Some children need almost no direction whatsoever in reading, but many if not most children need more explicit instruction.
You might be interested in
this article.
So you never read to your child without her asking you to? I think that's pretty unusual. I respect you for adhering perfectly to your hands-off approach.
Hm. I can't help but read sarcasm into that. At any rate, I didn't adopt unschooling as a policy until about a year ago. Until then, I did it mostly because DD would not tolerate anything else (and I didn't see any point in forcing the issue). She's always been the sort of kid who knows exactly what she wants and won't put up with anything else. If she hadn't asked me to read to her often, I might have worried about it and tried to force her to listen, but she has always loved books.
She led me to unschooling, and I'm glad that she did, because I think it is the best thing for our family.
Anecdotal evidence is some evidence. My point is partly that rejecting all structured teaching without a basis for belief that it's wrong just doesn't seem logical to me, though I admit that I haven't taken the time to find out what research may support unschooling. Still, many brilliant people, presumably PG by today's standards, have been taught quite rigorously and in structured ways. When you teach someone a concept, they learn it if the teaching is done properly; and you can even teach learning strategies. One great thing about people is our adaptability.
Here's the thing: if we have anecdotal evidence that your kid is doing well being taught and my kid is doing well not being taught, that tells us absolutely nothing about which system is better. It makes very little sense to me to make a child engage in rigorous education without evidence that it will benefit the child.
While I support anyone's personal choice (I am sure your children will muddle through quite fine regardless of our different choices, as will mine and most people's), I am just curious about the basis for questioning someone else's choice to teach their little one.
I haven't done that, have I? The OP was asking whether she should teach her son or not, given that he seems unhappy but doesn't want to be taught. You gave advice that I disagreed with. I enjoy discussing this on a theoretical level but I'm not sitting around judging people.
I am sure that your mother did actively teach you to speak, since parents regularly do this, and intelligent parents do it much more in my experience. I mean no offense, but I am certain on this, especially as your early language instruction must have predated the unschooling movement, so she would not have had any reason to consciously curb her natural urge to teach you to speak.
Actually, the term unschooling was coined in the mid-70s, a few years before I was born, but of course the ideas were around much longer. I guess I should ask her whether she'd heard of unschooling at that time. But I would note that what I did with my own DD was not the result of curbing my natural urge (!), but of following my instincts. And all of my reading at that time (which did not include unschooling literature, btw) indicated that it's a bad idea to correct a young child's speech, and that children learn to talk easily if you talk to them. In fact, I can't really picture what you mean when you say that parents teach their kids to talk. That seems very strange to me, to be honest.
I believe (as a layperson) in the general idea that the early years are important growth periods, and so I think it's a key time to expose children to things that will help them grow. I don't understand why the choice of those things has to be solely in the hands of the child; I would think that a lot of children would not be their own best teachers, all the time and on all subjects.
On the other hand, I think that being ram-fed information all the time would be bad for kids, because they would get to be passive consumers of information and that might result in a lack of drive and self-confidence. I see a lot of merit in self-directed learning activities, but just don't understand why it is viewed by some as the only correct option, exclusive of all others.
Well, I agree that the early years are probably pretty important. But the things that I think are most important (in life generally, and especially in those years) don't include academics. I guess I'd have to say that, if I could choose the most important things I'd like DD to get out of her preschool years, they'd be: first, that she learn to feel safe, loved, and confident; second, that she learn the rules of socially acceptable behavior; third, that she learn to use her body effectively; fourth, that she learns how to deal effectively with emotions; fifth, that she learns what she likes and what interests her; sixth, that she learns that she is responsible for herself...and so on. I'd probably get to academics, well, maybe twentieth. Or maybe not at all.
Now, if your priorities are different, and it appears that they are, that's fine. Your strategy is obviously different, and that's fine. As I said earlier, I'm not sitting around judging parents who are doing what they think is best for their children. And I am totally open to the idea that unschooling might not be right for some kids. It's clearly working well for DD (and I think that even someone who believes strongly in early academics would think she was doing well). That is my experience, with my child. I am not so egotistical as to believe that I could possibly judge what is right for every child in every situation.
