RoR: Forum

This is an interesting approach. It falls in line with what I've been doing for myself from about the age of 16 on. If I had started earlier I would probably be much further along intellectually then I am now. However, I suspect that during the early development of a child it is important for him or her to be taught the basics of the 3 Rs. I think a strong level of supervision and structure would be required in the early stages with a gradual relaxation as the kid gets older. From the ages of 12 or 13 (according Piaget) they begin to have the conceptual ability to think in terms of logical abstractions and thus hopefully the ability to begin making most of their own decisions and I see nothing wrong with allowing them to make their own choices as to their educational goals at this point even if this includes attending a public school if the maturity level is there. I personally would have been far better off if I had been educated under these circumstances.

- Jason

Post 21

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 10:39am

And that, Jason, is precisely the obscenity of considering the teenager as a child, incapable of being able to understand and/or consent to anything.

Post 22

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 6:44am

From my limited experience with kids, that sounds impractical at best and unhealthy at worst. Kids look to others to give them an agenda to focus on, which is why they go through stages where the copy what everything they see others doing. There is value in discipline for learning the benefits of delayed gratification. What will be your check against encouraging whim-worshipping?

Post 23

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 9:04am

Kelly,
Thanks for giving me something challenging to think about! I was wondering: If at some point your child said she wanted to attend a school and made a case for it, would you support her decision?
Also, is her education your full-time job? Do you have help, like tutors or others who are experts in some academic area?

Post 24

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 12:54pm

Kat,

"Kelly, are you saying that kids with those types of issues need less structure? I've always been told the opposite, although I realize that the Montessori method was originally intended for such kids."

I am saying that all kids need to decide for themselves how much structure they need. Kids with issues often get passed over and ignored even more than regular kids in school. Unschooling would force their own needs and wants to the forefront. If your child needs special care like therapy or medical care, of course you should get it for him. That is different from forcing him to do math or reading.

Kelly

Post 25

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 12:55pm

Kelly,

I am a bit surprised you have not brought A.S. Neil's Summerhill educational philosophy into this so far as some kind of reference.

For parents who need to work, a school is necessary for their kids. Maybe not compulsory learning though. Once you have a school, the need for some basic rules becomes manifest. That seems to be what Summerhill is all about.

I read Summerhill back in the 70's and, from what I gather, the results have not been spectacular - nor pisspoor either.

I like your approach - for you. I believe your child will flourish from everything I have seen of your general attitude and seriousness. And I have no doubt that, as your are practically learning by doing, you will revise your methods and adapt to whatever realities become manifest as they do so. I don't take you as a fanatic, but as a realist with a very strong opinion.

I certainly believe that poor home education is possible, too. Just as a high quality school education is. It all depends on who is doing the teaching/guidance.

Any thoughts on Summerhill?

Michael

Post 26

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 12:56pm

Scott,

I think most children are little sheep precisely because they are told what to do and how to do it almost all the time.

As far as imitation goes, that is different from forced learning. My toddler imitates me, but I don't make her do it. She is interested in doing it on her own.

Kelly

Post 27

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 2:25pm

Kelly,

Laure Chipman has made an excellent and tightly reasoned post here with a strong case against your position which so far you haven't responded to.

The parents who actually have children old enough for this to be an issue have agreed with her. As do I, as a teacher with experience with traditionally taught and unschooled environments, with progressive and traditional classrooms and kids.

I hope you will really try to answer her excellent (but tightly packed) post, point by point if we're going to have a fully engaged discussion about this.

Thanks,

Phil

Post 28

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 5:00pm

Laure Chipman wrote:

We all recognize that infants learn at an astounding rate, without formal education. Many children keep up the pace through age 4 or so, teaching themselves to read. Is it school that puts the brakes on this progress, or is it the physiology of brain development?
...
One problem with this "don't study it if you don't care about it" idea is that you may end up with a kid who refuses to do anything she doesn't feel like doing.
...
My eight-year-old son is quite gifted, but if he were "unschooled", he would spend 14 hours a day in front of the computer playing the free games on wonka.com, pfgoldfish.com, etc., etc.

Do children have any short term reasons to learn after four years old? Do they actually need to learn, or would they get pretty much everything they want independent of whether they learn? (for as far as they can see into the future) Do they themselves know of any reason to learn? Maybe your eight-year-old son would spend 14 hours a day playing video games because he doesn't have a reason to do anything else?

Kelly, maybe it would be worth while to use the trader principle with your children. Make sure that they have the freedom and know the options they have available to them to create things which other people value (and they themselves value), so that they can trade value for value and benefit from their own productivity. If there is nothing for your children to work for (work can mean learning too) which they value, then how could they ever be interested in working/learning?

I think the child needs both short term and long term reasons to work/learn. This is the case for us adults too, but we are more able to discover and accomplish longer term goals/reasons, and have less of a dependency on short term goals/reasons.

People feel antsy, bored, or annoyed when they are doing something which they do not consider worth their time. Education and work need never be like that, so long as we always know that our time is being spend doing something worth while. Take note when you or someone you know has one of these feelings. Then check your premises as to the reasons to your/their behavior. If your child is feeling one of these things... then explore with them the reason for their behavior. If you and the child discover that it is worthwhile, then great. If you discover its not, that's great too. And if you disagree, that is where the fun begins!

Post 29

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 5:50pm

From Robert A. Heinlein's Have Space Suit Will Travel:

"Dad," I said, "I want to go to the Moon."
"Certainly," he answered . . . . "I said it was all right. Go ahead."
"Yes . . . but how?"
"Eh?" He looked mildly surprised. "Why, that's your problem, Clifford."

Great article, Kelly. I wish you great success in your efforts.

Post 30

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 5:58pm

Kelly (or anyone else), have you read THE TEENAGE LIBERATION HANDBOOK: How to Quit School and Get a Real Life and Education?Here's the Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos
/tg/detail/-/0962959170/qid=1115254270/
sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-8494890-6512113?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
(Edited by Joe Maurone
on 5/04, 6:34pm)

Post 31

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 6:13pm

Joe & Jeff: Feature request: Break up long words so they don't make the forum super wide. Or detect long words, and give tips on how to make links when you detect them. Only let forum posters have maximum of two line breaks between text. And cut off all line breaks at the end of posts.

Joe Maurone: To answer your next post: No! That is even worse! How user unfriendly! : )
<a href="http://www.google.com">Google</a> makes: Google
(Edited by Dean Michael Gores
on 5/04, 7:22pm)

Post 32

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 6:35pm

Better, Dean?

Sorry, when I pasted the link, it just spread out. I don't know why Amazon links are so long.

Post 33

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 7:27pm

Kelly,

Great article. I've also enjoyed our talks on the subject. I've learned a lot from you and David regarding unschooling.

Laure,

I don�t think Kelly said that formal education kills the spirit of independent learning. Kelly went to public school, her husband David went to public school, I went to public school and we are still voracious learners in spite of that bad experience.

I say bad because I compare it to what could have been and what Livy, their daughter, will fortunately be able experience.

I�d like to take a stab at addressing some of your objections.

You said: How many children are there who have grown up without any formal education, and how did they turn out?

I don�t think this is a fair comparison to what Kelly and David are doing, nor in of itself is it a valid objection to their approach. Maybe if you said something like, How many children are there who have been raised by a set of parents who have dedicated themselves to being rational in all aspects of their life and who know that one of the most important precursors to this is cleaning out their psycho-epistemology?

There might just be a few. But you would also have to be judging by a certain criteria to determine whether or not these children turned out ok (with these type of parents it would be hard for me to believe that they wouldn�t but children do have volition so I guess it is theoretically possible). What standard would you be using to determine that? It seems like you might be giving us some hint of that when you said:

We will see if she becomes a Nobel prize-winner, or if she's living in your basement when she's 35.

The implication seems to be that unless your child becomes a Nobel prize-winner or some equivalent she will not be happy (or is it that you would not be happy).

You said: A small child simply isn't capable of deciding what is "important" to learn.

By what standard are you determining what is important for your child to learn?

You said: Most people start out in jobs that are not our chosen profession. It is important that the child recognize that there will be jobs she has to do during her life that she isn't crazy about. Even in her chosen field, there will be aspects of her job that she doesn't care for. But these things have to be done. Learning stuff you don't care about will promote responsibility and discipline.

Could you explain how Kelly�s approach makes it so that the child will not see that sometimes she might have to do things that don�t provide her with immediate satisfaction if she wants to obtain some more �difficult� goal? Remember this will have been a child that for the majority of and in most aspects of her life she has been responsible for achieving her goals.

It seems to me the way it will play out is that when she is very young her immediate goals will be �easier� to achieve but as she gains the confidence through these early achievements she will feel capable to go after more challenging ones. As she becomes more and more conceptual she will be able to see through her own efforts and others around her (her very productive and virtuous parents) the benefit of explicitly identifying her values and taking the necessary steps (even if they are very demanding) to achieve them.

To be continued�..

Aquinas

Post 34

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 8:36pm

When I was seven years old, I became very interested in music and begged my parents for piano lessons. They supported me in this, and for my eighth birthday I came home from school to discover an upright piano with a big bow on it. I began lessons right away.

I continued studying through high school, majored in piano and voice in college, and now make my living as a pianist and composer. I'm glad my parents encouraged me to follow my own interests.

However, several times in the course of my study, I wanted to quit. There were times when I begged my parents to let me drop piano because I was no longer interested in it. They insisted that I stick with it. I'm glad they did. An adult often knows what's in a child's best interest....even more than the child does.

A good parent supports a child's curiousity and desire to learn, but doesn't give into every whim a child has. I fear that the author of this article, if she'd been my parent, would've given into my pleadings to quit piano, and this would've been a big loss to me. Part of mastering any subject or skill often requires more than merely following your whims.

Post 35

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 8:49pm

Eric,

Why do you seem to be interpreting your earlier desire to quit piano lessons as a whim?

So let's say you would have quit piano lessons, so what. You could have always returned to it if you so desired. You might have even discovered some other activity that you felt passionate about. The point is you would have determined what it was that made you the happiest. Your parents could have explained that it might be difficult to regain your skill again if you quit now but that they would be supportive of whatever decision you make because it is your life to make those decisions.

They also should not have been investing their time in this activity in a self-sacrificial way, in a way that implied an unearned obligation on you part to continue with the activity even if you did not enjoying it anymore. They should have approached it knowing that that could be a possiblity in the future and one they would be willing to accept if you decided.

Aquinas

Post 36

Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 9:42pm

When I asked "How many children are there who have grown up without any formal education, and how did they turn out?" I was not trying to challenge Kelly, I was just asking. To clarify, I know there are plenty of children who grow up without formal education, such as children of migrant workers or children in third-world countries. I was really referring to children of intelligent high-achieving parents. I don't know of any of these types of parents who do not actively educate their children. This is why I would be interested to learn how Kelly's approach turns out.

I am skeptical because in my experience, the formation of life goals, for most people, does not happen the way Kelly describes. I think very few children decide when they are young what they want to do when they grow up. I think if you allow young children to ignore all subjects they are not interested in, they may lose the opportunity to discover an interest they didn't know they had.

(I read Eric's post while I was still writing this. It's really neat that your childhood interest developed into a lifelong career! I wish I had been able to identify some pursuit to commit myself to at that age.)

Kelly talks about knowledge being hierarchical, but the acquisition of knowledge not following a hierarchical structure. This is true for many kinds of knowledge, but for some things, a hierarchical teaching approach is appropriate. Take my son, for instance. The boy learned to sound out all the letters of the alphabet when he was one and a half or two, before he learned to speak more than a couple of words. All kids benefit by learning phonics before trying to read a book; my son apparently took the hierarchical approach to an extreme, and decided he ought to learn what letters he was sounding out before he really started speaking! (Oh, Kelly, get the Phonics Bus if you don't already have one! It's every kid's Rosetta Stone! ;-) )

Aquinas asks "By what standard are you determining what is important for your child to learn?" Well, by the standard of an adult who knows what knowledge is necessary to be a competent and well-rounded adult. My standard of importance may be different than yours, but I think it's going to be more accurate than a five-year-old's.

Aquinas asks, "Could you explain how Kelly�s approach makes it so that the child will not see that sometimes she might have to do things that don�t provide her with immediate satisfaction if she wants to obtain some more �difficult� goal?" A rational grownup will be able to see that he has to do things that don't provide immediate satisfaction. I don't think we can expect this of a small child. I'm picturing Kelly's daughter at seven... "Gosh, these multiplication tables are such a bore, but if I want to become a nuclear physicist, I've got to learn my mathematics!" Hey, maybe that'll be her, and it would be wonderful. But the painful truth for many of us is that without some degree of parental pressure, our kids would be watching TV or playing video games rather than studying.

I think part of the disagreement is a matter of degree and not of principle. I agree that a child should pursue his interests, and I agree that his primary focus should be on his interests. A book I read recently, "The Power of Focus," put it this way (to paraphrase): "If you focus on improving your weaknesses, you'll just end up with a bunch of strong weaknesses." The public schools may insist that the child spend 10% of his time on his interests, and 90% on other stuff to make him "well rounded". I think it would be nice for the child to spend 70% of his time on his interests, and 30% on other stuff. What worries me about Kelly's approach is that it seems she is advocating a 100%/0% allocation!

I would love to successfully raise my son without ever having to tell him what to do, but so far, it's not happening. But I hope that by setting a good example and providing the right atmosphere, he will grow into a self-motivated adult.

(Sorry I seem to have gone on and on again... Interesting subject.)

Post 37

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 7:59am

For those worried about what children will do when allowed freedom of volition (to choose their own way in life always), you may want to check out the Sudbury "education" model at http://www.sudval.org/ and other Sudbury sites. The Sudbury model allows children to basically run the school and to run their own lives fully without coercion from parents or others.

If you read the testimonials of the students who have gone to these "schools" for 37 years, you'll see that they are phenomenal examples of what happens when they are left to their devices.

You'll hear of one boy who would only fish every day until he was 9. That's all he did EVERY DAY. He was such an expert on fishing that adult fishermen respected his ideas. Then one day the boy got fascinated with computers. He devoured all things (mathematics, reading, algebra, etc.) that had to do with computers, and today he works with computer technology for a living (and probably gets up at 4 a.m. to fish on Sundays). But there would've been nothing wrong with him being a professional fisherman, if he so wished. He would surely have realized that he had to read (fishing manuals) and perhaps do some math (checkbook) to do his job and he would've learned those skills to the point he felt necessary.

Other children showed no interest in mathematics or reading until age 4 or 7 or 9, but when they did, they would "cram" it in with excitement and learn in 6 weeks what schooled children took 1 or 2 years to learn.

One child who came to one Sudbury school at about age 10 from a public school would only play video games all day for almost an entire year. Then (as he explained later) he looked around and realized that nobody was forcing him to do anything, so he no longer felt it necessary to escape into video games. He soon got interested in playing with other kids and learning skills and knowledge that pertained to his values. The head of the Sudbury model call such cases "detox" -- from formal education.

The main point in this is that children do NOT need somebody motivating them. Their volition works quite well. (Think back on the motivations you had as a kid. I loved to pick up the encyclopedia and read about all sorts of stuff related to whatever I was interested in: birds, tennis, gravity, brains, dinosaurs, etc.) As kids get older and experience more things in reality (that they chose to experience), they usually start fine-tuning their learning -- or they may go the opposite direction and generalize their education. The great thing about having been free to make their own choices along the way is that they've already eliminated many of the experiences in life that they didn't enjoy, so they have a better idea of who they are and what may make them happy.

And part of this for parents is that we have to just "let it go." Let go of the idea that we have to run our children's lives. And in so doing, we have to understand that our children may choose to do NOTHING with their lives. If that be the case, then so be it. That is their choice. But I doubt that any child raised by rational, happy parents would ever choose to do nothing and be miserable. Happiness is infectious.

Post 38

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 8:07am

Laurie,

"Kelly, I think your article is based on the premise that formal education kills the spirit of independent learning in children."

No, as I said, my main reason is volition. I think that children should run their own lives (unless they are endangering themselves significantly or harming others) since they must learn how to do that. They do not learn how by being bossed until they are adults.

"You imply that we shouldn't bother to learn anything that isn't interesting to us."

I don't imply this, I say it right out. Unless a subject interests us or furthers our values, we should ignore it.

"One problem with this "don't study it if you don't care about it" idea is that you may end up with a kid who refuses to do anything she doesn't feel like doing.� Most people start out in jobs that are not our chosen profession.� It is important that the child recognize that there will be jobs she has to do during her life that she isn't crazy about.� Even in her chosen field, there will be aspects of her job that she doesn't care for.� But these things have to be done.� Learning stuff you don't care about will promote responsibility and discipline."

I think what I will end up with is a child who refuses to do things that are not in line with her values. Will she take a job at McDonald's in order to save money for an airplane? Yes, because she will understand that her values are her own to achieve, that her values are important and worth achieving. I don't want my child to ever learn to do something she doesn't want to do. Placing someone else's value above your own is altruism. Learning math because mom thinks it is important rather than writing the novel that you think is important is altruism. That is not what I want to teach my child. But I don't mean that I want her to only think of short term pleasure. My husband and I will be good examples for her that doing something less pleasant now in order to obtain a larger long term goal leads to happiness. I really think that the people who turn out to be whim worshipers are people who never learned how important values are and the joy that achievement brings. It even seems to me that repeatedly making a child do something they don't want to do might make them crave that pleasure seeking life of whim worshipping because they would not be getting their fill of the real and lasting pleasure of value achievement.

"oftentimes, we discover what we are interested in while we are learning the basics!� I didn't know what I wanted to be when I grew up, but by the end of junior high, I knew I liked math.� I started out majoring in accounting in college, but found that I enjoyed my computer classes much more, so switched to that area.� If I had been "unschooled" as a child, I probably would have spent all my time reading novels, and would not have discovered my aptitude or interest in mathematics."

It seems to me that what you are describing is a process of discovery similar to what an unschooled child would do. No one forced you to keep studying accounting when you discovered you liked computers. It was your choice to follow your values. I also think it is unrealistic to think that you would have read novels exclusively for 12-18 years. You might have read exclusively for a while, but when you had worn that interest out (or kept it up but not at the same intensity), you would have tried other things. No child living in the world could avoid being exposed to the basics (toe counting on up to balancing a checkbook, to use math as an example). If for some reason, a child did do only one thing forever, that child clearly has an unusual passion. Why not honor it?

"He wants to be a writer when he grows up.� But he needs encouragement to make that more than an idle desire, to actually DO some writing."

If what you mean is actually encouragement (as in "Wow, I liked that story." or "Tell me why you want to be a writer. That is a neat idea."), then that is totally compatible with unschooling. If you really mean coercing the child to write (or manipulating him using your parental emotional leverage), I think that is a bad idea. If he doesn't want to actually write, that says to me that he isn't truly too interested in being a writer. Even if he is interested in doing it in the future, making him do it now may take the joy out of it because it wasn't his value at this time. Again, do you think he would only play those games for the rest of his life? Or would he play them till he got his fill and then move on to something else? Maybe he would decide to become a game designer. I know sometimes I get into a series of books and all I do is read them. Eventually that ends though, and I want to do other things.

"As Kat noted, every child is different, and some of us (like me and my son) are a bit too lazy to do well without formal education pushing us along."

This is just what I am trying to avoid. I don't think people are lazy naturally. In fact, I think value pursuit is the natural state. It is formal schooling and parental pressure (along with many other aspects of our irrational culture) that make people lazy, less focused on values, and unmotivated. Why be motivated when your time is spent on other's values? Why be excited about learning and doing when you aren't learning and doing what you want. I don't want my child to have to be pushed along. I want her own desires to push her to excel in the things she chooses.

"My major complaint about my elementary education is that it was "learning in slow motion."

For you it was slow. For others, it was fast. For some, too focused on language arts. For others, too focused on math. For some, there was not enough time for playing. For others, there was not enough art. The great thing about unschooling is that every child can go as fast or as slow as he wants in the things he wants to learn.

I want to make another point that is unconnected with your email. It just occurred to me. Forcing a child to follow a parent's values instead of his own hurts the relationship between parent and child. Where there is sacrifice, there must be resentment. That is another reason to avoid forcing one's will on a child whenever it is possible.

Kelly

Post 39

Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 8:09am