Reply
Tue 12 Dec, 2006 12:21 pm
Now I have seen an upward trend in home schooling. But unschooling?
Unschoolers do not punish their children. They do not live by rules, but on principles. They do not believe in forced learning. Children have freedom and respect. Bedtime is when the child gets tired. Children can have candy whenever they want, watch TV as much as they want, etc. The thought is since there are no limits; the children will not overindulge in things - for example overeat.
I would be curious as to the lasting effects on no limits for children. Is this good for them? Will they be able to function once an adult and would need to work?
This is one of those educational trends that just can't be responded to monolithically because it depends so much on who is doing it.
It can be done perfectly well, I think, by a qualified and thoughtful person. It also can be done terribly, I think, and I've seen enough evidence of people doing it terribly that I tend towards being against it, though I'm certain there are exceptions.
I agree with soz, but I think that the cons probably outweigh the pros, for most parents.
For the bright, creative child, with smart, mature, understanding parents, this kind of upbringing could be a boon. After all, public schools teach lockstep, which could affect the creativity and inquisitiveness of some children.
For most, and with most parents, a public school is a way of teaching children how to relate with the rest of society, as well as absorbing the knowledge that he/she needs to make it in this world.
If I were a parent, unless I had the training, and felt very secure about it, I would not attempt unschooling.
Sounds like the perfect recipe for raising illiterate, under educated, anti-social adults...
The term "noble savage" expresses a romantic concept of humankind as unencumbered by civilization; the natural essence of the unfettered person. Since the concept embodies the idea that without the bounds of civilization, man is essentially good, the basis for the idea of the "noble savage" lies in the doctrine of the natural goodness of man, expounded in the first decade of the century by Shaftesbury, who urged a would-be author "to search for that simplicity of manners, and innocence of behaviour, which has been often known among mere savages; ere they were corrupted by our commerce" (Advice to an Author, Part III.iii). His counter to the doctrine of original sin, born amid the optimistic atmosphere of Renaissance humanism, was taken up by his contemporary, the essayist Richard Steele, who attributed the corruption of contemporary manners to false education.
Similar language may used about an old figure, the pastoral inhabitants of some Arcadia, but the shepherds and shepherdesses of those lands live close to nature and so preserve an uncorrupted virtue while still at a higher level of civilization, as witness their flocks and their permanent residences.
I would comment that there is no nobility in being uncivilized.
I think you are both referring to home schooling - where you teach at home rather than unschooling.
Unschooling - you let the children make all the decisions - there is no structure. If a child would rather watch TV all day than anything else they do it. If they want to eat 10 pounds of candy they eat it. They don't want to go to sleep - they don't.
I think in some situations and especially depending on the child, home schooling can work. Unschooling on the other hand where the child makes all their own decisions would be a problem. Does a child understand the repercussions of certain actions?
I didn't think that "unschooling" implied no discipline, only that it was child-led learning. The child learns about what they're interested in and follows no curriculum how I understand it. I wasn't aware that it meant that they had complete control over all decisions for themselves. Are you sure about that bit?
FreeDuck wrote:I didn't think that "unschooling" implied no discipline, only that it was child-led learning. The child learns about what they're interested in and follows no curriculum how I understand it. I wasn't aware that it meant that they had complete control over all decisions for themselves. Are you sure about that bit?
Perhaps I should clarify it - extreme unschooling maybe a closer title. This the description that was given at least in an interview by one couple.
http://www.drphil.com/shows/show/796
Under To school or not to school
By the way, except for the fact that it's done at home rather than in a school setting, this sounds very similar to A.S. Neill's Summerhill, which was very successful in a lot of ways.
http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/pages/history.html
The Dr. Phil thing sounds, unsurprisingly, sensationalistic. I agree that it seems like an extreme subset.
I rarely if ever watch this show, but when I started hearing this couple speak, I thought what the.....! And I was drawn in like a train wreck.
The thing is there were several people in the audience who agreed with this. That children do not need any structure.
It is kind of funny though - this unschooling is simply how I spend time with my children. The basic premise is when they find interest in a subject you use this as a teachable moment. I think most parents do this any way - just in addition to a more traditional method of teaching.
My concern is - if there they do not learn I have to be some where at a particular time or I need to finish this by a certain time and date - what happens when they get a first job? Very few jobs can you arrive when you feel like it or can complete a task when you want. It just doesn't prepare you for the world you may have to live in one day.
It may work find for a shepard, but not for the other 90% of society.
It worked fine with Summerhill. It's a viable premise, if done correctly. The trick is to do it correctly.
A.S. Neill wrote:The function of the child is to live his own life - not the life that his anxious parents think he should live, nor a life according to the purpose of the educator who thinks he knows best.
My elementary school followed a lot of the Summerhillian principles, and we got a lot of that ("but how will you ever...?"). I was in fact terribly bored by high school, then loved college (which is a closer principle), and I think I learned what I needed to learn. Those classmates that I'm still in touch with have all been successful by various measures (doctors lawyers professors whathaveyou).
One of the principles there (though I don't remember if it's phrased this way with Summerhill) is intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. If kids are given pretty much free rein, they develope more intrinsic motivation. I.e., if I go to bed early, I feel better the next day vs. if I don't go to bed early, my parents will punish me. Intrinsic motivation translates well to "real life." (If I get this report done on time my clients are happy and I will get more accounts, vs. if I don't finish this report on time my boss will punish me.)
Some parents may also be hoping to raise their children to be leaders, business owners, or otherwise independent people who are not necessarily employees and who have interests.
One of things I learned about myself as an adult is that I was used to very passive learning. You tell me what I need to know and I can regurgitate it back to you with perfect spelling and punctuation. I thought that learning meant that you go sit in a class and someone who knows something will explain it to you. My education didn't really prepare me to pursue my own interests and/or take the initiative to educate myself. That came much, much later.
sozobe wrote:One of the principles there (though I don't remember if it's phrased this way with Summerhill) is intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. If kids are given pretty much free rein, they develope more intrinsic motivation. I.e., if I go to bed early, I feel better the next day vs. if I don't go to bed early, my parents will punish me. Intrinsic motivation translates well to "real life." (If I get this report done on time my clients are happy and I will get more accounts, vs. if I don't finish this report on time my boss will punish me.)
I agree - however, how long will it take a child to realize this - and going to bed at a certain time is one thing vs. something that is dangerous. Yes a child will learn not to run in front of a car after s/he gets hit, but by then it may be too late to even learn.
Conversely a parent can also teach a child if handled correctly. Rather than taking something away from them, explain in clear terms why they have a scheduled bed time. Also, explain the repercussions.
FreeDuck wrote:Some parents may also be hoping to raise their children to be leaders, business owners, or otherwise independent people who are not necessarily employees and who have interests.
One of things I learned about myself as an adult is that I was used to very passive learning. You tell me what I need to know and I can regurgitate it back to you with perfect spelling and punctuation. I thought that learning meant that you go sit in a class and someone who knows something will explain it to you. My education didn't really prepare me to pursue my own interests and/or take the initiative to educate myself. That came much, much later.
A good school would encourage thinking rather than passive learning. Many programs have creative writing, reasoning - why vs. this is the way, etc. It is not necessarily that schooling is not the right way - just bad schooling is not the right way -
There should be balance between free thinking and educational type structure. Even a business owner needs to learn that they need to get to work on time. If they don't open their business during their stated times, but rather when they feel like - they would likely not be in business very long.
Right, that's the whole intrinsic thing. I'm not saying that unschooling is always the way to go -- clearly I didn't choose if for my children -- just that there are some valid ideas behind it.
FreeDuck wrote:Right, that's the whole intrinsic thing. I'm not saying that unschooling is always the way to go -- clearly I didn't choose if for my children -- just that there are some valid ideas behind it.
I agree - as I stated earlier I think most parents do this without even realizing it. Think of how when you take your child to the grocery store and they see a new produce item - they start asking questions and you discuss. Go for a walk in the woods was such a learning experience - my two kids collected "treasurers" (rocks, different sorts of seeds, etc.) A bonus was others were out walking too and would discuss the items with them - My older girl was so excited about one of her finds that she brought it to school.
Visits to the library are great. I sat my 2nd grader down and showed her some ways to look for books that interest her. They have a special kids search by topics. She found some books on dolphins, she found some books on poetry she thought sounded cool and some baseball books. What a way to peak their interests in different areas.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace