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

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.