Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums General Discussion To the homeschoolers about unschooling

I know this is a touchy subject for some people and I don't want to stir up a hornet's nest, just get some seasoned explanations.

Can someone please explain how unschooling can actually work and the child still learn the basics they need to survive (reading, basic math, legible writing and readable spelling)? I'm asking because I like the concept (the child will learn when they are ready and through real life experience), but I've seen many children in my area who don't seem like they are going to get to basic proficiency, for example a 10-12 ish year old who can't read, another one whose handwriting is so terrible no one can read it and an 8-ish year old who doesn't seem to be able to add single digit numbers.

I'm just wondering how this is fair to the kids. Admittedly I think these particular kids tend to not get out much and could probably have a richer learning environment, but I also know that at least one of them spends hours daily watching TV and playing video games. When does it become not ok?

I'm really not trying to be judgemental about all of this, I just don't understand how this is supposed to end up balanced and it confuses the daylights out of me. I'm sure (or at the very least hoping really hard) that the parents of these specific children have their kids best interests at heart, I'm just not "getting" the logic behind it. I'm NOT attacking unschoolers or unschooling just using some examples I have seen to try to help people see where my confusion is coming from.

Hey Wyldkat, we had the exact same concerns that you did when we learned about unschooling so I apologize if this is long. We were thrust into homeschooling DS7 last year when he started Kindergarten...we didn't plan on it but it is the best fit for right now. So of course last year we did all the basic steps - purchased curriculum, planned out a schedule/timeline and then began homeschooling and made our son completely miserable. By December last year DS and I were at each other's throats and the "sit down at the table and let's do our lesson" thing just was not flying at all. I was just so worried that I wasn't going to be able to give him all the curriculum that he needed.

So, I began researching homeschooling and came across unschooling. I was very intrigued because that was pretty much the entire way we raised DS up until he was supposed to go into K. We followed his lead and whenever he showed an interest in anything we would show him how to learn/research/find ways to explore his interests further. So unschooling wasn't a huge jump for us.

I guess you would say we are a mix of traditional and unschooling....we do EPGY for math and reading and we use a sprinkling of History of the World to help us with history but everything else would be considered "unschooling". My DS7 is the one who will beg to travel around the state to follow the Manatee migrations here in Florida and so we will get in the car and set up camp sites around the state to visit various Manatee winter home grounds. He is the one that will wake up and spend 3 hours programming his LEGO mindstorm robot to run circuits around the house and complete different actions. He created his own Family Nature Group that meets once a month at local nature preserves and he is the tour guide to the families who come out to just enjoy a walk in the woods together- so he has to research the local flora and fauna in order to be a good tour guide. Or he may be in the mood to design his own railway line on paper and then use Kid Pix on the computer to input his railway line.

We have found that the more we allow him to follow his passions the more he is really learning real life situations and how to use reading/math/science all integrated at the same time...in those real world situations. Plunk a boxed curriculum in his face and he will run away screaming (well, not really but you know what I mean) - have him go and open up his own bank account with a debt card and start him with an allowance and he will learn all about how to handle a checking book, how to input debt card receipts and balance his book all while doing math, writing and reading.

With unschooling you are the facilitator not the dictator. It is your role to help "guide" your child - when you see that he/she is interested in a certain topic/theme/idea then you can suggest various activities/things that they can do to learn more about that topic. And the super cool thing that occurs is that when a child is learning a concept that they can see being used in a real world application they almost always end up having to read, write, do math in some form, learn some history/background....all while doing something they are interested in which in turn makes them want to go out and learn more new things and the cycle continues.

The sad thing is what you brought up...yes, there are parents out there who tend to look at homeschooling or unschooling as a form of babysitting...the parent can go off and do whatever they would like to do and the child will just learn through osmosis or sit in front of the tv all day and that is it for weeks on end. I have an issue with that BUT everyone has their opinions about unschooling or even radical unschooling. Most unschoolers I have met are viewing the role that they are there to help their child explore and discover by offering them suggestions/ideas/projects/activities when they see an interest pop up with their child. In doing so, the parent can help navigate activities/projects that will almost always encompass all of the basic curriculum areas.

I met with one unschooler group last year when we were just beginning the concept of unschooling and the first thing out of my mouth was "so, can you guys pass on some suggestions of local mentors/facilities/programs that you know about so that I can make a list of resources so when my son asks for further info, I have some resources up my sleeve to give him". I remember them just staring at me and one said, "well, our children don't tend to be very motivated so we don't have a whole lot of suggestions for you"...then they went on to share that their child's day consisted of sitting in front of the tv or computer all day long and that was it. I didn't quite know what to say to that and I went on to find an unschooling group that fit my definition of unschooling as being your child's facilitator.

My son HATES handwriting - he has dyspraxia and it is very difficult for him - we tried a boxed curriculum (handwriting without tears) and yes it was good but it had no purpose for him...and it was a fight to get him to write anything. Since we have moved into the land of unschooling last January we find him, on his own without him even realizing it - spending a lot of time writing and learning how to spell...through all different kinds of things....nature scavenger hunts, him running into the other room to write down a plan for his mindstorm robot before he forgets it, writing out a shopping list of supplies he needed to complete his rocket building project... He writes more daily now then he did when I tried to force him to sit down and do a boxed curriculum and he is doing it for a purpose so it has meaning.

Here is a good site
http://www.naturalchild.org/

And I really, really enjoy this person's blog and she is known quite while - I keep up with her blog to keep me inspired
http://thesparklingmartins.blogspot.com/2010/01/fear-becomes-reality.html

well - hope I didn't put you to sleep...there is a way to be unschoolers and through guidance, your child will hit all the "required" curriculum just through a different method but it is up to how the parent guides the child through the process :-)

IMO, unschooling will not work for all families. To unschool successfully, a family should be loving, responsive, creative, and model a love of learning. Perhaps even with such families unschooling will not work for all children. My own child is driven and loves to learn, and is particularly adamant about directing her own learning. Of course, she is not-quite-four, but since it's a trait she's had since infancy I don't think it's going to disappear anytime soon.

So, the basic principle is that children teach themselves from infancy without formal or informal curriculum. Children who are loved and played with teach themselves how to walk and talk and feed themselves. These things seems simple, but they are truly amazing feats. Unschooling is the idea that kids will continue to learn everything they need to know all of their own initiative. Of course, they typically ask their friends or relatives for help in learning. Of course, they often choose to take classes. But as an unschooling parent your responsibility is to trust that your child can make those decisions and will make them appropriately.

As for the basics, I can testify that unschooled children can certainly teach themselves the essentials. My DD is not yet 4, and has taught herself to read and do basic math and is currently working on handwriting (all on her own, though I help her when she asks).

Thanks! You seem to be doing unschooling the way I like the concept.

Does it really still count as unschooling if you use curriculum (math or reading for example)? Wolf follows a certain curriculum, but most of the time it's just us doing what he wants to do and I don't consider us unschoolers.

I've never met a kid who was unschooled the TV method, for lack of a better term, as an adult. For that matter I've never met an adult who had been unschooled in anyway. I'm just curious how the TV method turns out in the end...

My favorite description of unschooling refers to the initial stage of unschooling as deschooling. The final stage is acceptance that all forms of learning are equal. So, yes, curriculum can be a part of unschooling.

Actually, many philosophies of homeschooling recommend deschooling first. That's not just an unschooling thing. I completely agree that it is a good first step, especially if a child has been in a bad school situation.

Wyldkat, like you, I have seen a couple of people using unschooling as an excuse for what looks very much like educational neglect to me. I don't accept that as true unschooling personally (but, then, what do I know...). I just figure that I don't know what's really going on behind closed doors. I'm not sure what else you can do in those cases.

As for a definition of unschooling...

Some people have considered my family to be unschoolers because I have a whole bunch of materials for my son to choose from, but what we do in a given day tends to be child-led. We have some textbook/workbook stuff around--though we also use lots of less traditional "school" staples. When we do use text/workbooks, we don't go through them lockstep, and he does most of the work by himself, for himself. I'm more of a resource than a "school at home" teacher.

OTOH, some people would say that we are definitely NOT unschoolers because DS8 is expected to do at least a little bit from each subject every week (maybe not every day, depending on what the week is like). He is not permitted to ignore math for weeks on end, for example. And we do use workbooks and such, and some would say that unless we are baking cookies or making pizzas when we do fractions--something organic and hands-on--it can't be unschooling!

So which is right?

Who knows. It depends on how you define the term unschooling.

I read a great definition that suggested that unschooling done right is actually MORE work for the parent than school at home in many ways, since a the unschooler has to have an assortment of appropriate resources on hand at all times and must be ready to use them when the child chooses. The school-at-homer just has to have read the teacher's guide for the day's assignment. That's oversimplified, but it makes some sense to me. On that spectrum--which may or may not be a useful one to anyone but me!--I'm closer to the unschooler. <shrug>

Maybe that helps to clarify why it's confusing, at least?

I think this is true. I guess I consider us eclectic homeschoolers because I think to be 100% unschooling you'd need to be "on" and "ready" constantly to make everything a learning experience. I am actually doing this naturally the longer we homeschool, but I appreciate my down time! We certainly do follow the kid's lead in many areas. My DD5 is constantly doing crafts, drawing, working with yarn, writing, etc. My DS9 is often engineering or researching areas of interest. I consider the curriculum we do have as a guide and if we completely ignore it for a while, that's ok (with the exception of math, writing, and reading (and I'm not so picky what they are reading, as long as they read on a daily basis)). We cover the basis of subjects over the course of the week - and sometimes that might be going to a science museum, or learning about Santa Lucia at the Swedish American Institute, going to a workshop about Norse gods, or dissecting a disk drive, rather than following any curriculum.

I do know a couple people who are "real" unschoolers with varied success. I think with a motivated, and gifted learner unschooling could be a very natural way to go! I am fine with what my kids are doing as long as they are at least at grade level in everything. If we had to drop them at school on Monday, they'd be ok. Well, in our case, we'd have the opposite problem (way ahead of grade level). I wouldn't be comfortable with my child lingering below grade level for several years. I don't think your kid's life choices should be limited by decisions they made for themselves at an early age.

I disagree with this description. I'd say that when you unschool you relax into understanding that everything is a learning experience. You don't need to _make_ it that way. Yes, you need to be prepared to help with whatever your child needs help with, and you won't have advance notice to prepare--but don't most parents do that anyway?

I think what we have been doing for the last several weeks (since my son had to start wearing a painful scoliosis brace) might be described as unschooling and he is still learning. He asks me to read to him from history books and magazines like Popular Science, Popular Mechanics, Discover and National Geographic while he plays video games. He says it takes his mind off the pain. He has always learned best by reading or having me read to him and discussing what we read. He always asks a lot of questions and since we are not on a school schedule we can take the time to find answers. He doesn't have to do a lot of writing which I think would turn him off to learning because he also has motor dyspraxia and dysgraphia and hypotonia. Low endurance for things like writing was a problem before but pain causes him to fatigue even faster so we have a lot of things to work around right now. His handwriting is legible and spelling and vocabulary have never been a problem for him, but he can't write as fast or as much as other kids, so he learned to type and he can use his Livescribe Pulse Smart Pen to take notes.

He plays educational games to learn anatomy and vocabulary and Japanese phrases on his iPhone in bed at night when he doesn't have to wear the brace. He also likes to play things like physics based puzzle games while I read to him.

The brace makes it hard for him to do the things he did before because it limits his mobility and he has to wear it during any kind of weight bearing activity for the next 5 or 6 years. I would like for him to get out more but there isn't a lot for him to do in a small town where all boys do sports.

Yeah, like I said, many definitions. The definition that kimck and I are discussing there came from someone who calls herself an unschooler. So is she wrong and she isn't an unschooler? Are you wrong? I'd argue you're both right and just coming at it differently. <shrug again> Her model will work for some people, yours for others. No wrong, just different.

That's why I quit trying to define these things. Doing what works for one's own family in practice and not trying to make a philosophy out of it seems the smartest course of action.

I do think unschoolers as a group tend to be relatively unconcerned about making sure the kids are doing at least grade level work. (And that's a generalization, but I think it's a fair one.) I consider myself to be a child-led eclectic homeschooler rather than an unschooler precisely because I want my kids to work at grade level at least in every subject and not to fall behind on anything. I don't think a true unschooler would feel that way because that means I am imposing external constraints on what my child learns.

In practice, however, DS8 is ahead in everything, so what we do winds up looking pretty close to unschooling. I say "What do you want to do today?" and he tells me. Then he does it. That's pretty unschool-y!

Interesting topic and one I've often wondered about, as well.


Has your DS ever said he doesn't want to do anything or that he'd rather sit around and watch TV or something? LOL, this would be my fear with DS, especially in the beginning. I'm anticipating that the transition into school at home (online charter) will be met with some of these challenges at first, until DS gets over the initial "Hey, I'm not at school" frame of mind. Of course, he may surprise me, but I'm preparing myself anyway. I would really like to utilize some of the free time by following his lead to see where the interests take us. However, an interest in the latest/greatest video game or nicktoon show is not someplace I really want to go.

I guess what I don't quite get is how do you direct the child to interests that they (most likely) have, just aren't aware yet how to pursue without taking away the child-led aspect of it? Is this where de-schooling comes into play?

I probably should call what I am describing "radical unschooling." But then again, there are those to whom "radical unschooling" means consensual living, and I'm not talking about that at all. It is certainly true that people use the term "unschooling" to mean all kinds of things.

But I do take issue with other people's definitions of unschooling, because it BUGS me when people say, "Oh, unschooling parents are so obnoxious--always interrupting their child's play to point out academic facts." To me, that is the antithesis of unschooling, though I can see how someone might call it that. Maybe I'll start calling that method helicopter unschooling and just say that I'm more of a lazy-day-at-the-beach unschooler.

Just to be clear, what I'm not doing is judging other people for their methods. As I said earlier, unschooling seems right for us (right now, anyway), but I've got no reason to believe that it's right for everyone all of the time.

LOL, no5no5! I really like the terms "helicopter unschooler" and "lazy-day-at-the-beach unschooler." Nice! I can totally understand why you don't like being lumped in with that style of unschooling.

It's also why I find myself resisting labels now that we've got our "sea legs." Labels can be very useful tools under the right circumstances (like in schools) for getting kids services that they need. But in homeschooling? Labels virtually never seem useful to me. They seem to be used only to do the kind of judging you're not doing, or even to actively exclude others who "aren't doing it right." I don't see how labels help anyone. There may be a case, but I haven't seen one myself.

Yes, deschooling can help with this. Also, just wandering around the library and seeing what books interest him. Really, take a LOT of time and browse the shelves. Look at/check out everything that he expresses an interest in. Pursue whatever he wants to take further.

Also, just ask, "What would you like to learn about?" You might be surprised how many big ideas come out of him!


TV and videogames are off limits during school hours unless they are educational (and even then, I limit them for behavioral reasons--my kids get cranky with too much media time!). Legos are also out unless he has a specific plan for how to use them educationally and I approve it. (Again, my non-unschooling colors shine through!) But if I didn't make these rules, nothing much else would get done. Most homeschoolers that I know of--even unschoolers--have some rules like this. That's one of he reasons kids who spend all day watching cartoons worry me. That's not the norm for 99% of the homeschoolers out there.

When deschooling you might be a bit more flexible about things like TV, games and Legos, since what they choose to watch or to build might tell you something about what they would like to pursue. But I'd be wary of setting up "homeschooling = free TV and videogames all the time." You might have some very bad habits to break!

LOL - me too! And I didn't mean that in a negative way. I was more accentuating my own laziness as a homeschooler. The unschoolers I know locally are of the more radical variety! And they would definitely not consider us remotely unschoolers. Even though my kids have tons of unstructured time and free choice compared to most kids. Labels are a bit dangerous. I totally agree that they don't have a lot of value for homeschoolers. That's why if anyone asks I say we're eclectic - covers everything. And we do do a little of everything at one time or another.

Just for the record, our school day is from wake up until 3 pm usually. Although, we are rarely "working" for more than 2-3 hours of that time. No video games or recreational TV during that time! I have kids that would choose to do that all day if they could. Maybe they'd burn out on it eventually. But I'm not going to try it!

I think I'm looking at things from the beginning and not toward the end of the transitional period. In doing that, I foresee interest in everything but those things having to do with school, homework, or education. Does that make sense? I think I need to change my frame of reference to get a clearer picture of how it would work.

And that's what I have in mind for our days, as well. But it seemed...contradictory? to some of what I've understood "unschooling" to be. Now that I'm gaining a better understanding, it makes more sense.

Our plan is for him to decompress and just relax over the summer, which, I hope, would take care of all of this anyway. We do much better with structure and schedule, so certain hours are dedicated to school time and DS is already aware of this - although, he did think that it'd be great to watch TV while he was in school, LOL! That's a definite no-go!

Well, I guess the fact is that even if it is contradictory to unschooling, if it's what's best for your (or my) particular child, then it's what you should do, you know?

I know my child well enough to know that it would NOT be in his best interest to watch TV all day, every day. Some unschoolers would probably argue that I could, and he'd get bored with it eventually and would learn to self-regulate. It's possible that's true. But I wouldn't let him eat nothing but candy all day long either, even though eventually he'd probably want a carrot stick. I don't believe that unschooling means "unparenting," but if it does, then I'm not doing that.

You might be surprised how quickly your child wants to do educational things. If his brain has been starving from lack of challenge, he may be thrilled to get to do something that makes him think. That's how it was for my DS8. He was so excited to get to do something *hard* for a change that he was in hog heaven when we first started homeschooling. He didn't actually want to deschool. He was too excited to get to do something interesting. Once we brainstormed what he wanted to do for school so I could start researching, he wanted to get going on it.

Is there a reason you want to be an unschooler specifically?

This is exactly what we did after our DS finished first grade. We took the summer and did activities, sports, the beach, etc. We pursued some science experiments and visited some museums. We regularly visited the library and DS read a bunch. But there were no mandatory requirements out of any of us that summer. By fall, all of us were ready for a more regular routine and having all the neighborhood kids disappear back to school helped that out.

Oh no, not really. I do like the idea of discovering what my son's interests and passions are and it seems that the idea of unschooling facilitates that. Of course, I know what alot of his interests are and such. But really allowing him to discover, explore, and develop his interests while still using a more traditional curriculum-based approach, is very appealing to me, kwim? (Actually, this discussion is probably more about me understanding something I didn't before.)

This is how I see things playing out for us, as well.

This is straying a little off from what you asked (and I'm afraid it got long!), but while we're definitely not unschoolers here by anyone's definition, I think we do manage to follow/develop DS's interests and passions. I describe our homeschool style as "collaborative" - it's not child led, it's not grownup led... we're kind of like a little committee. DS has things he wants out of it, I have things I want out of it, we negotiate and come to an agreement, tweak things, renegotiate, see how they work.... It all kind of comes together.

Sometimes it's obvious that we're responding to a specific interest -- DS has asked to do Marine Biology next year. So we will. On the other hand, if we're doing Marine Biology next year I insist that we get through a certain amount of regular biology first so we're not reinventing the wheel on the way. So that's me. And I've asked that he contribute a certain amount to the planning -- locations and species to focus on -- and that he get that to me by March at the latest so I can figure out our schedule (some things are seasonal - I don't want to hear in September that he wishes we could have volunteered at the turtle sanctuary during breeding season!). And then once it's on the calendar, it's an assignment. No more negotiating unless it's really dire.

Similar with his annual science fair project. I'll suggest that he choose something in keeping with our year's theme/topic (Biology this year), he'll manage to turn that into something he's interested in (bio-TECH), and then he knows I'll drive him all over creation if necessary and buy all kinds of ridiculous materials, but he has to get the work done and write it up. period.

Then there are things that I think he might like but he hasn't discovered for himself yet. Next year I'm considering Economics. He's absolutely certain he wants to be an engineer when he grows up. He might be right... but he's also ten, and I see some other possibilities in his range of interests and talents. So while the idea of Economics almost certainly isn't going to occur to him for a long time, I'm betting that once he knows what it's all about he'll be intrigued. I could be wrong. If he makes it through a semester without getting hooked I'll probably let it go, but as long as it's on the calendar it's required. It won't kill him anyway.

I think unschooling can be an excellent thing. I think it would even work for us to a certain extent (he wouldn't sit in front of the TV for very long without finding something better to do), except that for us I like our way better. We both like a predictable structure, and we both like to keep schoolwork as its own little thing. We start our day, we work, we finish, we put away our work, we go have fun. It's very much school at home, but it's a school that offers exactly the right classes at exactly the right time with exactly the right accomodations.

I know this is an old thread but I thought I'd respond anyway
The point of unschooling as I see it (and I actually tend to not call it unschooling, and prefer to call it natural learning) is that children have an endless internal desire to learn if the process is not interfered with, and that learning can occur any time. Just as they can learn to walk, talk and eat in their own time. They will learn what they need to, so they won't miss out on anything important to them. I know of unschooled children who didn't learn to read until age 11 and who are just as skilled as other children who learned at 4. What is important is that they were able to come to it in their own time through intrinsic motivation and now they have a love for it.
I don't believe that bookwork is out of place in an unschooling family, as long as it is child led. We have plenty of work books but my son is the only one who chooses when he does them. He tends to get enthusiastic about them every now and then and then he leaves them for months and practices the skills he's learned in his daily life instead. TBH most of his maths skills have been learned by asking me questions about time and money and playing with a calculator. If he asked for ore structure I'd give it to him, and I'd still call it unschooling because it would simply be me facilitating his learning for him in the way he needs me to

We don't homeschool because I know absolutely nothing more than she does and my husband (the other genius :P) is at work all day. Anyway, DD14 seems to be doing fine in school. I saw an article about "unschooling" on yahoo a few months ago, and I was very wary of the method. I guess my thoughts are that it would work for some kids, but the kids in the video were the subjects of *radical* unschooling. (Interviewer- "so your 15 year old daughter stays up all night, and you are fine with that?", and later, the girl herself said she didn't think she knew nearly enough as she would need to know for college, and presumably wasn't going). I guess my thoughts are that taking your child to a farm isn't going to teach them what they need to know
Having said all of this, I think the system is *perfect* for gifted or unusually curious kids who really want to learn, so please know that I'm not bashing any of you. I just don't think the system is good for a child who wants to watch TV all day, which, I believe is a good amount of children.

I don't know what the article was that you're referring to, but I would recommend being VERY wary about accepting at face value anything anyone says about unschooling--even me!--particularly if they aren't unschooling themselves. There are a lot of highly biased and/or uninformed people with a dog in that fight. One source is not going to give you a fair take.

I'm highly suspicious of any family who would recognize the problems with what they were doing, would not change what they were doing, and would publicize those problems on Yahoo. That makes me wonder if there's some axe to grind there. It doesn't sound like something a reasonable family would do.

There are neglectful/abusive homeschoolers, of course, just as there are neglectful/abusive public and private schoolers. The problem is not with the method of education; the problem is with the individual execution.

It is possible to do very advanced, hands-on physics and calculus and genetics (etc.) at a farm. It all comes down to execution. I'm not saying it's the best way--and it's not the way we've selected--but it *can* be done.

As we noted back in January, it is possible to unschool and not have a kid watching TV all day. One solution: don't have a TV. I know a number of families who fit this profile!

BTW, at a certain point, it's not necessary to "know more" than your child. They express an interest in a subject, and you find a class or a tutor to guide them. Even unschoolers do this.

I think perhaps you should also be wary of biased, exploitative "journalism."

1. http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/video/extreme-parenting-radical-unschooling-10413158 An article accompanied it at the time, but I could only find the video.
2. I thought the video started out well. They had a garden, they were probably learning about science, etc.
3. The bottom line of the video seemed to be "kids don't need rules or chores." "eat whatever you want, don't brush your teeth if you don't want to, don't learn anything if you don't want to."
4. I would like to again emphasize that I don't think the whole premise of "unschooling" is bad, but simply that I don't think it is a good idea for most kids. Once again, I think it is a great idea for the kids that *are* going to seize the opportunities of learning that they get.
5. About the farm, I'm just saying, if the kids *do* want to learn at the farm, great, that would be cool. But in the video, it just looks like they buy some eggs.
And as was said by no5no5, I think this news story seems to be biased in the "unschooling is an crazy idea" direction.
I think unschooling would actually be wonderful for my daughter if she wanted to do it, but she has friends and believe it or not, more opportunities for learning at school (at least she's said that). If she were homeschooling though, I think she would plow through all sorts of subjects and use the system to her academic advantage. In the video, the kids didn't seem like they liked math, so they didn't do that.
I guess what I'm asking is, do any of you guys exclude subjects solely because your child doesn't want to do them? And if you don't, is it really considered unschooling?

FWIW, the families in the video seem to practice consensual living in addition to unschooling. They are often practiced together, but they are not the same.


My child is only 4 1/2, but of course there are things she is interested in and things she is not interested in (and naturally these things fluctuate). She does the things she is interested in. She is certainly not going to choose to do something she doesn't want to do and I'm certainly not going to force her. Are there things I'd like her to know by the time she is an adult? Of course. Am I concerned that she won't learn them? Not in the least. It's easy for me to let go of that worry because she's constantly surprising me with what she knows, and I can only imagine that externally directed learning would slow her down. I believe that unschooling ND kids is probably a lot harder to justify to the outside world, but I see no reason it wouldn't be every bit as good for the kids.

Personally, I think that the idea that kids are going to grow up totally uneducated in one subject or another is pretty misguided. Sure, they may learn things earlier or later than is typical in school, but, baring disability or neglect, no child is going to turn eighteen unable to do basic math or read or understand the general principles of science or the most important facts of history. And IMO if there is something an unschooled child is unable or unwilling to learn from his or her environment, it is very likely something he or she has no need or desire to know.

Unschooling is where learning is self directed and self regulated by the child. Radical unschooling is where this is extended to all areas of a child's life including but not limited to sleep, food, and in some cases, screen. I think that this works in some families/with some children, and with other it doesn't. There is a huge difference, imo, between this and completely permissive parenting, which is what I believe that some so-called radical unschoolers do.
When I was parenting my son on my own we dabbled in radical unschooling. He was allowed to self regulate sleep and food. This didn't mean he ate junk all day and he wasn't up all night every night. He chose his food from a nutritious selection that I made available. I spent a lot of time with him discussing how he could read his own body's cues for needing sleep. It worked wonderfully for him and then only reason we had to stop was when we moved interstate when I met my partner. Self regulation doesn't work for her child at all in most areas, so we've had to find a balance to meet everyone's needs. My son still does self regulate his food at home and makes exceptional choices there, but screen time and sleep are directed by me to meet the needs of the whole family.


"Personally, I think that the idea that kids are going to grow up totally uneducated in one subject or another is pretty misguided. Sure, they may learn things earlier or later than is typical in school, but, baring disability or neglect, no child is going to turn eighteen unable to do basic math or read or understand the general principles of science or the most important facts of history. And IMO if there is something an unschooled child is unable or unwilling to learn from his or her environment, it is very likely something he or she has no need or desire to know."
Absolutely!

We don't homeschool for a variety of reasons, chief among them that DD7 is hugely social, and I'm hugely antisocial, and it's much easier for me to meet her social needs at school than it would be for me to coordinate unpleasant-to-me social activities.

That said, if we were to homeschool, we would unschool (although I personally prefer "child lead learning" as a label). For a variety of reasons, chief among them that, in my experience, I do a very poor job attempting to teach DD anything, and a very good job of facilitating her efforts to learn anything.

And yes, we would exclude subjects solely because she didn't want to do them. If it's important to her, she'll come around to it in her own time.

For example:
- Swim lessons from 12 months to 2 1/2 years, because I wanted her to be able to swim: total failure. The school actually asked us to take her out of lessons, because she was becoming more and more distressed around the water. Swim lessons at 7, because she was determined to swim: total success. She went from total nonswimmer to jumping off the diving board and swimming the width of the pool with rollover breathing in about 3 weeks.

- This past summer, if she was ready for bed on time, she got an extra 30 minutes to watch TV, read, or do EPGY math. Three nights out of 4, she picked math. Other than the library's summer reading program (for which she read the 20 shortest books she owned in about 30 minutes total, because she wanted the inflatable whale prize), I'm not sure she touched a book all summer. Yesterday was the first library day, and she went to bed last night 2 chapters in to Christmas in Camelot. I have no clue when she read the remaining ~80 pages, but it was in time to take an AR test over it in class this morning. So she seems to have gone back to reading, all on her own.

- DD has always been anti-vegetable. The school offers her vegetables every day at lunch, and she always tosses them untasted. I gave up on offering at home. I'm not sure she's eaten a cup of vegetables cumulatively in her entire life, if you don't count pizza / pasta sauce. In the car today, she asked me to please serve her 4 raw carrot sticks with Caesar dressing as dip with dinner on Monday, and to require her to eat them.

- She just started 3rd grade, still adding and subtracting on her fingers. One day, she'll either need to memorize her math facts for some reason important to her, and she'll memorize them. Or maybe she won't - I've been known to mentally count on my own fingers as an adult.

Kids will surprise you.

Thanks for all of the answers, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone, I didn't want it to sound bad. I just guess I had a completely wrong idea of how unschooling worked after seeing that video.

I have no doubt that journalists following me around could make me look like a neglectful, horrible mother, or mother of the year, depending on how they were inclined. I'm neither. Journalism isn't always about truth, it's often about a good story.

However, even though I do consider myself an unschooler, I am really enjoying this thread because it has made me more comfortable about what I do. The more permissive side of radical unschooling gets much more of a run, and it is lovely to hear it's still unschooling if I have a structure and rules in my house!

For my family, I also feel that it's ok to use some curriculum. John Holt described curriculum as guide books, and I liked that because it made me free to use/not use as I saw fit. I don't have to go every place mentioned in a guide book, or miss things just because they aren't in my guidebook, but if the book has some great stuff in it, and I'm enjoying it - why not?

It was a real eye opener for me when I was teaching and I saw how "hit and miss' the school education actually was. We like to pretend it's all neat, but really it's not. (That's one of the reasons there is so much repetition.) Unschooling just acknowledges that, and builds on it.

Thanks for finding it GreenGully!

Yeah, I go back to "do what works," regardless of what you call it. I don't know that there's any reason to strive to be 100% unschooling any more than there is a reason to strive to be 100% parent-led (or 100% teacher-led, for that matter). Putting the philosophy before the needs of the child is certainly contrary to unschooling, and I would argue, it's contrary to the aims of education in general.

Personally, I would be uncomfortable if my child skipped a whole subject for years at a time. But I think that's unlikely. It's too easy to slip learning in, either by making the subject appeal to their particular way of learning or by dropping little bits here and there so they don't even realize they're getting the subject.

But I'm not really an unschooler.

I wasn't offended, BassetLover. I just wanted you to know that stuff like that video is out there, and there's usually an agenda behind it. Skepticism is warranted.

Frankly, I figure that even if there's a family out there who is "unschooling," which translates for them as not serving their kids' educational needs at all, it has nothing to do with anyone else's version of unschooling. It's not like there's only one way to do it, you know? So what one family calls unschooling might look nothing at all like what another unschooling family does. It's ridiculous for news organizations to try to present that one family as representative. I always hate to see that kind of bias presented as if it were fact.

I wasn't offended either

I should add that if my son wasn't interested in a subject area then he wouldn't pursue it.
It is often asked of unschoolers "what if he decides he wants to be an astronaut and he has missed all those years of science learning?". My answer is that because he is self directed in his learning he will most likely have ventured into learning plenty about science well before he's considered becoming an astronaut. He'll have access to any texts he likes and if he shows a strong interest then I'll offer to find him a mentor within the community. And if it comes out of the blue then I know of lots of stories of young adults who, when motivated, are able to complete most of highschool science curriculum in a a few months with no trouble.

This is the belief/justification often cited in the homeschool/unschooling community and I have to say I don't buy it. It seems to have almost the ring of urban legend to me. Being able to catch up enough to overcome years of being behind in order to get to the place where a kid could possibly be admitted to college? Sure, I buy that since most colleges take nearly everyone who applies. What I don't believe is students doing absolutely nothing in science for a lifetime and then in a couple of months getting to the point where they are capable of being admitted to a study at a high level and do well.

It seems at the very heart of this magical never work but it will all come to you is an overgeneralization error based on early milestones. It is the belief that aha the kid learned to talk and read and didn't have to be taught so aha they will be able to learn everything else in the same instantaneously seeming way.

Learning biology, chemistry, physics isn't something that happens instantly as a result of development. Rather, they require study and practice. Granted fast learning gifted kids on their own may get there much faster than the pace of a traditional curriculum. That doesn't mean though that it is something that really happens for anyone without some degree of effort and time. To believe that all that matters is the desire to learn and the attitude that now you want it and then it will happen quickly reinforces the exact message that is bad for kids. It is the message that what counts is your innate talent not how hard you work or the time you put to a task.

We homeschooled all the way through. Most people would describe us as unschoolers but I'm not invested in the label. There are great homeschoolers and unschoolers out there. But, I will also be honest and say I don't think the media would have to look far to find kids who aren't going to be well prepared for adult life (and I'm sure they wouldn't have to look hard with schooled kids either). I'd like to say every example I've seen of unschooling was fantastic, but in reality I've seem middle school age students who were illiterate and lacked basic elementary school skills. Maybe they'll overcome it or maybe they won't.

I certainly see that PG kids can skip steps and can make leaps and bounds that will astound parents ,but I suspect most folks will find this happens less and less as their children get older. But, when it comes to mastering upper level course content parents I believe parents are kidding themselves if they think a kid can go from illiterate to college ready in a few short months if they put their minds to it. I understand why this belief would bring comfort as it absolves parents of all responsibility and worry. I do not believe though it is based in reality.

Yeah, but those subjects (IMHO) are a lot like ballet. There's no reason not to start young, if you have a kid who's so inclined. But you can pick them up for the first time at 12 or so, having had no particular prior experience, and still go on to do them professionally, with sufficient motivation and natural talent.

I do think there's a "too late" point for a self-directed learner to decide on some paths - but that's true of traditionally schooled kids, too. And I definitely agree that, at some point, it takes hard work over a period of time to be really good, at the adult level, in just about anything. Which is why you need sufficient motivation if you start on a path later than your peers and still want to be successful at high levels.

My real-life knowledge of someone who was unschooled was a 15yo who couldn't do 4th grade math. She liked to read, so could read fiction relatively well, but didn't have the skills to read and interpret scientific writing, or to do the sort of literary analysis expected of a kid her age. But I suspect that "unschooling" was a more socially-acceptable explanation than "We got mad at the school district so pulled her out, and then having her around during the day to watch the younger siblings was a good deal for us, and then she was so far behind that she didn't want to be a 13yo in 3rd grade in public school, so we just let her do her own thing."

Which is a far cry from "My kid is currently disinterested in math, so we aren't doing anything formal in math. But there are workbooks on a variety of topics on her bookshelf, a handful of websites that include math games on the home page of her browser, I give her a budget and shopping list at the grocery store and if she can find an extra treat that fits into the budget we'll buy it, and we play Yahtzee as a family every weekend with each player keeping their own score."

I suspect in cases where that happens (if/where they exist), kids have been soaking up more of the subject than the parent realizes all along.

My younger DS is only 6, so this may be one of those irrelevant younger cases, but in terms of personality and learning style--which probably won't change much--he goes on a tear and learns everything there is to know about a subject that interests him. Granted, the subjects are usually pretty easy at this stage. But I can imagine an older version of him getting inspired, dropping everything else, and studying science full-time. It wouldn't take very long for a kid like that to catch up. I think it's unlikely, but possible.

Science would probably be the hardest subject in which to do that given the usefulness of lab work to learning and the improbability of getting *all* the labs one needs in the space of a few months.

I certainly wouldn't recommend banking on the strategy.

My bigger worry is that if a kid isn't exposed to things, then how will that child know if s/he's interested in studying more of it or not? If you never try it, you never want to try it. I think part of being a responsible educator--at home or in a traditional school--is the job of broadening the horizons of the kids whom you are teaching. I don't think a kid should have to slave away at something that doesn't suit, but I think there are plenty of ways to approach subjects that will make them not feel like slaving away.

A little creativity and problem-solving in an educator goes a long way for growing a curious child, I think.

I suspect a kid who had no interest whatsoever in science until age 12 or older is not going to *want* to become an astronaut or anything else science-related. So as long as the kid winds up with a basic working knowledge of science by graduation, I'd say it's fine. But it would be a shame for a kid to *think* that she didn't like science because she never studied any science, when it was really a wonderful path for her.

The whole point of the parents being a part of the equation in unschooling is that they are there to facilitate learning and offer opportunities for that which includes exposing them to a diverse range of experiences. I can't imagine a child being more exposed to the pathways the world in all its diversity than an unschooled kid who gets to spend their days living in it rather than sitting at a desk for six hours a day. It is a complete myth that the unschooled child has less exposure to such things. All it takes is an expressed interest from the child and the parent will hopefully offer various resources to explore that. Sometimes that is in the form of strewing (leaving resources in the child's line of sight without any pressure or expectation that they will take it up - more often used when the parent is hoping to introduce something the child might like into their scope). School just isn't the only way to gain exposure to a range of subjects, in fact my belief and experience is that it really only presents a very limited range of subjects and approaches to learning.
ETA I think there is a misconception that unschooling means zero study. It really doesn't mean that at all. It just means that that study is child directed. And if a child clearly isn't doing anything at all then it should be obvious to the parent that the child needs more structure and that unschooling isn't really working for that child.

Interesting conversation. My son just returned from CTY and told me that some of his friends were doing high schl science classes in such a way that after 3 weeks the half kids were able to score a 3 or above on the AP exam. Im not sure if Imm remem the conversation aurately or if DS had all the details. I dont know what kind of preperation the kids had but I do know that some rapid learning took place.

I think the bigger question is how to handdle a childd who is shut down in an area of learning for any reason in any setting. There is no one answer here. But it is a question that parents here face. If a child is functioning well then child led is so wonderful. If a child isnt functioning in an area the we parents try lots of ways - including letting it alone for a bit -to give that supported push.
peace grinity

Exactly! Strewing and other such techniques are exactly what I had in mind when I talked about slipping bits of learning in.

It's frankly too easy to inject a bit of every subject into everyday life to have a kid get none of one subject for years at a time.

But I was working from the idea of the child who, for years at a time, is getting none of one subject at all--really none! No books around, no conversations about it, no experiments, etc.

In that unlikely case, I think it's probably a sign that a parent isn't unschooling effectively. That's when I would worry about the child not being exposed to stuff s/he might enjoy.

Frankly, I've never seen that IRL. All the unschoolers I know work their tails off to provide that exposure. But I would worry without it.

Let's imagine though that he wasn't gifted. And, that he was entering high school age with elementary school level reading and math skills. That would be an entirely different story.

I certainly accept gifted kids can go from no interest in a subject to a high level of mastery. Our child had no interest in science but within weeks went to AP level study. He was able to this because he already had high level math, reading, thinking, and study skills. It still took hard work.

It is really easy for me to imagine it because I've seen it several times over. If the choice is play video games at home or go to school, the kid who is going to school is certainly learning more about "the pathways of the world and all its diversity".

But he is gifted. As are many other kids.

As I understood your previous post (and please correct me if I'm wrong), you're basically arguing that it is "urban legend" for a kid to make leaps of that nature, that you don't believe it *has* ever happened because you don't believe it *could* happen.

And while I completely agree with you that it is NOT a good idea to bank on that sort of leap to salvage a crummy education, especially if a kid a) is not a gifted learner, b) doesn't have a solid math foundation, and c) isn't a really driven sort of kid, I don't think it is impossible for a kid of a certain sort to make that leap.

I think what is less likely, actually, is that a kid who never showed a bit of interest in a subject over many years would suddenly become driven to master it. Interests usually develop over time, even in kids like mine who tend to form "serial obsessions." But even in my kids, their interests are pretty predictable. They don't spring from nothing into fully-formed career paths.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'd take issue with the ridiculous question "What if he decides he wants to be an astronaut and he has missed all those years of science learning?" But I think the answer GreenGully offered is not impossible under certain, specific circumstances.

As a side note: I think it is important to distinguish between people who take unschooling seriously and people who use unschooling as an excuse to neglect their kids' education. Your last response to GreenGully seems to me to be talking about the latter, while she is talking about the former.

Have you seen unschoolers who play video games all day, every day for months or years? I can't imagine anyone being happy doing that (though I enjoyed a week-long video game marathon well enough back in the day). I know that DD is still very young, but when she uses the computer she does a wide variety of things besides playing games, including watching documentaries, drawing pictures, reading stories, and otherwise learning about a wide variety of topics. I guess my reaction to learning that a child spent all of his or her time playing video games would be that perhaps other choices have not been provided, or perhaps the child has some sort of mental or physical issue preventing him or her from engaging in healthier behavior. Perhaps I am wrong; I know that television and video games can be very addictive, which is one of the reasons we choose not to have them in our house.

Yes. The poster was commenting that the six hours in school have to offer less of a world view. I can easily think of plenty of kids who are totally screen plugged, some of them exclusively on video games for that amount of time daily. It sucks. To be clear I'm not saying this is what ALL unschooling is, but it is what I have seen locally and read the same on many unschooling lists as well. It sucks.

Kriston,
I'm not saying kids never make leaps and bounds. Rather, that higher level studies - high school and beyond - typically require some effort and concentrated study. For students who are smart and have good solid skills (reading, math, critical thinking, etc.) it is within grasp to make substantial progress in less time than would be required in traditional schooling. (clearly I don't question that as our child entered college quite young).

I don't however accept the contention that like walking and talking students will naturally learn calculus. It is a very different process requiring very different skills. Some of the skills most required for academic success are really only acquired through some practice. I'm thinking of skills such as working through frustration, not letting the perfect get in the way of good, etc. Having homeschooled a child all the way through I see that while yes, some skills from baking or archery or whatever the kid likes may apply to academics, there are some separate skills required for more upper level work that really are difficult to develop in another context.

What I've seen very often in the unschooling community is this complicated and somewhat contradictory relationship with academic acheivement. It is on the one hand rejected as "schooled" thinking and rejected as being irrelevant to a happy life. At the same time, the stories of the unschooled kid who had a great academic accomplishment (entered college early, went to Harvard, won the big science fair) are repeated as a validation of the entire movement. I've heard these sorts of references about my child as though his particular accomplishments are a validation of someone else's child led learning rather than probably revealing a couple of things. 1. he's freaky smart. 2. his kind of smarts works very well with academics.

Yes, that certainly could be the case. I think some people are more neurologically at risk for screen addiction. Some of the kids I've seen who fit this description are kids who are on the spectrum or at least spectrumish. What is tricky is that sometimes their parents have similar traits so they may not be the best ones to encourage social interaction or overcoming anxiety.

I haven't been able to read all 5 pages of posts, but thought I'd add my two cents since I have a much different perspective about unschooling after this summer.

We started HSing last January. Like many, I'd had a generally unfavorable opinion of "unschooling" after meeting several HS families whose children clearly aren't meeting basic standards. (I think this is also why, 12 months ago, I also had an unfavorable opinion of HSing itself!) I generally follow the classical approach, but we only spend about 50% of our schooltime on standards-type lessons. The rest ebbs and flows around DS's interests, either with self-exploration or through co-ops.

My unschooling epiphany came this summer when I decided that we weren't going to do any formal schoolwork, and I'd let DS pick his own path. I HATE having electronics on during the day and thought I'd have to be a meanie about his new Wii and DS. Wow, was I pleasantly surprised!

DS probably played Wii for a total of 10 hours all summer, and his DS rarely made an appearance except during trips. The tv stayed off without incident, and yet his days were filled! He created two "summer camps," read more than 100 books, came up with a novel series (he's on book 2), decided to practice typing, played constant math games w/ friends in our car and figured out math puzzles/facts (ie how many days old was his 2 year old brother?), insisted on going to 2 weeks of vacation bible school, science camp, and art camp, studied astronomy, chose 8 museums to visit and helped plan our Crater Lake trip, ("this is the coolest HS subject ever," he declared at a natural history museum where he spent hours reading about native tribes), asked for additional swimming lessons, picked out projects from SOTW to do on his own...and the list went on and on. He also has numerous friends and his weeks are filled with taekwondo, soccer, swimming, and playdates, so he's not a loner desperate for something to do. He simply wants to learn..... and we simply "unschooled."

Since I'm s high type-A "structure person" myself, I can't say that this has convinced me to chuck my planning and become an unschooler all school year. I can't imagine this working for the majority of 6 year old children we know. HOWEVER, I am convinced that it works wonderfully for children like him when the parents are carefully monitoring to make sure the "important things" also make their way in. For those parents who put in the extra effort needed to allow this freedom, it can be wonderful!

Through our own experiment, it has also taught me to follow more of what my son needs. Now, though we have our list of ideals to hit every day, I listen more to his needs. When he has a new idea for his chapter, I suspend my plan long enough for him to get it down. When he wants to study more about Spartans instead of the Aztecs, or take a month from life science to learn the constellations, I follow his lead. He's a happier student, and I usually end up learning something from him.

I'm going against the grain with this one. �I've been teaching my son since an early age. �I'm teaching �him phonics with short consistent daily lessons because that is how he will be taught throughout his school career. �
I know how much you can accomplish in a few short dedicated weeks. �I was known to read ahead in my textbooks and finish all the review questions in the book for the year in the first few weeks. �Who couldn't? I've seen my son work on other things with that same efficiency. �I just wanted him to learn the other way to learn things too. �
I'm going to let him go to school (as long as he behaves) �And the part I'm taking into my heart from the philosophy of unschooling is that we should explore this amazing world together. �You can't call me an unschooler because I believe we should all try almost everything. � Paraphrasing my dad, "I'm encouraging my kids to try to do everything because while it's important to find out what you're good at and what you like to do, it's equally important to find out all the wonderful things in this world that you s*** at". � (I should google a synonym for that word:).�
The caveat that the more unschooly parents have given me (beyond the general possibility of extinguishing their love of learning) is that by teaching him to learn by the methods the school will teach him, maybe instead of adding another perspective to his understanding I will inadvertently be squashing his natural learning style and replacing it.

I did read all the pages. �I would only add that the family who would let the kid skip school and be a couch potato (not the unschoolers here, the hypothetical ones) is probably going to be proud when said kid has a family, lives close by, and gets promoted to manager of the gas station. �And the pride will be over having a family. �Maybe those particular unschoolers really don't care if the kid comes from behind and becomes wildly successful at in the final moment. �Of course there's also a whole industry around belated adult education. �

I'm going to try that one on my kid! He needs to understand that it's ok to not be good at something. Come to think of it, so do I.

"To be bad," conjugated as needed.

My partner was raised in an environment where the other 4-letter s-word is commonly used, and it baffles me that she can't just substitute "stuff."

There's another concern, though, which is that these kids are going to grow up to be voters. Education isn't just for self-fulfillment. It's neccessary for creating a responsible citizenry.

I may be overly cynical, but I've never seen anything to indicate that school actually fulfills that goal.

I was thinking the same thing, no5no5. I think we have to distinguish between what is a problem specific to unschooling and what is a problem that is culture-wide. Remember that the percentage of kids who are homeschooled is only something like 2% of kids; only a small percentage of *that* number would claim to be unschoolers, and only a small percentage of *THAT* number are using unschooling as a way to neglect their kids. Tiny number!

Punish abuse and neglect wherever it is found, of course, but I get tired of the focus on the homeschooling few for massive, culture-wide issues. There's abuse, neglect and bad citizenship going on for school kids, too, at about the same rate as in the homeschooling community.

Well no, of course the school isn't going to provide ambition and motivation magically wherever the family has failed to. �The same family that would call video-games and free babysitting "the unschooling lifestyle" wouldn't really care about grades or achievement in school other than maybe to pass. �Just agreeing with what PTP said better than me in that the PR hype of unschooling is "quit the rat race, forget all the standards, throw away all expectations and just enjoy life while it's happening in the here and now, and the proof it works is the wildly amazing success stories," as if those are a representative sample. �As if unschooling is most likely going to produce the most successful college students.
Another way to see it maybe that the unschooling lifestyle is very attractive to the type of families who are raising the type of kids who will make the best college students later in life. �But that's a different thing than saying the process of unschooling produces better college students. �
I can see it being attractive to several types of families for a variety of reasons. �I think a lot of families who are motivated and are trying to raise little successful adults often end up trying a variety of things before it's all said and done. �I don't know what I'm going to do with my kid yet. �Like I said I like the supportive exploration of a child's interest, I love the interactive parental involvement with the child's pursuit of his interest, I love how the unschooling seems to be completely about maintaining a supportive family and constructive home-life so the kid is free and secure to explore their interests. �I'm not so thrilled with the part of unschooling that tells the kids it's ok if you don't want to try it or you don't think you'll like it, you don't even have to try; and if you're not good at something you don't want to work on it, that's fine too. �That's just my gut reaction to the philosophies of unschooling. The practical choice to unschool is a different matter. � Anyway the practical choice to unschool could be to relieve a child's suffering due to developmental differences. �It could be just because the family wants to try it and it's their right to raise their kids the way they want to. �And it's not irreversible. �You can always at any time choose to get your free public education up until the age of 18 (I think...)

If I win the lottery I will immediately choose unschooling. �My kids will explore Egypt and the Mediterranean in person. �I'll read them the history books on the flight over there then we'll look for the landmarks (I can still dream, right?). �I'm still saving nickles and dimes to show the most of the world live and in person anyway.

Maybe what it gets down to is "unschooling" is really quite a vague term and people use it to cover all sorts of different approaches. While I'm not in any way invested in the label, unschooling is probably what most people would consider the most accurate way to describe our child's educational path prior to college. I will say that I strongly believe elements of his unschoolingish education gave him a much stronger preparation for college than I believe he would have gotten with a more traditional school education or with a school at home type homeschooling approach. By directing his own education he learned a great deal about managing his own time productively and developed incredible confidence in his ability to tackle subjects independently. He takes full responsibility for his own education and is not expecting someone else to tell him what to do and how to learn. I'm sure there are people who develop these same skills in other ways, but knowing him, I doubt he would have as quickly without the sort of freedom and responsibility he had with a flexible child led education.

no5no5 and Kriston, I disagree in part. I think that at least radical unschooling is guaranteed to produce lower-caliber voters than even a mediocre school education. I doubt that most radically unschooled kids, at least, would naturally teach themselves civics and other things that should be in the complete mental kit of every citizen, and which are at least less-inadequately taught in most school systems.

The unschooling mythos even contains stories about children growing into their teens and twenties without being able to read, and that's considered to be fine by some. And maybe it is, in some ways-- but not in obvious others, including trapping and treating learning disabilities, as well as preparing people for adult life, including voting.

I am thinking of an old episode of Mad Men in which a little girl, watching election returns on the TV, asks her dad what the electoral college is, and he responds, "I don't think that's a conversation that's appropriate for children." You wouldn't hear that response in an unschooling family. My DD comes with me when I vote and it always triggers discussions about government and politics.

I'd also note that, due to a learning disability, my DH did not read his first book until adulthood, years after he'd dropped out of public high school.

If a child can get away without knowing civics, then the parents aren't doing a very good job of unschooling IMHO. It's one of the easiest things to teach in daily life because it actually affects daily life all the time. Roads, trash pickup, water, electricity, speed limits, police and fire service, etc. are all around all the time. no5no5's "Mad Men" example is completely true-to-life!

I went to a swanky private liberal arts college with kids who had "good" (and traditional) high school educations. One of my 21yo old peers was talking about voting, but had no idea which political party George H.W. Bush was a member of, though he had been the president for nearly 4 years! So there's a lot of room for improvement in traditional civics channels!

I definitely disagree that radical unschooling is "guaranteed" to produce lousy voters. That's a sweeping and unfair generalization. Many radical unschoolers do a fabulous job.

Certainly I don't go for the notion that it's okay to graduate high school being unable to read or do basic math. But I don't accept that a kid in that situation has gotten a real education either. Nor would 99% or the unschoolers I know. And there are plenty of traditionally schooled kids who can't read. The problem is with the specific execution, not necessarily with the method.

Yup. I completely agree. And I think it's very hard--and is often unfair--to paint all people who use the term with the same broad brush.

I guess the biggest mistake I see is in assuming that radical unschooling, which I see as no specific educational direction provided for a child whatsoever, will somehow result in well-rounded people. It is beyond dispute that people will concentrate on what they like best, and many people do this to the exclusion of much else. Throw in a touch of the narrow-focused flavors of giftedness, and things may get much worse.

There are many instances of kids failed by school systems, but of course there are many, many more kids in the school system than are unschooled. Cherry-picking anecdotes about kids failed by schools doesn't lend merit to the idea that someone will be better-rounded left to their own devices.

If anything, it shows that despite stumbling attempts to impose some learning structure, some kids don't learn certain things easily-- and these are the same kids who would be most at risk with a radical unschooling approach: where even if a child is having a serious learning problem in a certain area, his parents are happy to have him otherwise engaged, as long as he seems happy.

I suspect this becomes more of a moot point as things go on, with more rigorous curriculum and testing requirements for homeschoolers in different states. As long as kids learn everything they need to learn at a minimum, and they're encouraged enough in their growth, I'm fine with any approach.

Anecdotes about some excellent radical unschoolers doesn't change the basic fact that kids aren't typically well-rounded in their interests, just as most wouldn't choose to add brussels sprouts into their eating rotation if left to their own devices.

Well, I guess in part it depends upon how you define "well-rounded." But many kids are curious about virtually everything and would be extremely well-rounded if allowed to pursue what crosses their paths, especially if the parents expose them to lots. There really are a lot of people who like to learn a little about everything.

I sincerely hope that tougher standards are not imposed upon homeschoolers.

My kid likes brussels sprouts. Saying that something is "beyond dispute" doesn't make it beyond dispute, you know.

Hmmmm...I guess I still think it's good for society as a whole even if not necessary for most GTs who thrive with learning. If you saw the kids I see at some of our homeschool social groups whose parents aren't affiliated with any charter, you'd be worried too. I think there's a lot more "educational neglect" out there than we realize, and someday it will be to those childrens' disadvantage. I am willing to have DS plop off a couple of mindless exercises each year in social studies (which is where most of the difference is) if it means that someone is holding those other parents to a basic level of education.

The great thing about HS charters, too, is that they don't require a child to complete all of the "grade level work" just because that's where the standards lie. If your child is doing higher level math curriculum, for ex, you've automatically met the requirements of the math standards for their year. In science, we just cross out all of the standards for grades 1-4 as we study each of our immersion topics (life, earth, etc.). A 5 minute review of "community" and "pilgrims," and they leave us alone to go back to studying geography and the ancient world for social studies. I'm not sure how it works at the higher levels yet, but in early elementary, it's very easy.

I should also add...my family is full of teachers, and when they found out we were HSing, one of the common worries was that they see so many re-integrated HS kids who are well behind in one or more subjects. This probably isn't an issue if you don't plan to re-integrate. Since I don't know what our future holds, I don't want to put my children at a disadvantage by leaving areas out.

Of course not. Words are just words, after all, even though they do convey some truth every once in a while. If you like, it's beyond valid dispute.

Meanwhile, I'm sure you realize that a story about one kid voluntarily preferring brussels sprouts certainly doesn't translate to a winning argument that radically unschooled kids tend to be well-rounded by nature. I mean, it could be any example given of something not preferred generally by kids that's good for kids-- and any old person could wander in here and "refute" it.

Mmkay. What, like 40%? What percentage of these naturally well-rounded kids would prefer to study everything-- the social studies, the math, everything? I'm curious to know how high the percentage of kids who just naturally like social studies is, in your estimation. Then I would certainly like to know the basis of your estimate.

Keep in mind that any non-negligible number of kids who aren't well-rounded by nature means the scheme won't work well at all. So you basically must be assuming that nearly everyone is "extremely well rounded" by nature.

Also, learning a little about everything doesn't cut it. That would pass kids who go off to college knowing only first-grade-level math. That's why competency standards exist; we can't leave things to assumptions and kids liking to know a little about everything.

There's probably just as many unambitious kids and disinterested parents in one crowd as another, but I forgot... Was the original quiestion about how unschooling could work in general for many families, or was it a question of wether one family could count on exceling at unschooling? �(before the quiestion of the lazy negligent parents came up). �
I'm interested in an itemized overview of unschooling as a whole. �There's the parental supported, unforced, and child-led. �What else? �
I'm iffy on the unforced defined as completely uncoerced. �I'd buy into the unforced if guided as described here by sprinkling selected educational enticements around the house. �When everyone says they encourage and enable I'm led to believe unschooling encompasses gentle guidance and a subtle cultivation, just with a more attentive focus on the Childs natural progression.

Okay, well, for the record, if your point is that we are naturally specialists who will never learn anything beyond our one preferred subject unless someone forces us to, I think that is absolutely, decidedly debatable. Being totally ignorant about a subject is both embarrassing and disabling, and nobody (who is healthy) wants that for themselves. I just can't imagine a child choosing to live that way.

The point is, my kid makes healthy choices, and tries a wide variety of things, and I've seen absolutely no reason to agree with your argument that kids won't do that unless you make them. It just doesn't mesh with my experience.

Is it your opinion that children who grow up as members of society will not want to learn about the society of which they are a part? I find that incredible.

Social studies is probably the worst example to bolster your argument as it is one of the most neglected and poorly taught subjects in most public schools. Many kids get none in elementary school at all. I naturally loved social science (graduate trained in the field) so I took everything offered at my school and had at most one semester worth of information about world history prior to the U.S. revolution and nothing at all about ancient history. The school offered one paltry civics course which was taught at a remedial level.

I've seen quite a few homeschool kids who are into social sciences and history. Sometimes it starts with a fascination about a particular period in history - knights, world war two, life in the Old West, and continues from there. Sometimes it starts with a deep concern for a particular social issue like concern for the environment. For many that pretty naturally extends into some degree of political involvement. If I've got any beef about homeschoolers and political involvement it would be that I'm not a fan of right wing politics and there are some homeschoolers very actively focused on producing politically active conservatives.

Keep in mind that any non-negligible number of kids who aren't well-rounded by nature means the scheme won't work well at all.
That's not at all what I'm assuming. I start from the belief that ALL humans are born with natural curiosity and the desire to learn about the world around them. This can be damaged- through stifling inappropriate education, parental neglect, massive amounts of media, etc. However, the innate desire to learn is there.

I don't assume most people are well rounded. I believe being well rounded is totally overrated. It is vitally important that during childhood kids get the foundational skills - critical thinking, strong reading skills, high school level math skills, the ability to ask questions and research answers. The rest I see as pretty negotiable. There will be kids who think of nothing but biology and kids who end up knowing little. With the skills I outlined in place the rest is always possible.

My only hesitation with unschooling is for the kids who don't get the strong foundational skills because they are starting adult life with a big deficit. I agree with other posters though this is more an issue of neglect than something specifically about the educational method.

My basic assumptions in this conversation are:

1) More options for education are better than fewer.

2a) What works/doesn't work for one kid is only indicative of what works/doesn't work for that kid.

2b) In the same vein, my kid isn't "most kids."

Anecdotal evidence about one kid and grand sweeping generalizations about how "everyone" is impress me to exactly the same degree: that is, not at all. If you want to dismiss anecdotes and *my* experiences, then you have to provide some justification for what sounds like foundationless bias.

But if you make grand sweeping generalizations about how "everyone" is, than one kid (or 3) does provide evidence that your generalization does not hold true across the board.

3) Opinion is not evidence.

4) Making grand pronouncements about how bad a given educational option is because there are a few bad apples in it is illogical and not persuasive. By that reasoning, traditional schools should be dumped because abusive teachers exist. It's as meaningless to apply to unschooling as it is to apply to traditional schools.

5) The vast majority of homeschooling parents--even unschooling parents!--do not neglect their kids. That's discriminatory nastiness. Different is not automatically wrong, and 99%+ of parents want their kids to be educated. Really educated. Those parents work to be sure that their kids are educated, regardless of how they do that work. It make look different from the norm, but it can still be effective.

5) Not all kids will respond well to unschooling, just as not all respond well to Montessori or to sitting in a desk all day. These kids should try some other method. Responsible parents will make a change if something doesn't work.

6) Neglect should be corrected in all cases, regardless of the educational method being used.

I am not trying to persuade anyone to unschool. I don't do it! But I am deeply troubled by some of the attacks I see here. They seem unfounded and unfair.

passthepotatoes ... right on board with you. Great response. Thanks!

I feel like I have a different perspective on this 2 years into homeschooling. My youngest LOVES history, social studies, cultural studies. We went to a Pow Wow last weekend for HER. She was entralled. She wants to be a medieval girl for Halloween this year. She was Cleopatra last year. She retains history stories like crazy. She is obsessed with her American girl. She loves field trips involving people dressed up in period costumes.

My son love project based things that he can dive into and learn everything about. Most are science or technology based.

They are both highly motivated in these areas and I don't have to encourage them. I finding myself tying other subject areas to their passion areas. I am not an unschooler, but at this point, I could certainly see how that could work for us (and does quite a bit of the time). Once kids have reading, writing, and research skills, kids that have been allowed to love learning through discovery really can fly. It's fun to watch.

Absolutely, there are parents out there failing their kids. Numbers wise though there are many, many more kids being failed in the public school system at this point in time. So I'm personally unconcerned about the tiny number of very lazy unschoolers out there.


If it makes you feel any better, the HS circles we run in are moderate to left wing.

Edited to add - agree with Kriston too.

Me too, but the conservatives are so much better organized. They are producing a future generation of movement leaders.

And, good point about Halloween costumes. Lots of geeky history costumes around here too!

I really wish I believed this to be true, but having homeschooled K-12 unfortunately I have seen that this is not always the case. I've known far too many middle and high school age kids who are not just a little bit underprepared but radically underprepared.

These are not the children of mean child abusers. They are nice people who have wonderful qualities and they are people that for the most part I would trust to babysit. They just have a very different idea of the importance of academics for adult life. I don't believe there is a real fix for this problem as there is no evidence that any type of government regulation does anything to improve homeschooling.

I think it is okay for homeschoolers and unschoolers to acknowledge that there are cases where kids maybe are not well served and there are families who really shouldn't have their kids at home. This is very much on topic for a gifted discussion list because one of the greatest challenges for some homeschooling families is finding intellectual peers for their kids. In my community gifted academically minded homeschoolers will really struggle to find kids to engage with academically. For some kids this matters not at all, but for some it is real frustration.

Do you think that it is possible that as a member of the HG+ community you may have unreasonable expectations for kids who are not gifted? Personally, I try pretty hard to remain neutral about ND kids and their education, because I have found that I really have very little idea of what is normal for them. I don't mean to sound elitist, but there it is.

Well, I didn't say that 99% effectively educate their kids. I said that they want their kids to be educated. Two different things.

Though I would also say that while 99% of the parents of kids in traditional schools want their kids to be educated, that's not happening either. The majority of the public school kids in our area are not what I would call well-prepared. In our area, IMHO, homeschoolers are in the lead on this one. That's probably partly because so many gifted families choose to homeschool because there's nothing--not even enrichment pull-outs--until 4th grade.

So maybe I'm just in a really great homeschooling community, but this is the position from which I am operating.

I did say they were assumptions. I cannot prove it. I'm not going to try to. <shrug>

I freely admit that not every homeschooler is doing a fabulous job. (Thus #5 and #6 are on my list.) Under the circumstances, that wasn't where my focus was.

Oh yeah, I forgot. �I've also read that if you're going to be over-staffed and underfunded then yeah, you're going to need a lock-step cookie cutter curriculum to be able to teach thirty different kids in your class every year. When it becomes just you taking over the responsibility for teaching your own two or three children everything they need to know every year you have license to be much more flexible. � That's why I keep asking 'what makes it unschooling'? �Following a child's lead just makes it be called self paced, if they're learning the same thing as everybody else and the end goal is the same. �What makes it suddenly this new thing called "unschooling" unless it's completely letting go of all expectations, dropping out of the rat race, living off of society's mental grid? �That's what's so confusing, if the end goal is the same as everybody else's, if there is an end goal, then �that would just be homeschooling, plain old-fashioned regular self-paced homeschooling. I agree society's got bigger problems than dictating how a few people should raise their own children. �

Totally agree here.


My thought is that let's say these kids that are inadequately prepared went to school (public or not) and were not homeschooled. I would argue that their parents do not value intellectual pursuits, would not support their children academically, and they are likely to come out of the system unprepared anyway. Plenty of kids come out of the school system with no ability to write or apply critical thinking skills. It's not the kids with involved parents that spend the weekends at the libraries and museums.

Good point, Kim.

I guess was I was trying to say with #5 was that I am going to assume that all parents--including unschooling parents!--are generally making a good faith effort to educate their kids. A few parents aren't. That's bad. See #6. And some succeed better at the actual education part than others. That's life. Some traditional schools are better than others, too.

But in the end, some kids somewhere thrive under EVERY method of education, no matter what the method. Bashing any method does a disservice to the kids who thrive under that particular educational option. That's what I don't like. I would be making the same argument if someone were arguing that public school is inherently bad and should be forbidden. It didn't work for my children, but it does work for other kids. Parents need to be able to make that choice.

More options are better than fewer.

Also, and this is just gossip but these questions do come up. �When I was a child a neighbor, a single mother of four, did "homeschool" her kids for religious reasons and because the local public school kids honestly weren't the best influence on each other. �She didn't really do a good job homeschooling but it was her kids to raise. �Back then most of the church people who couldn't afford private school home-schooled. �I bring her up because I'm sure her kids were behind grade level in a few subjects. �(I forgot what, I vaguely remember the gossip.). She was allowed to keep her kids home anyway, back then. �

Now, almost 20 years later a friend of mine who recently home-schooled was gossiping with me about her local homeschoolers group, specifically the unschoolers in the group since she was unschooling. �She said that many of the unschoolers backpedaled at the last minute and crammed for the state end-of year test. �We were trying to guess why they would do that? �Do you have to pass the test to be allowed to keep homeschooling? �What about the same kids who fail the standard tests year after year in public school, are they allowed to keep going to public school?

This is a state issue. Different states have different laws. Here's a link to Texas law and the (religious and conservative) HSLDA's take on it:

http://www.hslda.org/laws/analysis/Texas.pdf

It doesn't look like Texas requires any testing. Many states do.

In our state, testing or a portfolio review is required (among other things). Failing the test means remediation is required, though one is allowed to continue homeschooling. The required percentile for passing is pretty dang low though--under the 30th percentile--and one could retest if desired (for another $40 or $50). But I've never heard of anyone who didn't pass. Those who wouldn't pass would probably go the portfolio route.

I'm pretty sure that kids who fail the state tests in public school nearly always stay in the school. Where else would they go? The public schools can't really kick them out.

I don't think most of them are even held back a grade. (Though I could definitely be wrong about this! Not my area of expertise!)

Reasonable question as I've been on email lists where parents of gifted kids express shock when confronted with lists of standard milestones and no, that's not where I'm coming from. I'm pretty well versed in typical child development and the general scope and sequence of what would be typical for different grades. I have a very wide view of what is normal and I'd think nothing of a seven year old who wasn't reading. I'm instead talking about stuff like: thirteen year olds who can't read, middle school aged kids who are unfamiliar with the four basic math operations and who are unable to use a calculator. Yes, more quirky kids homeschool and that could be some of it, but over time it is hard not to notice when you see kid after kid who is unschooled who is really far off what they will need for adult life. I'm not talking about stuff like knowing chemistry, I'm talking about core skills necessary to have any form of higher education.

I can understand this, however, I have also seen the same with schooled children - both public and private. Honestly, I've seen some adults that make me wonder how they get through daily life. It's not about the method. It's about attitude.

A question for the unschoolers. Are your kids much ahead in passing the state tests? A question for HG+ kid parents really. Wondering if unschooling, allowing them to lead their own path of knowledge takes them way ahead of the required curriculum so that they are 4 or 5 grades ahead.

Ren

No, one of my points is that we can't assume that all kids are so naturally well-rounded in their interests that they will prepare themselves well enough for adult life, including the example someone else raised of being a responsible voter.


Which subjects? The important ones? I don't know anything about cooking, but I'm not embarrassed. I can certainly imagine people living with the potential embarrassment of knowing little of civics, etc.-- they surround us everywhere. Whether or not their interests were dulled by poor schooling, these people haven't corrected the situation.


Fair enough. From my point of view, assuming that children in general tend to be well-rounded, to such an extent and in such large numbers that we don't need standards and testing for homeschooled kids to catch the ones that aren't, is just too dangerous.

But I think any type of schooling that works for a particular kid, to prepare them well enough for adult life, is fine for that kid. And, of course, no child needs to be perfectly well-rounded in order for unschooling to work well enough in that way; they just have to be up to a certain level in some important achievement areas.

I see a lot of value in unschooling. I just don't think that radical unschooling is a good idea without any controls to ensure that unschooled kids are doing well, for similar reasons as I think controls are necessary for all homeschooled kids. I am on the fence whether I think controls are more likely to be needed for unschooled or homeschooled kids. I think unschooled children may be more likely to have untrapped learning disabilities than homeschooled kids; on the other hand, I think it may be more likely, based on personal experience, for someone to homeschool than unschool for the wrong reasons, and so if I had to guess, more homeschooled kids are out-and-out neglected.

What would you do if your child wanted to do nothing but read all day and build with blocks, and didn't like math, despite having just as much access to quality math materials as everything else? Would you ever step in to ensure that he or she learned some math, beyond what they'd pick up naturally by counting household items etc.? Would you figure that he or she would learn math when ready, or when the need arose, and just faithfully wait year by year for it to happen?

As another example, at what point, if a kid, say, just showed no inclination to read, would you get worried and at least have him/her tested for a learning problem?

Even if most unschooled kids were interested in history etc., the rest would not be, and the problem would not be discovered without any controls. That's all I'm saying, not really dissing social studies or saying it's taught well across the board.

School systems aren't perfect, but some degree of oversight is a good thing to make sure kids aren't neglected. It's more likely that a neglected kid would be detectable in the school system than under the sole control of the parents. That's really my concern in a nutshell. And even though there are some terrible schools out there still today, when you have more eyes on a kid there's more chance of a problem being detected. That is, a kid in a school system really has to be neglected by the school AND the parents for no one to notice a serious problem.

LOL. You should be embarrassed if you know so little about cooking that you can't even make yourself eggs and toast. And, personally, I think that cooking is far more important than history. If someone asked me whether I'd trade my baking skills for more knowledge about World War I, I wouldn't even consider it.


At this point my child is 4 1/2, and can do at least first-grade-level math, so it's hard for me to speculate. Honestly, it's also hard for me to imagine what math she might need (if she is not interested in math and presumably will not choose a career in that field) that she could not pick up naturally by cooking, planning events, etc.



I did ask an expert for advice when DD was 3 and reading fluently, but still occasionally reading words backwards (e.g., "saw" for "was"). Predictably, I was told that there was no need to worry yet, and she has since self-corrected.

I can get other people to make me eggs and toast. You think I should be embarrassed, but please take my word for it that I'm not in the slightest; I never took Home Ec. class, etc. either, and wouldn't in any parallel universe if I could have avoided it. So I guess that in me, we have proof that what you consider to be a vital skill won't necessarily be created by this mighty embarrassment force you mentioned before.

I guess that as has been noted previously, different people place emphasis on different things. I would think myself neglectful if I sent my children off to college without what I consider to be basic math skills at that level (which are higher than basic counting, quarter fractions, etc. needed to be an event planner or baker). But I guess that it's not really necessary to have kids that are ready for college, either-- we've got to have some event planners and garbage people in the mix.

I never said that it couldn't happen. I just said that I don't think it happens in healthy people, and a total disregard for learning basic self-care skills strikes me as pretty unhealthy.


Perhaps I should have mentioned that I self-taught math through algebra without the aid of textbooks. I also taught my older sister, and by the time I was in the classes (years later) they were a total waste of time. So when I say that I think DD can teach herself math, I certainly don't just mean arithmetic. But it absolutely is true that many people do not need math skills. One can certainly be a lawyer, a doctor, a college professor, etc., etc., without entering college with math skills beyond the algebra level. Of course one can also decide not to go to college and be a garbage collector, and there's nothing wrong with that if it allows one to lead a happy, fulfilled life.

I think that elevating one's baking over the history of the human race shows a lack of proper priorities. But then again, we need bakers just like we need historians, and garbage people.

http://www.pollsb.com/polls/p13492-cook#results

Anyhow, to get back to the point, your assertion is simply untrue. There is no embarrassment factor that encourages people to teach themselves civics when they don't enjoy it, or anything else for that matter. People will learn to dress themselves to avoid embarrassment, perhaps. But it was a nice try!


Which means, by extension, that everyone will, to avoid embarrassment if necessary. That's how it works, right? In fact, if any shortcoming of any person becomes apparent, they correct it to overcome their embarrassment-- and if they don't, they're simply one of the unhealthy ones. It's simply impossible that someone would either fail to teach themselves something they weren't interested in in the first place, or fail to be able to teach themselves whatever they wanted without any help-- as long as they're healthy, anyway.

I see it all very clearly now.


But we must all bake. And I respectfully submit that if you can't dress a deer, you are a failed, sick person.


I certainly don't want my kid to feel happy and fulfilled being a garbage man. If one aspires to something greater and winds up with a steady paycheck doing less, that's one thing; but no one would feel happy and fulfilled with such a menial job, though they might find satisfaction in other aspects of life. Most parents don't want such lives for their children. Although I suspect I am about to hear how that is somehow unhealthy.

Once again, I never said that the primary reason people learn things is to avoid embarrassment. That's ridiculous, obviously. Most people learn because they are interested in the world around them and enjoy interacting with it. Your supposition was that some people are not interested in some things, and I responded by asserting that most people choose to learn at least a bit about even the topics that they are not interested in. Total ignorance is an uncomfortable state for most people. Not for you, obviously, but for most people. I, for instance, am not interested in football, but if I go to a football game I'm not going to sit there moaning to myself. I'm going to figure out the rules, follow along, and try my best to enjoy it.

What people want for their children is irrelevant. What children want for themselves is what matters to me. If my child would be happiest as a garbage collector, then I hope she chooses that career. It isn't unhealthy to want your child to do something that you think will make them happy, but it is unrealistic to assume that you have or should have control over what that will be.

You have a bad habit of sniping when you lose points in an argument. You didn't say the primary reason was embarrassment, perhaps, but you invented a reason, without basis of course, why people will tend to learn things that don't interest them. And, of course, you failed to explain how the bare minimum of knowledge-to-avoid-social-embarrassment translates to adequate proficiency.

All I ever see are defensive anecdotes when people point out serious flaws in approaches like radical unschooling, even in the face of direct first-hand experience of homeschooled or unschooled kids who have been failed.

Yeah, I mean, if you want to define success as being happy, being an illiterate person who's happy not to go to college and work at the most menial jobs is something to aspire to. There are plenty of happy slackers out there; I've known some of them, perfectly happy to live paycheck to paycheck, smoke pot, play video games, etc.


... which perfectly demonstrates the mechanism by which all unschooled children will prepare themselves for a rigorous academic life. They will study, or play at, whatever they like until college age, and then the embarrassment factor will kick in, bringing them all up to snuff in their weak or nonexistent areas, every last one. Including, of course, every last illiterate one, and every last one which knows no math, etc. Except, of course, for the ones that decide to become happy garbage people instead of going to college-- and there's nothing wrong with that. It would be their valid life choice, based on desire, not on anything else such as futility or lack of ability.


Logical much?


And that's the attitude that is quite obviously behind radical unschooling-- achievement doesn't matter much; it's freedom, as a pure ideal that can only be expressed by children making all the choices all the time, that matters, even if it comes at the expense of other things.

http://www.eurekawebs.com/humlit/fast_facts.htm

Hey, as long as they're happy living in poverty... At least they're not embarrassed, or they'd lift themselves up out of illiteracy by their bootstraps. Or, rather, we know that they're either 1) not embarrassed to be poor, borderline- or wholly-illterate people, or 2) they're simply the unhealthy ones that prefer to be ignorant.

Pro's:�
Developed EF skill of managing one's own time in self directed learning.
Con's:�
Choosing to lower one's standards to avoid a challenge which one is untrained for.

both huge assumptions and broad generalizations, but they do sound familiar. �Go on. �

lucounu, I think we have reached another one of those impasses and should once again agree to stop conversing, as it seems impossible for us to effectively communicate in a calm and rational way. I am not intentionally antagonizing you, but if you're not willing to read thoughtfully, you will only see what you want to see. I'm not interested in converting you to my point of view, and I'm certainly not interested in reading over & over again how you dislike and distrust the idea of unschooling.