illiterate generally hate it and would do anything to change it. Most children would be happy to enter the world of reading, especially if the parent strategically draws them into the idea that 'if you could read you would be able to...'

 

- You *can* drive a car without following rules -- there are just some "real hard practical" barriers (1. How will you get a license without showing that you know and can follow rules? 2. Where/how are you going to get a car to drive without a license?) and some "real hard practical" consequences for driving illegally (fines, arrest, incarceration).

 

- I imagine that these children would either seek to learn/research how to keep their first jobs in advance (if they are highly motivated) or they would loose their first few (inconsequential) jobs as they begin to absorb the "real hard practical" consequences of certain behaviors as employees.

 

Most adults live by grasping and respecting only consequences and limits that are "real hard and practical" and would resent any kind of "mediated" consequences imposed by other people in our lives. Now, I really think that kids benefit from parent-mediated consequences, for their time of childhood, but eventually they will transition to an adult life of just dealing with the consequences the regular world dishes out automatically. (Which are not nearly as friendly or flexible as parent-mediated consequences.) In a way, you could say that kids who deal with those type of consequences and limits all their lives are at least somewhat ideally equipped for their eventual circumstances (adulthood).

[Dmmetler]

One thing that I don't get is that sometimes, the natural consequences thing seems like letting your kid go out to the tip of the branch with a saw.

 

What I mean is that I have one unschooling friend who's son pretty much just plays video games.  Now, she has them out of the house doing a lot of field trips and experiential activities, and she has a lot of hands-on, engaging, fun materials at home to try to lure him in, and they do play games and read together as a family, but when he's at home and on his own, that's it.

 

Not surprisingly, most of the kids in our homeschool group have learned to turn down invitations to their house. And even when the mom sets up things for the moms to do-and encourages us to "bring kids so they can play", the other moms have learned to find something else to do with the kids. Because OUR kids have been taught that when you're at someone else's house, you don't go wandering off and play with the host's toys without them participating-and sitting and watching someone else play video games just isn't a lot of fun.

 

The mom has commented that she figures he'll learn, sooner or later, that if he wants to have friends to play with, he has to reciprocate-and that it's a natural consequence. But it seems cruel that the kid is, currently, friendless when, if the parent had simply provided a little more guidance on playing together at earlier playdates, he wouldn't be. And the kids are getting older, and the "bring your kids over while we have coffee" playdates are fewer and farther between.

 

[FaithManor]

 

The mom has commented that she figures he'll learn, sooner or later, that if he wants to have friends to play with, he has to reciprocate-and that it's a natural consequence. But it seems cruel that the kid is, currently, friendless when, if the parent had simply provided a little more guidance on playing together at earlier playdates, he wouldn't be. And the kids are getting older, and the "bring your kids over while we have coffee" playdates are fewer and farther between.

And that is a very REAL problem for some kids, they are not intuitive so they don't get the subtle hints that their behavior needs to change. They need it spelled out for them, and part of true, intentional parenting which does include unschooling, is to help direct your kid and sometimes that means spellling it out for them.

 

Kids are just different. They have different learning styles, different personalities. Parents who are unwilling to alter their course when it's clear the child needs an alternative intervention kind of make my face twitch. Assuming that ALL children can thrive in one type of environment is dangerous. Some kids just simply can't thrive in such a hands-off habitat. Others do amazingly well.

 

Parenting is not for the lazy, the inflexible, or the cowards. We need that on a bumper sticker! LOL

[FaithManor]

Then again that activity might suit him just fine.  I prefer to stay home and do stuff by myself or with family than go out and hang out with a bunch of people.  I've been that way most of my life.

WendyK, the difference is that you know how to be with other people. I seriously doubt you'd invite people to your home to watch you do something and NOT interact with them!

[Guest submarines]

Truthfully, Radical Unschooling/Parenting is the reason I no longer refer my style of homeschooling as unschooling anymore.  It was a few years ago "radical" unschooling started to become more popular and mainstream and the thought of being associated with that did not sit well with me. 

 

We now refer to ourselves as "life learners" and we've always been Attachment Parenting advocates.

 

I have never seen anything positive come from radical unschooling (although I have seen lots of positive things come from unschooling!!!!) and I have nothing positive to say about radical unschooling...so, I'll just end the discussion here!!! LOL

Radical anything is rarely any good.

 

Though we unschool "more" (lol) that some other unschoolers, I would not characterize myself as "radical." Unschooling, I find, has to be quite fluid and it changes and evolves.

[celticmom]

Before we found out that dd8 should not eat wheat she would have been a frequent flyer in the emergency room if I had tried anything too child led. She had no sense of moderation and if allowed to do something seemingly innocuous would find a way to escalate until the activity was dangerous and resulted in injury. Needless to say I am relatively strict and developed no problem  ending an activity as soon as she started getting hyped up.

[Guest submarines]

And that is a very REAL problem for some kids, they are not intuitive so they don't get the subtle hints that their behavior needs to change. They need it spelled out for them, and part of true, intentional parenting which does include unschooling, is to help direct your kid and sometimes that means spellling it out for them.

 

Kids are just different. They have different learning styles, different personalities. Parents who are unwilling to alter their course when it's clear the child needs an alternative intervention kind of make my face twitch. Assuming that ALL children can thrive in one type of environment is dangerous. Some kids just simply can't thrive in such a hands-off habitat. Others do amazingly well.

 

Parenting is not for the lazy, the inflexible, or the cowards. We need that on a bumper sticker! LOL

This is exactly, where, I think problems with "a guru" start. Unschooling, more than other types of parenting and educating, requires being very aware of the fluctuating needs of your children and social circumstances, instead of following someone else's ideas.

 

Those who parent by having a set of rules to follow, might have a rule like going to bed at 8, no matter what.

 

A responsible and confident in her parenting unschooling parent might not have a set bedtime, but she'll be aware and intuitive about the needs of her particular child AND to the needs of the family (or neighbours / society) and guide her children accordingly. Flexibility, rather than rigidity, is implied.

 

Then there's an unschooling parent who might have lost her confidence, and she shuts down her own common sense and starts following someone else's advice. Then this kind of advice becomes just another set of rules to be followed--might superficially work for some, but might not work for others.

 

Another problem is "a guru" who starts her movement while her children are youngand somehow manages to collect followers--because there's such a scarcity of leaders, I guess. Then others follow her "rules" instead of learning to be flexibleand aware.

[Χά�ων]

The first time I read the Taking Children Seriously website, I thought it was plain ridiculous.  I most certainly was going to "coerce" my children.  They were going to be raised with limits, rules, morals, etc. When I read that if kids didn't want to get into the carseat, we could just walk, I was appalled.  I wasn't in walking distance from my children's doctor!  On the TCS forum, there was discussion of a mother wearing Depends because the child didn't want to go into the bathroom at the mall.  Uh, no.  Then there is the fact that my God REQUIRES parents to inculcate (instill by persistent teaching) His commands into their hearts day in and day out.  

 

Through the years, I noticed myself less offended. I, in fact, seemed to use many of the same arguments as I discussed positive and non-punitive discipline. I absolutely believed my first children and I were a team to problem solve together.  And we did. With one more challenging child and one *really* easy child, we have a very peaceful home.  Very.   But when it came down to it, I most certainly was willing to "pull rank" as necessary.  Again, I do believe children are given to parents to be taught and guided.  

 

And now I have these children.  They need a LOT more empathy and kindness.  And yet they need a LOT more in terms of limits, teaching, help, boundaries, correction, etc.  Now, I most certainly want to continue to calm down and be *very* mindful in how I parent them.  I have learned that a lot of things CAN be, even SHOULD be, overlooked or handled with empathy.  It is *hard* to be empathetic the 15th or 115th time your kid poops on himself because he's mad at you.  There have been behaviors that took away from time I needed for myself, to do foster care related documentation, etc.  There was a behavior that was repulsive to me and I wasn't able to handle it the way I wanted because of "the system" (btw, that was the biggest blessing we've had because waiting until I had a strong relationship with the child enabled us to handle it better when we finally did and when there were "relapses").  

 

In a LOT of ways, I *really* wish we could get to the point that I could raise them like I did my big kids.  Unfortunately, they are not well enough for that to work.  They would be terribly insecure without strict boundaries, limited choices, firm limits, consistent handling.  In time, I'm hoping they, like my big kids, will internalize, learning self-discipline rather than having ME impose these things on them.  I think that is a reasonable goal.  It was just easier to do with children who hadn't been "hurt children" to start with. 

 

In the end, for my children, I need to find a balance.  Well, and really, that is the case for everyone.  People who use non-coercive parenting seem, imo, to be bowing to the child's every whim.  That doesn't seem healthy for ANYONE involved.  

 

Some examples:

 

Jumping on the trampoline at 2am.  No.  Fact is that children need sleep and there are key times that really ARE better for everyone to be sleeping.  Additionally, *I* need my sleep.  My kids won't be up at 2am because *I* won't be up at 2am.  And then if neither of those are good enough reasons, respect for neighbor would be the deciding force.  My neighbors don't want to hear trampoline springs, giggling children, etc at 2am. 

 

Six different suppers?  No.  Now, we do adjust meals based on preference and needs. Swimmer gets twice as much food as anyone else.  He also gets twice as much butter and a number of other things.  And if I know kid doesn't like A, then I give her/him more of B.  Ace and Champ don't like tortillas (weird...lol); so I give them food differently.  I think one way to have everyone involved would be to work up a menu together.  If that was something my family was interested in, I'd probably do that, at least much of the time.  As it is, I might say, "so what veggie should we have with our roast chicken?" Just yesterday, my son chose.  And the day before my daughter did.  Cool.  But a family works TOGETHER and being a short order cook isn't respectful to ME.  

 

In the one video I watched trying to find the WS video, she encourages the woman to simply move around the yard so the child can get on the hammock (or something).  Well, if that is your only kid or you can move so you can see where all the children are, GREAT.  But if that isn't the case?   How do you watch one kid ride his bike in the street and the other jump in the backyard? Then it is the child who coerces the sibling the best? That is what would happen HERE.  They all would dig in, but eventually, the one wins because the consequence of that one not winning is too great OR the other wins because the personality is stronger.  SO how is THAT fair?  And no, I'm not taking the trampoline apart enough to get it through the fence so it can be in the front yard!  

 

And btw, ever notice how coercive to other parents non-coercive parenting is?  One thing I love about Beyond Consequences is that it is empathetic to the parent also!  Obviously if I'm having a reaction, it is because *I* too am a person with feelings about the situation and/or things from the past.  I love that taking care of myself, being kind to myself, etc is part of the paradigm.  Non-coercive parenting is *very* judgmental and coercive of parents!  Well, or at least its proponents, including D.M. have been (though she did do it nicely and the lady had asked).  

 

ANyway, sorry to ramble.  I really just believe in balance.  I think that a family who teaches problem solving and cooperation and respect can have a home that looks pretty non-coercive the great majority of the time.  I also believe parents need to be real to themselves and take their role as PARENTS seriously. A balance.  

 

I agree with everything you said but the bolded is the one thing I see NCP-CL situations. In the processing of attempting to ensure that the children's needs are met and that the children are not being coerced the parents become little more than servants with no rights, feelings or human needs who spend their days catering to the whims of their children.

 

When I hear people proclaim NVC and NCP-CL as the end all to end all I distance myself and my son. IME NCP-CL is parents who give their child free license to bully others until they get what they want and NVC is nothing more than mom speaking quietly too give in to every demand of little jimmy.

 

 

NCP= Non-coercive parenting

CL= Consensual living

NVC=Non violent communication

[swellmomma]

going just based on the OP and not on other comments I have a hard time wrapping my head around how she does it.  The only people I know irl that are radical unschoolers right down to essentially unparenting too are christians and so there is times when the kids are scheduled(getting up and going to church) and they are taught a moral code to follow, so while there is no real rules in the home the kids are still expected to follow the biblical "rules" so the parent says they are radical unschoolers, no rules etc when there really is some.  I am not a radical unschooler, never will be, I am not a regular unschooler either.  The whole philosophy behind that doesn't sit well with me. I do not believe in having a child centered home. following their interests etc of course, letting them dictate meals, routines, everything they learn etc, no not at all, I actually think it is unbiblical to do that(and simply doesn't sit right with me regardless).  That said some of the stuff she has allowed or would allow I would, including piercings and tattoos.  Actually because I allow them the kids don't ask for them anymore, although they have none.  For example, dd14 was asking at 13 about getting a facial piercing.  So I agreed that I would take her and sign the paperwork but she had to pay, and she had to decide the particular piercing based on what she is in.  SO for example, in cadets and dance she could not have one in, so she would have to remove them weekly (if she stayed in dance that would mean she would be taking them out 4 evenings a week).  I also detailed how they do the piercing.  I still have no problem with them getting one, I would say yes to it, she decided facial piercings were perhaps not a good idea after all. Then she moved on to belly button, again I said yes, but also explained when she would have to remove it for safety (cadet FTXs, when she is horseback riding etc), that was emphasized when a girl in cadets had hers ripped out when they were abseiling due to the harness hooking on it.  Like the face piercings she has decided that piercing wasn't for her after all.  If she came to me with the money and a plan tomorrow I would book the appt, I have no problem with it.  Tattoos I will allow as well, and my kids know it.  I do have rules about it (nothing vulgar, no wall art, must have design and location planned for at least a year, pay for it themselves, must be done on a location on the body that can be easily covered with clothing so that it does not restrict employment options), but even if they were just teens I would say yes and take them if they met those stipulations.  So I have rules, but somethings are fine by me that most certainly would not be for most parents.  I do not make multiple meals, you eat what I serve or you go hungry, must be home by 9 when just out with friends (7 for the younger 2 kids), be in your room by 10 and stay quiet so the youngers can sleep but I don't care when the teens actually go to sleep just stay out of my way, keep it quiet and get up when you need to for work without a fight.  I do allow them to make many decisions for themselves, we don't have a set schedule for school other than their online classes.  Everything else we fit in where we want.  I am strict, I will come down hard when I need to, many think I am too strict though I don't think so, I think I am pretty lax and my kids have a lot of freedoms most don't, but they are freedoms within bounds kwim.  Like the stipulations with the tattoos and piercings, like I don't really care what you do with your friends, as long as it is legal and you make some form of contact with me every 2 hours to let me know you are still alive and be home on time, I do not do assigned chores, I do allow video gaming for long periods at a time etc.  But meals are served at the same time daily and you best be there for them or go hungry, don't like what I cooked, well see you next mealtime.  Don't feel like doing any school that day, tough nuts.  Want to go outside to play at 2am, oh heck no, not happening.  They also are expected to follow the biblical upbringing they are getting which places rules and limitations on them as well. 

Anyway my point in all of that was, the person mentioned in the OP calls what she does radical unschooling, but really it is non-parenting.  She is taking the easy way out imo.  Most unschoolers I know still parent their kids, though I do not agree with the philosophy of it I can see why they are using it.  Nonparenting is a whole other issue, and if the children were in ps it would simply be called neglect at worst, spoiled at best.  But because she homeschools suddenly it is "radical unschooling" as if it is a good thing to raise narcissitic kids who think that they can have whatever they want, whenever they want and then can't navigate real life as adults due to that thought process.  I do see some similarities between free range parenting and radical unschooling, but I feel if you want your kids to have the freedoms to make their own decisions etc they need to be taught within particular bounds and that freedom given as they reach certain maturities, and I think free range parenting does that, where radical unschooling is just a free for all. 

I believe children need those boundaries to grow up to be healthy individuals.  I know some within the radical unschooling philosophy think there should never be any limitations on a child and to do so is forcing your will on them.  If you have a set bedtime or mealtime you are bending them to your will.  If you say no to something, well goodness you may as well have been beating them.  There is this belief that authoritarian parenting is the same as authorative parenting and that your kids will just rebell like crazy if you have placed any limitations on them.  And I believe that the limitations/boundaries give kids something they can grasp onto as they navigate into adulthood, they become the building blocks of mature, responsible adulthood with fewer issues along the way.  Of course is a family is overly strict I do think the kids rebel and it backfires (grew up that way, I still fight the urge to do the opposite of what my parents say, even as an adult and mother I have that feeling).  But children who grow up in a home with reasonable boundaries and expectations and firm security of knowing that the parents "have got this" releases them to simply be kids and to grow into their own maturity without it being thrust upon them.  I am concerned that in families where there is no rules such as with the family mentioned in the OP that the children never truly feel secure in their parents protection.  I mean if you as a child have always been the one dictating how things are going to be, always making the decisions, what happens in a crisis? Do the kids feel a burden on their shoulders that they are supposed to be making the decisions/handling it?  I mean my kids have lots of freedoms in decision making etc, but when a crisis hits they know that I've got this, that there is nothing for them to worry about because this is an adult issue to deal with, not a kid/teen issue.  They know that as ultimate decision maker I will be doing what needs to be done, and will simply inform them along the way.  I worry of how kids can have a feeling of security growing up if everything has always been on their shoulders and then a crisis hits.  I mean I know many families never face crisis, and some like mine seem to have a constant supply of them, but at some point they will face one, even if not until the child is an adult and then what? As children they benefit in seeing the parents model how to handle a crisis, and can use that model to navigate their own as adults.  But what if you are a child when the crisis happens, if you have grown up having ultimate say and control of the household, are you able to step back and let your parents deal with it? Or do you expect to deal with it yourself, or worse yet do you think your parents want you to deal with it yourself.

I dunno, I can understand why people like how it sounds on paper, but I think in practice it is really lacking in providing a stable home for children and I feel that having a stable home is essential to a child growing up to be a stable adult.  And I feel that those that subscribe to radical unschooling (aka unparenting) are raising a generation of entitled brats, who lack the ability to form stable lives, stable relationships etc and I do not understand why they think this is a good idea, and how it is okay to think that for 18 years a child will get to reign supreme and then be surprised when they get into the real world as adults and realize that there is boundaries, and limitations and expectations, and whatnot everywhere they go.  That once they move out of the family home they will never be #1 again, and that learning to compromise will be essential to a healthy marriage, that learning to follow rules and orders will be essential to succeeding in the work place, even if they own their own business you need to meet the needs of your customer base so that instantly sets up limitations in what you are doing etc.  I feel like those that follow radical unschooling in this way, are setting their kids up for failure, they are only kids for such a short portion of their lives, why are they okay with setting them up to fail as adults, when they will be adults for the bulk of their lives?  I don't understand it, I don't agree with it at all.  I think it is just plain lazy parenting.

unschooling itself is a whole different topic that has been discussed enough times on here, so I am not speaking to that at all.

[Pamela H in Texas]

A couple odd thoughts:

 

***First, people tend to say, "what about when they get into the real world where there are *real* consequences."  Really, if you raise respectful, respectable, law abiding citizens, there is very little punishment in the real world.  So I do feel like I need to defend less punitive forms of discipline.  Punishment really is a choice, not *necessary.*  

 

*** I *really* think that for the average child, however we raise them is probably "good enough."  In the end, children will choose their own path, likely with some hiccups along the way.  So I think that saying that a kid that isn't punished or allowed to run the show or one who is spanked regularly or micromanged is going to turn out poorly is really stretching.  MOST kids will turn out "fine" eventually regardless.  They will all have the CHOICE to live within the confines (and freedom) of the real world. It will be their choice regardless of what we do as parents.

 

*** Like said above, this is what I think it comes down to: To let kids do whatever they want whenever they want and how ever they want is not respectful to others or themselves. One of the hardest parts of growing up is understanding what ones does and how it affects others. It isn't all about the "me" it is really about the "us/we." 

 

***I really do believe that it takes coercion to some degree (allowing natural consequences, giving logical ones, setting up built-in logical ones, etc) to raise children.  I simply cannot imagine doing so without it.  I *want* my children to live as if they believe, at least while under my roof, certain things. I have to teach them those things.  Regardless of what those things are, I think there are some at every developmental level.  Additionally, I can set the world up, for young children, to help them regarding those things.  Don't buy things you don't want kids to eat.  Baby-proof.  And then teach.  "We don't run the last few squares of the sidewalk because a driver may think we're about to run into the road."

 

***I also think people probably coerce a lot more than they think they do.  When you intentionally model something.  When you suggest the obvious, "if you learned to read, you could..." When you give opinions. When you guide a child's problem solving, "what do you think Jane felt or thought when you hit her?" The list could go on. Even asking questions, for consideration, etc from a parent is coercive (though mildly, possibly). Rewards, praise, even encouragement. Even allowing natural consequences or encouraging logical ones can be coercive.  We used almost no punishment (like once a year, maybe); but I most certainly was coercive, though less so fairly early as my (now adult) children internalized it well so was able to use the skills, tools, etc I shared, reasoned well, etc. Gentle, respectful parenting is still plenty coercive.  

 

Anyway, I think there are benefits to considering other parenting styles.  I think it is worth continuing to try to do better and better, pulling what you can from here or there or whatever.  I'm trying to raise happy, healthy, contributing members of society.  I'm trying to do it in a positive, thoughtful, respectful, and intentional way. 

 

Honestly, I cannot stand being around undisciplined kids regardless of the family's parenting style.  There are plenty of harshly treated children who are awful and plenty of those running the roost who are awful also.  There are quiet spirited parents raising out of control children and stark raving lunatics doing so also.  My second goal (on top of the one in the last paragraph) is to not drive other people nuts with my behavior or my children's.

[Lisa R.]

I think unschooling or even unparenting has to do with a larger philosophical issue. My theology and the faith I practice teaches that children are not born wise and need parental guidance. Therefore, I do not follow philosophies that are primarily child-led. I parent with boundaries, rules, advice, and consequences. I think wisdom is obtained and not given at birth. I do not expect my kids to instinctively know what is best for them with regards to nutrition, education, and general health. 

 

Of course some kids have personalities that understand moderation better than others. Some kids are eager to please and like to work hard. Sometimes we look at those types of kids, particularly the people-pleasers, and pat ourselves on the back with the good parenting job we did. The fact is, some kids are easier to raise than others. Some kids are easier to educate than others. There are kids, a minority, that will thrive even in adverse conditions. I don't find it helpful when people point to a few unschooling examples, whether from books or anecdotal stories, that show some select kids thriving under unusual circumstances.  I don't want to roll the dice and gamble that my kid might be one of those kids. So, I chose their education, guide their choices, and provide the food and health care I feel necessary as they are growing up. I know that if I micromanage this particularly once they are older, I can harm them in a different way. Even with the guidance I provide, there is still ample opportunity to provide natural consequences and delight-directed learning. 

[swellmomma]

A couple odd thoughts:

 

***First, people tend to say, "what about when they get into the real world where there are *real* consequences."  Really, if you raise respectful, respectable, law abiding citizens, there is very little punishment in the real world.  So I do feel like I need to defend less punitive forms of discipline.  Punishment really is a choice, not *necessary.*  

 

*** I *really* think that for the average child, however we raise them is probably "good enough."  In the end, children will choose their own path, likely with some hiccups along the way.  So I think that saying that a kid that isn't punished or allowed to run the show or one who is spanked regularly or micromanged is going to turn out poorly is really stretching.  MOST kids will turn out "fine" eventually regardless.  They will all have the CHOICE to live within the confines (and freedom) of the real world. It will be their choice regardless of what we do as parents.

 

I didn't see anyone talking about punishments, maybe I missed it.  What I saw was discussion about boundaries and rules.  You can have both and never punish, or micromanage.  Boundaries and rules are a set of guidelines, and use directing/teaching them how to follow those boundaries/rules is needed imo but that does not automatically mean punishment/spanking/micromanagement. What I saw posted and what I myself posted was that we don't cater to the whims of children, that children need boundaries or they can not cope with the real world and it is true.  If a child is taught their whole life that boundaries are for other people then they are less likely to follow them.  And that does not necessarily mean they are breaking laws, but if for example, you spent your whole likfe learning you can do whatever you want then it is a learning curve when you start work and have to suddenly do what you are told whether you like the task or not.  Yes most will learn and adapt to do so, but why make it harder for them.  If you have spent your whole life having meals catered to you, you are going to have a rocky relationship with your spouse that does not want to be cooking multiple meals to suit your whims. Again why set them up for struggles like that when the boundary of this is what is served is easy to establish.  There is no punishment in that, I don't know of many parents who don't already cook with their family's preferences in mind etc.  It's not about punish or don't punish.  It is about guiding or not.  I like the reference in the thread about it being like raising feral cats.  I do not see children being unparented as being raised "good enough" because they aren't being raised at all.  I agree punishment is a choice, just as it is the choice of the adult to live within the confines of the adult world BUT I do think that adults who started out as children who learned the value of living within those boundaries, who learned to take direction from others, who learned to persevere through tasks that they didn't like but finished anyway etc are better suited to handle the transition into adulthood and the responsibilities placed upon them.  Again this is not about punishments, nor is it about micromanaging.  It is about guiding out children from infancy into adulthood rather than expecting them to be mini adults or squashing them down into what we want them to be. 

 

Now I didn't quote the rest because I agree with it all, I just wanted to address those 2 points.

[mommymilkies]

Truthfully, Radical Unschooling/Parenting is the reason I no longer refer my style of homeschooling as unschooling anymore.  It was a few years ago "radical" unschooling started to become more popular and mainstream and the thought of being associated with that did not sit well with me. 

 

We now refer to ourselves as "life learners" and we've always been Attachment Parenting advocates.

 

I have never seen anything positive come from radical unschooling (although I have seen lots of positive things come from unschooling!!!!) and I have nothing positive to say about radical unschooling...so, I'll just end the discussion here!!! LOL

Pretty much the same here.  We used to unschool, but honestly I was turned off by the in-fighting about what unschooling was.  "Your kid uses a workbook they bought themselves?  You're a terrible horrible abusive school at homer!" It was sooooooo much drama.  Then my kids tested three grade levels behind in math and turned into little monsters, so we don't unschool anymore-especially not radical.  We're all happier with some rules and structure.  I'm a pretty laid back parent.  I do expect some things, though-do some school whenever it's "time", go to freaking bed when I say so (I'm an introvert and totally lose my cool after about 8 pm), and I will NEVER be a short order cook.  I went through my teen years with my parents catering to one of my brothers' every taste.  We could only eat food he liked and she would cook like 3 meals for him to get him just the one he wanted at that moment.  Nuh uh.  No way.  

 

I do know some cool unschoolers who really are great educators, role models, and do a great job.  But I will say I know far more who end up doing a 180 once that kid is 7+ years old or just do a terrible job.  

 

I read some parenting/radical unschooling book years ago, right before we stopped.  Basically she said if a kid refused to help pick up the blocks then you just do it so you don't crush their little spirits.  I seriously can not imagine that this person had any kids, let alone more than one.  

[HRAAB]

I've met several radical unschooling parents over the years.  I have tended to end up in unschooling homeschool groups because they seem to be more open to people who aren't religious.  For the most part they were highly intelligent and cool people.  Their children?  Not so much.  Sorry, but the way their kids acted and the way their parents handled it made it downright miserable to be around them.  I'm pretty low key with my kids.  They don't have a ton of rules.  They don't really have a bedtime.  I don't even limit electronics.  But no I don't let them bite people or hit people or tear up someone's property.  That's the sort of extreme we are talking about. 

 

Well, since you brought it up, I've witnessed this, too.  My 2nd oldest unschooled for high school (not strict Sandra Dodd unschooling but what worked for our family).  Anyway, we decided to go to an unschooling conference.  I had been on email groups with many of the parents and was always so impressed with what they wrote.  I can't say when I met their children I was still quite so impressed.  The hotel turned into a free for all madhouse.  Of course, not all the children were behaving in such a manner, but it was enough that we couldn't enjoy ourselves.  We left on the second day, and I left with a different opinion of radical unschooling.  The thing I have to keep in mind is I know several radical unschooling families very well, and they do not resemble what I saw at this conference.  I think some people take the 'idea' of radical unschooling and try to implement across the board with children that weren't brought up that way from the start.  Or, that they're more interested in the ideal than they are with the reality.

 

We are not a rule oriented family.  In fact, we don't have rules, but general principles.  However, I would never allow my children to behave like many of the children were behaving at that conference.  One of our principles is to respect others' property and rights, and to be respectful.

[HRAAB]

 

I have never seen anything positive come from radical unschooling (although I have seen lots of positive things come from unschooling!!!!) and I have nothing positive to say about radical unschooling...so, I'll just end the discussion here!!! LOL

 

Maybe that's the difference: the word radical.

 

I remember conversations from parents who did not enforce dental hygiene for their children and then had a mouthful of cavities to deal with, or children with medical dietary consideration and the parents wouldn't limit food - even when their children got sick.  How about a discussion about how to keep your children out of toxic materials without making rules and allowing them to choose for themselves.  Or a 19 year old boy whose full time job was to play WOW, and it was his parents' responsibility to support him while he did that.  I felt uncomfortable being connected with the term radical unschooling.

 

By the way, I don't limit screen time or video games and I don't have bedtimes.  We don't have punishments.  I do try to keep mostly healthy food in my kitchen with occasional junk food.  However, there are limits to what freedom means in our house.

 

Unschooling was a great fit for my dd, and she thrived with it.  She is a happy, well adjusted, respectful young woman.  I'm sure most unschoolers can say the same about their children.  It's probably a case of the most extreme behavior really standing out but is not the majority.

[HRAAB]

dp 

 

[Luanne]

I don't know how many unschoolers there are around here, but there seem to be a lot of unparenting people.  People who are out in public and let their children do whatever they want.  There are clearly no rules in their households and quite honestly it isn't fair to the rest of the world to raise your children with no rules, no limits, etc.  The impede on the rest of society by running them over with shopping carts and running into older people while running through the store.  I guess if you really are into this kind of lifestyle, you should do the world a favor and go live in a cave.

[LibraryLover]

There is often much anger in online rad hsing communities. I found it very depressing.

[Guest submarines]

There is so much anger in online rad hsing communities.  I found it very depressing.

Anger about what? I'm just curious because I can't find any online rad hsing communities.

[Halcyon]

Well, here Sandra Dodd defends teabagging in Halo as simply "a rude gesture". Riggggght.

[Guest submarines]

Well, here Sandra Dodd defends teabagging in Halo as simply "a rude gesture". Riggggght.

I had to google two words from your very succinct reply. I had no clue Sandra Dodd was still active online. I guess I'm an anti social unschooler for a reason.

[Guest]

I had a negative encounter with Sandra Dodd about seven years ago; her classism turned me off before she had a chance to hurt me the way she has apparently hurt so many other parents.

 

The subject of the current RU controversy  seemed like a much kinder person who was able to take Sandra's better ideas and present them in a way that was more compassionate to parents.

 

I am so sorry about what happened but glad that I am not involved in that world enough any more for anyone to expect me to have much of an opinion. I hope she gets the help she seems to need and learns to accept her own limitations.

 

I have been raked over the coals for describing my family's style of homeschooling as "sort of a combo of unschooling and classical" so I'll need to find another way of describing it when little ds gets older or else learn to keep my big mouth shut and stay off of the forums.

[Halcyon]

sorry! forgot to add the link, genscharm. http://familyrun.ning.com/forum/topics/violent-video-games

[HRAAB]

I had a negative encounter with Sandra Dodd about seven years ago; her classism turned me off before she had a chance to hurt me the way she has apparently hurt so many other parents.

 

The subject of the current RU controversy  seemed like a much kinder person who was able to take Sandra's better ideas and present them in a way that was more compassionate to parents.

 

I am so sorry about what happened but glad that I am not involved in that world enough any more for anyone to expect me to have much of an opinion. I hope she gets the help she seems to need and learns to accept her own limitations.

 

I have been raked over the coals for describing my family's style of homeschooling as "sort of a combo of unschooling and classical" so I'll need to find another way of describing it when little ds gets older or else learn to keep my big mouth shut and stay off of the forums.

 

I used to belong to several groups Sandra Dodd was on.  After seeing how abrasive she could be with new to unschooling families, I pretty much stayed out of the discussion.  One time I was responding to another person, Sandra jumped all over me and was extremely rude.  The funny thing: she didn't read my complete response and accused me of something I didn't say.  That was enough for me.  I quit posting.

 

I've heard people say Sandra Dodd is a very sweet, soft spoken person IRL.  That could very well be, but I suspect she's scared off quite a few new unschoolers with her online, abrasive attitude.