Unschooling

Parents Forum
41

<p>What is the definition of a "well rounded" education. </p>

<p>On the one hand, it is almost impossible to go very deep into one academic area without at least having a working knowledge of other subjects. For example, if someone is interested in the tse tse fly, not only will they have to learn the basics of biology, they will also need to read and read well, but usually should also write about it and do some basic math as they get into the subject.</p>

<p>On the other hand, no matter how well rounded the education, there will be gaps in knowledge. If you take two Algebra texts and start comparing them side by side, you will find that the authors had to make choices and prioritize one thing over another. Some texts will completely ignore ratios and others will empasize them...and etc.</p>

<p>We have found that as parents we need to do the same thing and what the child doesn't learn now, he will learn later when he needs to. The same goes for everyone in the public schools as well.</p>

42

<p>Atommom, The aol poster said that her kid just started reading at 9 and that now she's reading at an college junior reading level. LOL.</p>

43

<p>Blue: Why LOL?</p>

44

<p>Cause it's unbelievable.</p>

45

<p>
[quote]
Cause it's unbelievable.

[/quote]

not at all. Allowed to progress at their own pace, many kids advance at very different rates through different subjects. The idea of grade levels for different subjects is really pretty arbitrary. A kid who loves math and wants to devote all of their intellectual energy to it might be 5 years ahead in math but 2 years behind in writing, (compared to schooled peers), for instance. But as long as they are in a stimulating intellectual environment and are learning an adequate total amount, it is not anything to get overly concerned about. Eventually they will turn their attention to the lagging subjects and can catch up or even get ahead very quickly. (I'm assuming normal kids, not those with learning disabilities).</p>

<p>There's an adage about toilet training - you can wait until they're ready and it happens overnight, or you can start 2 years earlier and it takes 2 years. The same can be said about many academic subjects as well, particularly reading. If a kid is read to, and talked to, and is otherwise bright, but they are not interested in reading until age 9 instead of the expected age 6, they can make up the 3 years almost instantaneously and surge on ahead from there.</p>

46

<p>A friend of mine grew up in a very remote part of Alaska. His parents did not teach him to read and he did not start until he moved to a village of about 80 people when he was 18 years old. He then went into the elementary school and learned to read and went through all the acacemic levels in 2 years so that he started high school at age 20 and finished it at age 22 and then went to a four year college. </p>

<p>So it is not unbelievable at all.</p>

47

<p>I agree about it being perfectly believable. I homeschooled my sons. (not unschooled, so I have kept quiet in this thread so far) My first son taught himself to read at age 4. My second son didn't really catch on until he was 9. In our state at that time, he had to take the CAT test every year. At the end of 2nd grade, he was around the 20th percentile in reading. At the end of 3rd grade, he was above the 90th percentile. (I think about 95) And that was without any special education or pressure. His brain was just ready to learn, so he caught on quickly. He went on to become a National Merit commended scholar.</p>

<p>Kids do learn at different rates, and often in spurts. Very few kids are right at grade level (whatever that is) in every subject.</p>

48

<p>For those who may not be familiar with A. S. Neill's school and subsequent book "Summerhill" you might find this site worth while: <a href="http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/pages/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/pages/&lt;/a> especially the "History" section.</p>

<p>When I read his book way back in about 1970 or so, I found it such an inspiration that I set out to find a school that I could switch to which would offer me more...I ended up at Simon's Rock in Great Barrington, Mass shortly thereafter. ;)</p>

49

<p>homeschoolmom -
"Reading a lot and doing inherently interesting non-routine recreational math problems seems likely to be at least as helpful a background for SAT success as 30-hours-per-week of "seat time" in a conventional high school."</p>

<p>Seat time, huh. I agree that all forms of schooling have some difficulties - and in varying degrees for different students and school districts. My son has been blessed with many superlative teachers at his public hs: defining this as seat time is, IMO, more than a little offensive to these educators. SAT II's: 790/780/750/710. AP's: 5 (AB sub5)/5/5/5/4/4/3. </p>

<p>The University of Chicago requests that their incoming first-years submit recommendations for hs teacher recognition by the university. They sent him a couple of forms: I believe he will xerox these and send additional submissions.</p>

50

<p>
[quote]
My son has been blessed with many superlative teachers at his public hs: defining this as seat time is, IMO, more than a little offensive to these educators.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I didn't mean any disrespect. Our family has also been blessed to learn from many wonderful adults in our community, and some of the most terrific among them are public school teachers! The adults they have come into contact with--in a wide variety of contexts, including volunteer work in public schools and community non-profit organizations , have been a huge source of inspiration to them. </p>

<p>Some of the teachers who taught my children when they were in public schools (in their early elementary school years) actively encouraged and supported their decision to homeschool, and continued to maintain contact long after they left the schools. </p>

<p>There are some children who learn best in a highly structured situation, with a good deal of external scaffolding. As I've said in other postings, our family has seen many terrific students who thrive educationally while attending conventional school for 30 hours a week.</p>

<p>There are others who learn best in situations where they get intermittent inspiration and mentoring from a wide variety of adults--including school teachers, who have made MANY terrific suggestions for resources to use, who have had interesting conversations with my children, etc.--in less formal ways. Such students can succeed without the requirement to spend 30 hours a week in a classroom from K-12. As I said, my children's teachers themselves recognized this. (And, NO, they were not behavior problems the school wanted to get rid of--the teachers, school librarian, and principal just realized that my children would do well with more flexiblity and a broader set of resources than their school could offer. They welcomed my children to volunteer in the schools while they were homeschooling. My children have learned a lot from their volunteer work.)</p>

51

<p>
[quote]
My son has been blessed with many superlative teachers at his public hs: defining this as seat time is, IMO, more than a little offensive to these educators.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I like to think of my S as being semi-homeschooled. He's had some terrific teachers in many different subjects. Often, however, they have been hamstrung by district curricular and testing requirements. They've tried their best to avoid teaching to the test, but it's been frustrating for them and for many of their students.<br>
The best thing that his 7/8 math teacher could do for my S was to decide NOT to teach my S, to release him from the demands of the curriculum and let him work at his own level and his own pace, though within the classroom setting. Similarly, the best thing the 7/8 grade science teacher did was to let us know that the 8th grade curriculum was going to be unchallenging well enough in advance that my S could prepare to take AP-Physics in 8th grade. I have the greatest respect and admiration for these teachers.</p>

52

<p>I agree, we should not brush all public education with a broad stroke. Not everyone was merely sitting in a seat being "taught to". Like Marite's son, both my kids have had some opportunities for independent study, individualized work at their own level and pace, acceleration and what not. All was not ideal, far from it, but they were not just indoctrinated...they had many accomodations for their learning styles and abilities and interests. They did not always do what the class did. They were able to pursue areas of interest as well as their own level and pace at several junctures in their education. I'm not applauding public schools or ours, but I don't like to generalize about all classroom learning (ie., seat time) because there are many variations. While it is not the same as unschooling or homeschooling, some kids in structured school settings, like Marite's or my kids (and many others) have been able to do SOME things along the lines of those who have had more individualized paths. It might have taken lots of initiative and schools willing to bend and accomodate, but it can be done. </p>

<p>Susan</p>

53

<p>
[quote]
I agree, we should not brush all public education with a broad stroke.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree too!</p>

<p>I'm still somewhat taken aback that I was offending anybody or casting aspersions by saying that there are alternatives outside the box that could be just as valuable educationally as sitting in a classroom 30 hours per week.</p>

<p>I have spent many more hours working with public school teachers and administrators in my volunteer work (as an enrichment volunteer and mentor, as a community rep to a district curriculum committee, as a teacher consultant) than many parents of schoolchildren, and I have enormous respect for those with whom I've worked, so I'm still feeling concerned that anyone thinks I was painting public school teachers in a negative light. </p>

<p>I apologize if my wording did not convey the way I feel about public school TEACHERS (as opposed to a bureaucratic SYSTEM predicated on children staying inside a schoolbuilding 30 hours a week.)</p>

<p>The teachers I know (both those who taught my children when they were younger and still enrolled in school and the ones I've worked with as a community volunteer for over a decade) are dedicated, resourceful, intelligent, caring, and generally-all-round-terrific human beings. They work very hard under incredibly trying bureaucratic constraints (and they have to deal with a lot of complaints from parent of children in their classroom--and I think that many of those complaints are unreasonable on the part of the parents.)</p>

<p>I have ENORMOUS respect, admiration, and empathy for schoolteachers. There are some great public school teachers who realize that the best education for a particular child may involve giving them a LOT of lattitude to learn outside the classroom. (John Taylor Gatto, a renegade NYC schoolteacher who won NY State Teacher of the Year some years ago was especially resourceful in that respect.) </p>

<p>Marite's school district was clearly exceptionally accommodating to her son, allowing him to stay enrolled fulltime, but still giving him the schedule flexibility to spend many hours outside the schoolbuilding taking college classes. I would agree with her characterization that her son was "semi-homeschooled," and I can't imagine that a bureaucratic system which would have required him to spend 30 hours per week in classrooms WITHIN his school building would have improved his education.</p>

<p>There is clearly a continuum of alternatives--some children may do best with the conventional 30 hours a week in a highly structured typical high school environment, some may do better with a good amount of flexibility to take college courses and/or independent study, some may do better with the freedom to spend a good deal of their time reading in a tree, volunteering in an innercity daycare center, participating in public debates and community discussion groups and writing workshops led by poets and novelists.</p>

<p>The public educators who worked with my children were enlightened enough to see that an outside-the-box education could work at least as well as sitting in their classrooms. They have encouraged and supported my children's education, long after the children ceased to be officially enrolled in school. I continue to be impressed by them--and, again, I am concerned lest my careless wording leaves the impression that I was putting anyone down.</p>

<p>Teachers work hard--and they face increasingly difficult bureaucratic constraints in this NCLB era. I have great admiration for the teachers I have worked with, but a LOT of frustration for the bureaucratic constraints under which they operate.</p>

54

<p>Here is a recent article on unschooling from CNN.
Does anyone know how these kids do in college or in the workplace? Do they adjust well? Are the unschooled kids outcomes similar to that of homeschoolers,or are ther limited "group" opportunities for unschoolers aat the MS and HS level? Just curious.
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/27/gutierrez.unschooing/index.html%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/01/27/gutierrez.unschooing/index.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

55

<p>I hate the term "unschooling". It has come to be interpreted as some sort of "noble savage" thing with feral children growing up with no guidance or structure. I prefer to think of it simply as a style of homeschooling that does not utilize the familiar trappings of traditional school, like textbooks, homework, and set scheduling. "Unschooling" families may be pretty structured in terms of things like TV limits, chores, household order. "Unschooling" parents may also provide quite a bit of guidance in the form of making suggestions, providing opportunities, keeping track of what their child has covered, and making sure that when their child reaches their teens they are doing the sort of quantifiable things that will be needed for a successful college app. Think about "unschooling" as living an intellectual lifestyle (reading, discussion, museums, travel, experiences) rather than going through a formulaic process. I sometimes describe it as "year-round summer vacation". Kids from families that are intellectual and value learning do not stop learning during summer vacations from school. Their parents are not going to allow them to spend 3 months watching Gilligan's Island reruns just because it's summer and the kid wants to (which they probably don't). The kids are still learning and developing, it is just happening in a less structured way than it does when they are in school. Same with "unschooled" kids. And they do perfectly fine in college and the workplace.</p>

56

<p>I have to agree with Texas on this one. My dad is a public school teacher, so he was off all summer with my brother and I. We did not just sit around and watch TV all day. Our area is a bit sparse in the museum department, but we did experiment in agriculture (several years of tomates, grapes, and blueberries.) We would often pull out the Audobon Field guides to look at birds or spiders that found themselves in our backyard. We experimented with buoyancy in a pool. My dad is definitely an unschooler. He taught himself Italian and began experiments in Italian cooking as well. Nothing that we did was "education" in the strictest sense, but we certainly learned a lot.</p>