or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at Home and Beyond › Unschooling › Misconceptions about unschooling
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Misconceptions about unschooling - Page 11

post #201 of 220
I think the point is this....it makes me sad to hear a mom say she can't be an unschooler, b/c she feels she 'teaches" her kids,even though they want the "teaching!" I think unschooling is living,and learning through experiences,when kids are young,whole family experiences,mostly! We teach each other! if my ds wants to learn math facts -and he does, for entertainment,insist on harder and harder math questions- what 6 year old in his right mind wants a parent to teach him adding,subtracting, multiplication,division,fractions, and how may zeros are in a googolplex? Mine does! And we unschool-
as stated so well earlier, we parents use our time to understand what our kids need,and we help them achieve their goals. My mom was a sterling example of an unschooler, my aspergers affected little sister would have it no other way- she talked,took trips,read books, bought toys, had fun, showed how things worked,didn't stop to ask herself if (gasp) she might be *teaching*- she just did what sis needed- and now sis is 19 years old, very capable young lady, and heading off to japan this summer,alone! as an exchange student.
post #202 of 220
Yeah, he loves therapy. He just grins from ear to ear on the way there and when we get there he says, "woo-hoo!"
post #203 of 220
Coming back to this thread now that I have a little more free time on my hands ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds
I agree, if there's an expectation that it will be done. If not -- if it's just the parent offering up suggestions that the child is free to accept or decline -- that's not antithetical to unschooling, any more than for my child to offer to show me how to play a video game.
I think that presenting the difference between school and unschool as this kind of clear dichotomy between "parent-enforced learning" and "parent makes helpful suggestions just as anyone else might" isn't accurate. The truth is, kids innately look to their parents as role models and teachers, and a suggestion with the weight of parental authority behind it tends to carry a lot more force than a suggestion from a peer. IMHO, this isn't inherently a good or a bad thing, but it colors every educational interaction between parent and child. For a parent to really radically unschool, they have to make a conscious effort NOT to teach and to pressure, because the default interaction has this subtle pressure of parental influence going on in the background.

My personal philosophy - open, of course, to change with circumstances - is that this parental influence can be a positive force in a child's education, if it is used to guide and nurture a child's natural interests and not to force a child to learn something they have no interest in. Children are not lesser beings than adults, but they are newer to the world than adults are, and they can benefit from our experience.

An analogy that keeps coming up in my mind is how we deal with trainees at work. They all have different learning styles - I've trained people ranging from very independent to those who wanted to be told exactly what to do before doing anything. And even the most independent of them couldn't have learned as much as she did without getting guidance from someone who had worked here longer and was more experience. Not just asked-for guidance - she didn't always know what questions to ask. She liked to just plow ahead and try everything out for herself, which was fine up to a point, but there were certain areas she didn't even know to ask about, and I had to tell her directly what she needed to learn.

A final thought ... I'm sort of jumping around on subjects here, sorry. I have a large collection of books on education, including several on the Sudbury Valley School, which is about as close to unschooling as you can get in a school environment. I love the theory - it sounds great on paper - and the school sounds like a positive, nurturing, inspirational environment. But I also got the book that analyzed what happened to students after Sudbury. (I can't recall the name just now.) And I saw a strong pattern in their careers. Overwhelmingly, they became crafters, artisans, chefs, musicians, people who work with their hands and with the arts. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with those jobs - but I do want to know why the Sudbury School has produced virtually no PhDs, professors, scientists, or other people in academic fields.
post #204 of 220
Quote:
... - but I do want to know why the Sudbury School has produced virtually no PhDs, professors, scientists, or other people in academic fields.
When you have the time, I'd love to know the name of this book. I've read about about Sudbury and am really surprised to hear that none of their students went on to academic fields--I'd be interested in reading that book.

Quote:
...a suggestion with the weight of parental authority behind it tends to carry a lot more force than a suggestion from a peer.
I see what you mean, but I think a lot depends on the relationship between the child and the parent making the suggestion. If it's been established that there won't be a judgement made, or disappointment shown, if the child doesn't take a suggestion, then the child learns that they're truely free to choose. I've sometimes seen much more pressure coming from peers than from parents. But I've also seen parents frame something as a suggestion and everyone knows it's an order. It all goes back to intent (of the parent,) and, as fourlittlebirds said, the EXPECTATION.
post #205 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel
I think that presenting the difference between school and unschool as this kind of clear dichotomy between "parent-enforced learning" and "parent makes helpful suggestions just as anyone else might" isn't accurate. The truth is, kids innately look to their parents as role models and teachers, and a suggestion with the weight of parental authority behind it tends to carry a lot more force than a suggestion from a peer. IMHO, this isn't inherently a good or a bad thing, but it colors every educational interaction between parent and child. For a parent to really radically unschool, they have to make a conscious effort NOT to teach and to pressure, because the default interaction has this subtle pressure of parental influence going on in the background.

I'm not a radical unschooler, but I make a conscious effort not to pressure my kids into learning things. I only teach her something when she wants me to (which is pretty dang rare ). It's not that hard to do, really. I don't know, maybe it's my kids (the "mellow" one included) but both of mine seem to be able to tell me if they don't want to do something There have been times that Bridget has mumbled when I asked her if she wanted to do something instead of outright telling me she didn't want to. But then, as annoying as the mumbling is, I didn't need a degree in rocket science to figure out what was happening and back off. But really, it doesn't happen that often and most of the time she has no problem telling me "no thank you". Owen (the 4 year old and the easy going one) has no problem whatsoever saying he doesn't want to do something but wants to do this or that instead.

Also, reading this part
Quote:
because the default interaction has this subtle pressure of parental influence going on in the background
I'm thinking you have an unrealistic idea of unschooling here. We're still human, you know? We're still parents and kids and yes, *tons* of things influence our kids without us meaning to. Our personalities, our relationships with our own parents, with our spouses, medical issues, passionate interests, intense dislikes, etc . One common misconception of unschooling is that our kids grow up in a vacuum and that's definitely not true. Is there a subtle pressure of parental influence that even I'm not aware of? Maybe, but that doesn't mean I should give up and just outright, knowingly pressure my kids.

Quote:
She liked to just plow ahead and try everything out for herself, which was fine up to a point, but there were certain areas she didn't even know to ask about, and I had to tell her directly what she needed to learn.
I don't think the work analogy, uh, works Training for a job is different. You have a short list of definite expectations and a rather short period of time to learn it in. You're on someone else's dime and it's the employer whose opinion matters, not the employee. Once the employee takes that job, her likes, dislikes and interests become largely unimportant. It's very different from childhood Though now that I think of it, work does bear some resemblance to school. The teacher is the one whose opinion matters, and she's the one who decides what will be learned and how fast. Hmmmmmmm. Ok, so it bears no resemblence to unschooling

On Sudbury I don't have many thoughts. i haven't looked into it at all. I keep hearing it as "unschooling at school" and shake my head because as far as I see it it's still a school. It's still giving the impression that learning happens between these hours, in this place. No matter how wonderful it might be, I'd still have to get my dd up, dressed, fed and out the door every day. I've heard that you can not go if you feel like it but then, I'm paying for it, so I'd have internal pressure to make her go (or else it's just like a donation to Sudbury). Also, for me, one of the benefits of homeschooling (not just un) is more family time and school would cut into that. Also we have more time being able to just pick up and go on trips and be in the world - grocery shopping, the museum, playgrounds, the post office, the library, the zoo, etc. Not every day, but we do some sort of out of the house activity a few times a week. School would cut into that too. I guess if I were forced to stop homeschooling for some reason a school like that would be the way to go though.
post #206 of 220
I've always been intirgued by Sudbury schools, but I figured,"why pay the $$$ tuition every year when we're already doing it at home?"
Not to mention, I too don't like the getting up and out morning routines...
And as for parental influence, this goes along nicely with lilianJ's original question, about misconceptions.... I believe I am influencing my kids, otherwise i'd be avoiding and neglecting my family! influence isn't an issue-it's a natural part of being a family- I think unschoolers tend to let their kids do a lot of leading, and there's lot of give and take, but we're not some unique breed of parent,different from the rest- again, my mom was my example, she didn't have a name for what she needed to do when sis was younger, she just did what worked! And it did!
So go ahead, influence away,(hopefully for the better for all of your family) and be unschoolers! My kids definitely like some things i like, just b/c I've always exposed them to whatever interests me, and vice versa- I'd never be too interested in irradiated marbles without ds's influence..
And I and the kids LOVE books on tape in the car, but Dh HATES them! So we listen to them on a schedule when he's with us,he likes to talk a lot... How did the kids get to liking them? Well, i just took out about a million,and put them on, and now we can't ride without one- but... if it was a general consensus that it was boring, we switched tapes....
post #207 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsmamato2
I've always been intirgued by Sudbury schools, but I figured,"why pay the $$$ tuition every year when we're already doing it at home?"
It depends on your beliefs. I know some people strongly believe in letting kids guide their own education but also strongly believe this should be done in a group of peers (kids of various ages but still kids). My kids see other kids often enough (multiple times a week) but not 5 days a week, 7 hours a day. I don't see that as something that would work for us. Even my dd likes to have breaks from socializing every now and then (or so she said after one memorable week where we somehow ended up with something to do 5 days in a row - hence the stay at home, chill out day we're having today in the midst of a very busy week )

Quote:
influence isn't an issue-it's a natural part of being a family-
What I was trying to say

Quote:
I'd never be too interested in irradiated marbles without ds's influence..
I only know the dinosaurs I do because of ds And my dd knows some Morse Code because of listening to me study. And both kids enjoy woodworking because it's their dad's major hobby (uh, by woodworking I mean they like to bang nails into wood and make "sculptures").

Yet, no one shares my interests in the Maya or archaeology. The interests are out there, we don't hide them, but we don't push them either.
post #208 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShannonCC
The interests are out there, we don't hide them, but we don't push them either.
post #209 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShannonCC
I'm not a radical unschooler, but I make a conscious effort not to pressure my kids into learning things. I only teach her something when she wants me to (which is pretty dang rare ). It's not that hard to do, really.

...

Also, reading this part I'm thinking you have an unrealistic idea of unschooling here. We're still human, you know? We're still parents and kids and yes, *tons* of things influence our kids without us meaning to.
Oh, no, I absolutely agree with you - I'm not trying to imply that unschoolers give their kids perfect independence or anything! My point was meant to be more about goals. Unschoolers aim for their children to direct their own education and be independent learners (with help from the parents as needed), whereas my overall aim is for my children to receive a thorough education under my guidance. If they have independent ideas about how to do that, that's cool, I'll respect it; but going in, the initial plan for their education is mine, not theirs.

Quote:
I don't think the work analogy, uh, works Training for a job is different. You have a short list of definite expectations and a rather short period of time to learn it in. You're on someone else's dime and it's the employer whose opinion matters, not the employee. Once the employee takes that job, her likes, dislikes and interests become largely unimportant.
That's probably true in a lot of jobs, but not really in mine. I'm the news editor at a medium-sized daily newspaper, which means I'm in charge of the copy desk (copy editors do design, copy editing, headline writing, etc.). There's a lot of creativity involved in the job, and it's important for us to encourage our copy editors to grow creatively and not feel stifled. There is no One True Way in our job; it's all about general principles, guidelines, individual choices. So there is a lot of self-directed learning for our copy editors ... but there are also times when I need to say "you just can't go down to 50-pt for a main headline, it looks bad." There are some things they just don't figure out on their own.
post #210 of 220
Here is an unschooling-related thought that I couldn't think of a way to tie to anything else in this thread ...

When my brother and I were little, my parents sat us down and taught us to read with flashcards. They certainly didn't force it on us - they stopped if we got bored - but it was their idea, their plan, their teaching. We hadn't come to them and said "we want to learn to read." They just got the flashcards out and taught us. As a result, I've been a voracious reader since I was 3. I read the Little House on the Prairie series at least five times the year I was 5, and the Wizard of Oz so often I almost had it memorized.

In my book, this isn't unschooling. And this is something I can't imagine not doing with my own kids.

Do any unschoolers have thoughts on this? Do you think something's wrong with this appraoch - or do you think this is unschooling after all?
post #211 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel
My point was meant to be more about goals. Unschoolers aim for their children to direct their own education and be independent learners (with help from the parents as needed), whereas my overall aim is for my children to receive a thorough education under my guidance.
You mean you have a set idea of what a person should learn, right? Because we can disagree all day on what a thorough education is Maybe that's a key point here. I *don't* think there is one, single body of knowledge that every person should know. It sounds like you do think there is one so I could completely understand why you'd not want to unschool. Unless I've completely missed what you're getting at


Quote:
There are some things they just don't figure out on their own.
That's sort of my point. Sure, some jobs are more creative than others, but there's still a body of knowledge you want your employees to learn well and quickly before they can go getting all creative on you I just don't see it as being the same as a nice, long, meandering childhood where you can take your time to try different things and discover, for yourself, where your interests and talents lie. Like the quote that childhood is a journey, not a race? Well, often in the workplace, it's just a race

Quote:
When my brother and I were little, my parents sat us down and taught us to read with flashcards. They certainly didn't force it on us - they stopped if we got bored - but it was their idea, their plan, their teaching. We hadn't come to them and said "we want to learn to read." They just got the flashcards out and taught us. As a result, I've been a voracious reader since I was 3. I read the Little House on the Prairie series at least five times the year I was 5, and the Wizard of Oz so often I almost had it memorized.
I think I could type all day on this example I'll try to not ramble too much

I wouldn't do this with my kids. I would if they asked but no, I wouldn't offer. I don't know if it's unschooling or not, but to me, it's making the world too "schooly". Now, I will *do* schooly if my kids ask for it (and have done from time to time with my dd) but I really don't want them to get into the mindset that learning only happens when someone else initiates, or when you have certain tools (workbooks, flashcards, etc) or in a certain place (school). I want their learning to be more natural, more creative and more self directed. If they choose those tools that's one thing, but I wouldn't want to introduce them at an early, impressionable age and give them the idea that they are important (I already wish I had been more unschooly when my dd was littler). Is that unschooling or just me? Or maybe me having these ideas of learning is me being not unschoolish! I definitely want my kids to get a good education and a love of learning and IMO, unschooling and self directed learning are the best ways to go for those goals so yeah, it's an agenda of mine (it's not the only reason I unschool but it's there). I don't know. Maybe someone else should answer this one

And I do have to say, my dd didn't learn to read from flashcards and didn't read til she was 6 and she sits up in bed reading for hours every night (I don't even know how long since I go to sleep before her). I don't think a love of reading come from flashcards for most people. It's far more likely to come from being in a house full of books, having parents who enjoy reading for pleasure, and being read to
post #212 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel
Unschoolers aim for their children to direct their own education and be independent learners (with help from the parents as needed), whereas my overall aim is for my children to receive a thorough education under my guidance. If they have independent ideas about how to do that, that's cool, I'll respect it; but going in, the initial plan for their education is mine, not theirs.
I'd agree with this distinction. As an unschooler, I wouldn't plan my child's education. It's important to us that they follow their own plan. I agree with Shannon here:
Quote:
I *don't* think there is one, single body of knowledge that every person should know. It sounds like you do think there is one so I could completely understand why you'd not want to unschool.
Not having an agenda about what/when they learn is why I wouldn't do the flashcard thing you mentioned. My kids have seen flashcards and people have given them cards, but they've never had an interest in them (fortunately for ME, because *I* find them boring! ) If they really wanted to use them, I would, but I wouldn't introduce them. I think there are more interesting ways to learn to read and that doesn't strike me as a natural way of learning. (By "natural" I mean that we don't read single words with no context, yk?) I also don't see a need to have a 3y/o reading. If they are then good for them, but it isn't a goal I have.
post #213 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShannonCC
You mean you have a set idea of what a person should learn, right? Because we can disagree all day on what a thorough education is Maybe that's a key point here. I *don't* think there is one, single body of knowledge that every person should know. It sounds like you do think there is one so I could completely understand why you'd not want to unschool. Unless I've completely missed what you're getting at
Yes, I think you've put into words what I was trying to. I do think there's a body of knowledge that everyone should learn. It's not a strictly defined thing; there are lots of variations on the basic elements. But I do believe there is a basic framework of knowledge everyone should have before (or in addition to) branching out into more specialized fields of knowledge. Things like reading, grammar, math, an overview of world history and geography, basics of physical and biological sciences.

I agree that, left to their own devices, most people will pick up all this basic knowledge along the way. I think where we differ is that I believe it is more efficient and more effective to just teach those things to start with, instead of waiting for kids to wander into them. If they're going to learn to read anyway, why *not* teach them at 3?


Quote:
I wouldn't do this with my kids. I would if they asked but no, I wouldn't offer. I don't know if it's unschooling or not, but to me, it's making the world too "schooly". Now, I will *do* schooly if my kids ask for it (and have done from time to time with my dd) but I really don't want them to get into the mindset that learning only happens when someone else initiates, or when you have certain tools (workbooks, flashcards, etc) or in a certain place (school). I want their learning to be more natural, more creative and more self directed.
I can see that as a benefit, but from my POV, it's a benefit in just one area, and it comes at the expense of a whole lot of knowledge. I guess I also don't see what's wrong with making the world "schooly." To me, schooliness isn't inherently a bad thing - only when it's made conformist and boring and stifles creativity and independence.

The way I see it, schooling is a natural part of human history, from tribal elders passing on rote histories to the next generation, to Plato teaching philosophy to the young men of Greece, to the medieval universities, to master craftsmen with their apprentices, to Buddhist monks teaching novices. From Africa to Japan, from the Stone Age to today, it's natural for older and wiser people to lead, guide, and teach the next generation. It can be done wrong, and in our culture it is too often made boring and pointless by bureaucracy, but that doesn't mean that schooling isn't natural or good when it is done right.

Quote:
And I do have to say, my dd didn't learn to read from flashcards and didn't read til she was 6 and she sits up in bed reading for hours every night (I don't even know how long since I go to sleep before her). I don't think a love of reading come from flashcards for most people. It's far more likely to come from being in a house full of books, having parents who enjoy reading for pleasure, and being read to
I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with doing it that way (although, actually, my parents don't read nearly as much as I do, and never have), I just don't see a good reason for the delay. Why not teach them as soon as they can learn it? Young kids have a greater capacity for learning than older kids (especially when it comes to language), and I can't see any real down side to teaching them to read, along with foreign languages, as soon as they can handle it.
post #214 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel

I agree that, left to their own devices, most people will pick up all this basic knowledge along the way. I think where we differ is that I believe it is more efficient and more effective to just teach those things to start with, instead of waiting for kids to wander into them. If they're going to learn to read anyway, why *not* teach them at 3?

.
Here is my reason not to teach my kids to read at 3:

Learning to read too early has been associated with reading related learning disabilities later in life (read Better Late than Early by the Moores). Since there is SO MUCH a 3 year old could be learning and experiencing, why insist they read instead of doing things that are more developmentally appropriate?

I love to read, and I'm anxious for my kids to read too, so that the world of written knowledge is open to them, but right now they are learning lots. My kids experience lots of things that I believe will give them "hooks" to hang the knowledge they get from books later on. Written knowledge is much more valuable when the reader can put it in context.

ZM
post #215 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShannonCC
...I really don't want them to get into the mindset that learning only happens when someone else initiates, or when you have certain tools (workbooks, flashcards, etc) or in a certain place (school). I want their learning to be more natural, more creative and more self directed. If they choose those tools that's one thing, but I wouldn't want to introduce them at an early, impressionable age and give them the idea that they are important (I already wish I had been more unschooly when my dd was littler). Is that unschooling or just me? Or maybe me having these ideas of learning is me being not unschoolish! I definitely want my kids to get a good education and a love of learning and IMO, unschooling and self directed learning are the best ways to go for those goals so yeah, it's an agenda of mine (it's not the only reason I unschool but it's there)...
I don't think a love of reading come from flashcards for most people. It's far more likely to come from being in a house full of books, having parents who enjoy reading for pleasure, and being read to
ShannonCC I totally agree with your points made in this post!

Take Care,
Erika:
post #216 of 220
I agree with what zeldamomma said wrt teaching reading earlier. In addition, as soon as I set out to teach reading, there is an expectation there -- if I'm teaching my kids something, they assume they are expected to learn it. If they aren't developmentally ready to learn at three, and so don't take to it well, they'll get frustrated and could be turned off of learning. That danger is far more threatening to them learning over their lifetime than not reading until age 6 or 8 or later.

My 6 yo started reading about a year ago, but really took off with his independent reading within the last few months. (He's in his room reading the third Harry Potter book, fresh from the library this afternoon, as I type.) I probably could have started to teach him to read at three, but I really doubt it would have benefitted him. I don't really see what he could have learned from books in the last three years that would make a big difference in his life. It would have taken time away from him playing with friends, working with me, exercising and learning to use his body, making observations about the trees or birds or cars or people etc. around him, asking dh and I questions, learning to share with his siblings... He loves reading now, but I definately don't think it was a mistake to let him pick it up on his own timetable.

Also, nearsightedness runs in both my family and dh's, and I'm trying to let the kids' eyes have lots of time without strain while they're little. This is part of my reason for limiting screen time, as well. (Totally anecdotal, but my bro and I are both big readers/tv watchers, and were as kids -- especially tv -- and we both have glasses. Our sis didn't watch as much tv and read much less, and she has 20/20 vision.)
post #217 of 220
Quote:
If they're going to learn to read anyway, why *not* teach them at 3?
Well, because, from what I've read, what I've heard from others and what I've seen with my own daughter, they learn to read when they are *ready*. Not before. A three year old who learns to read doesn't do so because their mom hit on the one right way to teach three year olds. She learns to read because her brain was ready. Trying to teach a child who *isn't* ready will most likely lead to frustration and having them decide that reading is "hard" and "not fun". I'd rather wait til the child asks and shows an interest so it's more likely they'll enjoy it.

And yes, some kids *are* ready to read at 3 or earlier. I'm not saying hold them back if they are ready and asking, I don't believe in that either. I just think it's a lot easier, a lot more fun and a lot less stress for everyone involved if the parents wait til the kids want to read and are ready to do so, whatever age that may be for that particular child.

Quote:
I can see that as a benefit, but from my POV, it's a benefit in just one area, and it comes at the expense of a whole lot of knowledge.
See, here we disagree again. You can't, you literally can't, learn *everything* in life. So someone has to decide what to learn and what to pass by. Yes, my kids will not learn a whole bunch of things but so will yours, so will the schooled kid down the block, so will the Classical education kid. It's just a fact of life. I'd rather my kids be the ones to make the choice for themselves what to learn and what not to.

Quote:
But I do believe there is a basic framework of knowledge everyone should have before (or in addition to) branching out into more specialized fields of knowledge. Things like reading, grammar, math, an overview of world history and geography, basics of physical and biological sciences
Shockingly, I agree with you I just disagree that these things need to be handed to the kids or they'll never learn them. I'm betting we also disagree on what constitutes "basics" of some of these. Not to get too involved but yes, I do think there's a basic core of knowledge and skills that someone needs but in my opinion, it's *so* basic, I can't see how someone could *not* learn them providing they have a decent home environment and no special issues. Sadly, many kids do *not* have a decent home environment. That hasn't been an issue for the homeschoolers I know (and I don't mean money - I mean caring adults who take an interest in their kids).

Quote:
It can be done wrong, and in our culture it is too often made boring and pointless by bureaucracy, but that doesn't mean that schooling isn't natural or good when it is done right.
I sort of get what you are talking about except that many of the examples you gave are people seeking out teachers, not teachers forcing themselves on students. If you wait for them to come to you, I think it's more meaningful to them and it makes much more of an impression on them. And yes, there are always stories of people who were made to learn something and then discovered they loved it but for each of those, there are hundreds of stories of people made to learn something who then spewed it out on the test and promptly forgot it

Brisen, my mom's paternal side all has pretty strong prescriptions (mine is only 20/400 in one eye and 20/200 in the other, I got off easy, ) I read something once (maybe here?) that people who are very near sighted are often early readers because of the nearsightedness, not the other way around. That because they can see so close so much sooner than other kids, they read earlier. I don't know whether it's true or not but I found it very interesting and something to think on. According to my mom I read pretty early. My dd didn't (6 which is pretty average), and so far, her eyesight seems to be taking after her dad (lucky kid!).
post #218 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel

The way I see it, schooling is a natural part of human history, from tribal elders passing on rote histories to the next generation, to Plato teaching philosophy to the young men of Greece, to the medieval universities, to master craftsmen with their apprentices, to Buddhist monks teaching novices.
Except that most of these things didn't happen in schools, so calling them "schooling" is a misnomer. Learning, yes. Teaching, sometimes. I'm not against teaching, but I think it needs to be secondary to learning - one way to learn is to be taught, but there are plenty of other ways. In most of the examples above, there was information availbale, and learners decided what they wanted to do with it. They're all very different from K-12 education today.

Quote:
Why not teach them as soon as they can learn it? Young kids have a greater capacity for learning than older kids (especially when it comes to language),
Actually, younger children have a greater capacity for learning to speak with a near-native accent, but older people learn faster. It often seems that younger children are, but a 3 year old is really only learning a 3-year-old lexicon in the second langauge, which adults are learning the language on an adult level. I can speak Spanish well enough to communicate with the average 3 year old, but I'm nowhere near fluent.

Quote:
and I can't see any real down side to teaching them to read, along with foreign languages, as soon as they can handle it.
Because I think it's wrong to tamper with the natural impetus children have to *learn* by teaching something the learner hasn't freely chosen to learn. I wouldn't want some to teach me things to fulfill their own agenda, especially someone who had a lot of power over me anyway.

dar
post #219 of 220
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds
I agree, if there's an expectation that it will be done. If not -- if it's just the parent offering up suggestions that the child is free to accept or decline -- that's not antithetical to unschooling, any more than for my child to offer to show me how to play a video game.
I think that presenting the difference between school and unschool as this kind of clear dichotomy between "parent-enforced learning" and "parent makes helpful suggestions just as anyone else might" isn't accurate.
I agree (and I didn't mean to imply otherwise, perhaps the analogy was not so great.)

On the other hand, for a child to be more influenced by a parent than others isn't antithetical to unschooling either.

Quote:
For a parent to really radically unschool, they have to make a conscious effort NOT to teach and to pressure, because the default interaction has this subtle pressure of parental influence going on in the background.
Well, first I disagree that a radically unschooling parent has to make an effort to not teach. Unschooling is not dependant on the absence of instruction.

Second, there's a difference between influence and pressure. I might influence my children's degree of interest in math, for instance, by expressing enthusiasm for it. It would be pressure if my impetus for expressing that enthusiasm was specifically to try to get him to learn his time tables, and he sensed that.

Quote:
My personal philosophy - open, of course, to change with circumstances - is that this parental influence can be a positive force in a child's education, if it is used to guide and nurture a child's natural interests and not to force a child to learn something they have no interest in.
Absolutely. The way in which the adults offer that experience and what expectations they have for what the children do with it, will affect what the children get out of it, how they will approach future learning, and how they perceive their own abilities.

Quote:
And even the most independent of them couldn't have learned as much as she did without getting guidance from someone who had worked here longer and was more experience. Not just asked-for guidance - she didn't always know what questions to ask. She liked to just plow ahead and try everything out for herself, which was fine up to a point, but there were certain areas she didn't even know to ask about, and I had to tell her directly what she needed to learn.
Well, again, people don't learn in a vacuum. If I think of something that I think my child would appreciate knowing, I tell him about it, and let him decide to pursue it or not. The difference between myself and someone who "does school" is instead of saying, "you must learn this, this, and that, in this way and according to this timetable," I say, "have you ever heard about this?" Or, "what do you think of that?" and trust that if he has a need for it and is ready for it, he will choose to pursue it.

Quote:
But I also got the book that analyzed what happened to students after Sudbury. (I can't recall the name just now.) And I saw a strong pattern in their careers. Overwhelmingly, they became crafters, artisans, chefs, musicians, people who work with their hands and with the arts. Don't get me wrong, I don't think there's anything wrong with those jobs - but I do want to know why the Sudbury School has produced virtually no PhDs, professors, scientists, or other people in academic fields.
Maybe it's because the Sudbury parents were drawn to it because they were counterculture in some way to begin with and passed that on to their kids. Maybe it's because the Sudbury school didn't provide good resources and opportunities to learn about those things. Maybe it's because most people aren't naturally inclined towards those things, so that a free environment would reflect that statistically.
post #220 of 220
Quote:
Quote:
And I do have to say, my dd didn't learn to read from flashcards and didn't read til she was 6 and she sits up in bed reading for hours every night (I don't even know how long since I go to sleep before her). I don't think a love of reading come from flashcards for most people. It's far more likely to come from being in a house full of books, having parents who enjoy reading for pleasure, and being read to


I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with doing it that way (although, actually, my parents don't read nearly as much as I do, and never have), I just don't see a good reason for the delay. Why not teach them as soon as they can learn it? Young kids have a greater capacity for learning than older kids (especially when it comes to language), and I can't see any real down side to teaching them to read, along with foreign languages, as soon as they can handle it.
My dd1 is 2 months shy of 6. She is not reading on her own yet...because she's NOT able to handle it yet, as you put it.

Quote:
Why not teach them as soon as they can learn it?
Well, we're working on that. She will be reading as soon as she can. Not every child is capable of reading at age 3. I personally was reading Before I entered kindergarten, at the age of 5. As was my younger brother. But my dd1...is not. I think that I could FORCE the issue, make her try harder, make her feel stupid, make her stressed out and crying over how hard it is, as is the case for many children in schools, so that she might learn thatmuch earlier. Or, I could go with her at HER pace, to maintain that love of learning.

She would like to read on her own. She would rather not have to depend on mommy or daddy to read her all her stories; she would rather read fully on her schedule, and not have to wait on someone else to finish what they're doing. And that time will come. But for now, we read to her very often, and she becomes more ready to do so on her own, all the time.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Unschooling
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Childhood and Beyond › Education › Learning at Home and Beyond › Unschooling › Misconceptions about unschooling