RoR: Forum

Hi Philip,

Well, I'm sure I wallow in hubris and have it to spare, but I am open. Education fascinates me, probably because I feel my precious spirit was persecuted and imprisoned in the jails of public schools with few good teachers, with little opportunity to speak there or in college, but listen and listen to yammering on and on of boring lectures with the sun outside and my glorious books that I loved waiting for me but no time because of the mountains of homework hours heaped on my head. How does one fucking learn if one can't fucking speak.

Dreadfully angry at the waste, hate them, horrible, horrible. So, I am passionate but not yet reasonable in regards to this issue. I love your points, however, and Kelly's well-thought through decisions and hard work.

Julia

Post 61

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 4:46pm

Education fascinates me, probably because I feel my precious spirit was persecuted and imprisoned in the jails of public schools with few good teachers, with little opportunity to speak there or in college, but listen and listen to yammering on and on of boring lectures with the sun outside and my glorious books that I loved waiting for me but no time because of the mountains of homework hours heaped on my head.

This is my experience also. Except for that last part about the homework. I avoided homework.

Post 62

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 5:26pm

> How does one fucking learn if one can't fucking speak.

Julia, I completely understand.

> -few good teachers...
-little opportunity to speak...
-boring lectures..
-glorious books that I loved waiting for me but no time....

You listed four things (thanks for that list) that I want to get rid of in PES.

I am working on PES.

Right

NOW.

Post 63

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 5:32pm

Philip,
You have written a lot of thought provoking stuff here.

"They suddenly want to be a scientist, a veterinarian, a pilot but they can't yet because they'd have to go back and do remedial or preliminary work. Or they want to be a writer or philsophere but have never mastered an incredibly long list of language skills. And have never developed the ability to grit your teeth and master boring stuff that it would require to catch up, to go back and build the fundamentals."

Yes. I "rebelled" all through childhood. Never did any homework. I thought adults were just into power trips, I only liked maybe one or two teachers all the way through. Poor grades. Didn't think seriously about going to college until I was in the Navy and after I had read Ayn Rand. Took the SAT while in the Navy, on my ship. Didn't have any idea how to prepare for it. Got 650 on the verbal, 550 on the math portion. I went to the community college near my home when I got out. Still didn't know how to stick it out. Some classes I liked and did well. Classes I didn't like I walked away from. It took me a long time to get the "grit your teeth" part. Of course, I don't know what would have gotten my attention as a kid. Perhaps if I'd read Ayn Rand as a nine year old.

Your points are well taken.

Post 64

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 6:21pm

I would first like to start with a little background information about myself that I think is relevant to the discussion regarding Kelly�s article.

I have been teaching gymnastics for 12 years. The age range of these students/gymnasts is from 18 months to 18 years. I�ve also trained most of the coaches that work at the gym I have owned for the last 8 years. During the time of owning my gym I have worked directly with at least 2000 children. This means working with them from 1 to possibly 8 hours (during the summer) in a day, and at least once a week.

I also use to own a private school, Aquinas Academy of Reason, that was geared to children from the ages of 6 to 11. The curriculum was based on the Well-Trained Mind, a book that espouses the classical approach to learning (the trivium). Prior to opening the school I did extensive research on different educational theories and curriculums. I decided at the time that I agreed with Leonard Peikoff�s tapes on the philosophy of education. After selecting a teacher and with her major input I thought a classical approach with his theoretical underpinnings would result in a school that would actually produce knowledgeable and virtuous young adults.

I had been hearing about the academic success that Lisa van Damme (using Peikoff�s theoretical basis) in California and Janet Wich (using the Well-Trained Mind) in Texas were having and could not wait to get started.

Speed up in time. I opened the school in May 2001 and closed it in November 2002. At the time the primary reason for closing the school was financial. Because I had so few students I was having to subsidize the school during the second year to the tune of $2000/month while teaching these children full-time basically for free (and oh yeah I was still running my gym too). The point of bringing this part up is that even if I would have kept it going financially I would have eventually had to either close it or change it into a sort of Sudbury school, since my views on education changed. This was not an easy change for me initially (I wanted to produce academically outstanding and virtuous students). After many conversations with Kelly and David Elmore along with subsequent honest evaluation of my motivations for having a school and the experiences with the children at the school (along with the children I trained at my gym) I came to realize I had been mistaken with this initial approach.

To be continued��.

I want to address most of Philip�s points because the way he thinks on the subject was exactly how I use to think. I�m trying to decide whether to respond to them on this thread or write an article describing the intellectual journey that led me to change my mind. It is also 9pm where I�m at and seeing how I have not had dinner and my favorite restaurant (Q-doba) is closed, I�ll have to go to the store or get some fast food (yuk, but my stomach�s talking).

Education and children are still my passion and I plan to open something like a Sudbury school and/or start a scholarship program for budding intellectuals in the near future.

Post 65

Friday, May 6, 2005 - 9:12pm

Aquinas, you certainly have my curiosity up, given the fact that you are experienced as a teacher.

>... or write an article describing the intellectual journey that led me to change my mind.

I hope you will have time to do the above option if it's detailed. Since the devil is in the details in a matter like this. At any rate, I certainly look forward to hearing you address each of my arguments, if that's your plan.

Phil

Post 66

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 7:19am

Aquinas,

I second Phil, do both - respond in email AND write an article, we won't mind reading things twice. It will help crank out the outline for the article.

Absolutely fascinating, and your hard work is inspiring.

Julia

Post 67

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 2:38pm

Phillip,

The first point I want to make about your post is that childhood is not a time to prepare for �real life� (adulthood). Childhood is real life, and children are real people. They should be wisely using those years to do the same things adults do: pursuing their values and learning those things that make that possible. I think educators treat childhood as the years when you can fill a child up with all the info they think he needs and mold him into the kind of person they think he should be. Just like adults, when children are doing things they don't want to do, being filled and molded by other's values, they are wasting very precious time, and the waste is not less tragic because they are the early years of life.

Now on to some points you made that I disagree with. You ask if I and the other unschoolers have ever had an inspiring teacher. Yes, I have, and how much more inspiring it could have been if I had been there of my own choosing instead of by force. To have a real relationship with a teacher, a mentor, or an experienced friend, the relationship must be based on mutual interest and mutual trust. There can be no meeting of minds (whether grown up or young) when one person cannot leave whenever he chooses. Those kind of teaching relationships are authoritative, not partnerships.

You also say that history, science, literature, expository writing, and maybe even music, art, and sports, are needed to have a flourishing, happy life. I totally disagree. Those things are all noble pursuits, but one does not need them to have a productive career, find a satisfying romance, pursue interesting hobbies, and make rational, fun friends. You may need those things to flourish in your chosen life, but that is not the same thing as being universally necessary.

You say that it would be hard to make up things you never learned. Why? If you didn't learn history, you can go get Will Durant's series, read it, and jump off from there into more details. If you haven't heard of Will Durant, you can write to a history professor at a university and ask where to start reading. Then you just read. My husband did it, and he is one of the most historically informed people from whom I have ever had the pleasure of learning. Would it really be so hard to learn basic figuring and be able to move on to algebra? I think it could be done quickly and easily, if you put your mind to it. What about literature? Why would it be hard to locate a list of the accepted great books of the world and read them? These things would take time, but they take time for a child in school as well. I think it is better to spend the time when you are actually interested in the learning, whether that is at age 8 or 88.

The last thing I want to address is your idea that people who don't get (or want) a liberal arts education are Phillistines. Yeah, I've read Matthew Arnold too, and I don't think he's right about that. You may be surprised to learn, Phillip, judging from your condescending tone, that I too am classically educated. I read and write elegant English prose, though here I often keep my style informal. I read Greek and Latin, and a little Italian and Spanish, though I don't speak them. I know higher math (though I never liked it or was very good at it), and I know the basics of the branches of science. History is my weakest subject, but I have a decent grounding there as well, probably better than most college grads. My years at college immersing myself in Western Culture were some of the most stretching and satisfying years I have lived.

I have read Homer and Sophocles and Sappho and the New Testament in the original Greek. I have read Cicero and Catullus and Virgil and Caesar in the original Latin. I have lived in Goethe and Keats, Pope and Milton, and though they shaped me and I truly enjoyed every minute of the shaping, I don't think everyone must do it in order to expand their minds. That is the difference, I think, between us. Though I love English literature with a devotion that leaves me breathless, I do not think a person who doesn't care to read it is a Phillistine. I don't believe that everyone must be like me to be happy. The essentials for a good life are not literature, history, or science; they are virtue, self-esteem, and value-pursuit. I don't care if my child follows in my footsteps and worships Tennyson. I only want a life of satisfaction for her, her own kind of satisfaction, her own values, her own path to happiness.

Kelly

Post 68

Saturday, May 7, 2005 - 2:57pm

Kelly

Very well said.

I too am rather well-educated (though not in the classics, as you and Philip are), and agree with you that that is strictly my way of living, right for me, not for everyone. And, if not for some parental and societal strictures, I'm sure my choices would have been somewhat different.

No specific content beyond perhaps basic reading and math skills, and some sense of living a value-seeking and enjoying life that includes respecting others' rights to do the same in whatever way works for them is required.

You go, girl!

Steve

(Edited by Steven H. Shmurak on 5/07, 4:03pm)

Post 69

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 12:25am

Kelly,

I certainly appreciate that you are a parent who is only motivated to do what is best for her children. And I wasn't trying to accuse -you- of being a philistine (a bit too strong a word anyway on my part for those whose education is not deep or well-rounded), so there is no need to document to me how impressive an education you have had.

I can't resist suggesting you didn't get all of it from "unschooling", I trust? :)

[If by "condescending" tone you meant something besides the single word 'philistine' and it's disturbing you in a major way feel free to tell me, but I think focusing on someone's "tone" in a debate like this distracts attention from debating the real issues.]

On to the real issues:

1. The rest of your last post [#67] seems to be largely flat assertions or rhetorical questions without much argument. E.g, your claims that i) childhood is not a time to prepare for �real life�, ii) there can be NO [emphasis added] meeting of minds (whether grown up or young) when one person cannot leave whenever he chooses, iii) [you need to know some things so ] you just read, iv) [it wouldn't] really be so hard to learn basic figuring and be able to move on to algebra.

2. On the point about a well-rounded education, my view is not that it is *necessary*, in the sense that a happy life, career , etc. are impossible without it.

My point is that it *adds* to it. And -sometimes- you will miss things, make wrong choices without it. It's possible to be happy if you are a narrow specialist, and never learn history, develop a love for literature, etc. There are people who, given the nature of their career choices are. But it's not the way to bet. And why would you be in -favor- of not understanding our culture and other important sections of reality or be arguing for it?

3. You choose several areas where you think one can go back at any point from 8 to 88 and read (literature, history, etc.) whenever one feels the need to. But you don't choose to answer (among other of my points and Laure's points) my point about other areas where you need to build the (mental, logical, verbal, comparative, computational) SKILLS that would enable you to grasp these things.

David does the same thing in another post when he mentions he would simply pick up an encyclopedia to learn things. I suggest that you both seriously underestimate the long chain of skills and literacy and factual knowledge in a wide range of areas that you need before you can understand fully encyclopedia articles (just to stay on that one example.) Do you know what level kids have to be at before reading an encyclopedia for pleasure and enrichment is possible to them?

4. The last point is your bedrock argument repeated several times about violating the child's interests, 'volition', choice, etc.

This is a significant dropping of context: The full rights and unlimited cognitive ability to judge for themselves that Rand derived was for *adults* whose rational faculty and ability to have good judgment is -fully- developed.

Certainly one should give children enormous amounts of freedom and latitude. But they are not yet cognitively able to run their own lives, educationally or in other ways. They are not "little adults" as Rousseau and the progressives would have us believe. Children don't fully have all of these until they reach the 'age of reason', whenever that is. (It's an issue of degree and increases in stages. See Piaget and other developmental psychologists.)

The rights of children and the responsibilities of parents would be a whole other thread. But just to provide some things to consider for that thread:

If you think children should be given unhindered right to pursue whatever interest they want, what if they want to not eat their vegetables or to eat only sugary foods, should you force or 'encourage' them at an age when they truly cannot grasp the reasons and would only be doing it to please you? And if you encourage them to do something or they do it to please you, what is wrong with encouraging them in the area of education or subjects to read about? What about a toddler who does not *desire* be toilet trained? What if they never *desire* to learn grammar? Or can't convince themselves it's in their long range interest? Or can't even grasp the idea of the long-range?

--Philip Coates
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/08, 12:40am)

Post 70

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 6:36am

I am under the impression that Kelly is *not* on a crusade to persuade, or convert or argue with anyone. She was simply, and elegantly describing a choice made by her and David, for their children. The choice I suspect is contextual, and guidance does occur in the form of providing access to information and propviding questions for the children to consider (this happens for most of us in natural conversation). I don't read her as saying this approach is a must for all children. Am I allowed to say "you go girl"? :)

John

ps

One of my sons has a desire to be a pilot. We talk about it a lot, and the only thing I give him is information on what the educational requirements are. The rest is up to him.

Post 71

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 12:47pm

John, you say that Kelly is only describing her choice re education. But she argues that to do otherwise is 'force' or interfering with 'volition', so that suggests an ethical or universal component which would -apparently- suggest those who do not follow her approach are (universally) acting in violation of the Objectivist ethics.

And in her original second paragraph she has a very extreme view: " I don't force her, pressure her, or try to influence her ". That last --not even trying to influence or persuade-- is even more radical than 'unschooling'.

[ That's why it's worth my time to argue, try to refute, as someone trying to build a rational curriculum since the unschooling movement is very influential especially among those who believe it is the only "pro freedom" approach to education. There are some analogies to the anarchist fallacy in politics, but that's another subject.]

Phil
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/08, 12:50pm)

Post 72

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 7:20am

Kelly Reynolds Elmore writes:

"As far as the legality, it is very easy to manipulate data in the few states that have stringent requirements for homeschooling."

-- I am unclear about this manipulation of data. A summary of law in Tennessee suggests you will be required by law to register --

"An Independent Home School is a school conducted
by parents or legal guardian(s) for their own
children that is not a church-related school. The
intent to operate an independent home school must
be submitted to the local superintendent before
the commencement of each school year."

Kelly states that "children will decide to learn how to read when they want that knowledge bad enough." This may be true, but I wonder if Kelly has a plan to introduce age-appropriate materials as she prepares to teach her child to read.

Kelly also notes:

"But here in TN, I will probably have to falsify some testing and turn in attendance reports."

Yes, independent homeschools will be required to register, meet statutory requirements, submit various tests (Achievement, Writing, Competency, etc). Although there are no curriculum requirements during grades K-8, in grade nine statutory requirements kick in.

How do you plan to falsify tests, Kelly (it is the *student* who is tested, not the parent or educator)? -- you seem to have two choices when the mandatory testing requirements kick in at grades 5 and 7: test the student at a local school or hire a professional accredited tester - and the tests appear impossible to fudge: the testing is mandated as 'state board approved secure standardized tests required of public school students.' If your child does not achieve at grade level for her age after two years of testing, Tennessee law suggests you will be told to enroll her in public school.

You explain, "I guess parents might just want to tell kids to say they are homeschooled."

I am guessing you are familiar with the minefield of 'mandatory education' in Tennessee, with the state high school curriculum requirements, and with the penalties for evading education laws. Are you sure you want to tell your child she must lie to protect you from sanction?

WSS

Post 73

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 4:39pm

Philip wrote:

I wonder if many of the 'unschoolers' have ever had a truly great, transforming teacher in a traditional classroom and have viscerally experienced how much difference such a charismatic person can make in a young child's or adolescent's life. There are many movies and stories that tell of this, from "To Sir With Love" to "Stand and Deliver". (And I can attest that it makes all the boredom worthwhile and unimportant.)

I had a teacher who must have thought highly of me when I was a young child. She was my kindergarten, 2^nd grade and 4^th grade teacher. It was only when I was older that my mom told me that Ms. Garlitz (my teacher) made sure that I was assigned to her class each year. My mom also told me that she thought it was interesting that prior to teaching all these different grades Ms. Garlitz had taught kindergarten for many years. My mom thinks (and I somewhat confirmed through later talks with Ms. Garlitz) that in fact Ms. Garlitz followed me because she saw something special in me.

I remember fondly each of the years I had Ms. Garlitz as a teacher. It was me and 2 or 3 other kids that were regularly separated from the rest of the class. She later said it was because she thought we were the �smartest� and needed much more challenging things to do. She would give us more difficult assignments, which we were allowed to finish at our own pace. We ate them up but I now realize it was because of the competition we created amongst ourselves.

I�ve realized now after careful instrospection that the 2 most important benefits of that scholastic relationship were my introduction to significant academic freedom (not complete, which would have been even better) to choose which subject to pursue (and for how long) and the way I felt I was special because my teacher�s attention/concern. But the freedom should have been more expansive (I was excelling and happy when I got to choose) and the feeling of being special should rightly have come from a parent. Neither of which must have to happen in an academic setting.

As an adult I�ve also seen an incredibly transforming teacher. She was the teacher at my school for the first year. Through her actions she showed that she really enjoyed the children and she was very conscientious in how she would conveigh the extensive knowledge she had to them. She was also a great example of a virtuous person. She would answer almost any questions the children had in a manner that was appropriate to their intellectual context. Whether she was reading them a story, enacting a Greek play with them, or getting messy while doing a science experiment, she was quite a wonderful sight to behold. The amount of intellectual dedication she would put into the time when she would interact with them and the way they would respond to her is really hard to put into words. Geez were they learning and having a blast. If these students of hers could put into words what their actions were showing, I would say they almost loved her like a parent.

They were learning about the Greeks, using manipulatives to learn mathematical concepts, doing fun science experiments, reciting beautiful poetry, and retaining a vast majority of this new knowledge. They were getting a lot out of her as a teacher but what I think was way more important and what I truly think they will mainly recall when they are adults is that they were able to experience someone that was/is incredibly reasonable, caring and extremely passionate about her values. They got the most out of her as a person. A person that, unfortunately, they don�t have around in their everyday life. A person they should have as a parent.

Some time after closing my academy, when I was first started to give serious reconsideration to my classical/�Objectivists� views on education, my former teacher and I talked about our teaching experiences at my school. We talked about how difficult it was to justify to ourselves the ending of a particular subject for that day when the children were thoroughly enthralled by it. Why shouldn�t they be able to read Harry Potter all day long if that was their interest? Why was it important for Jordan (one of the students) to do a math assignment that day (I had him on track to realistically finish Calculus by the time he was 13) when all he wanted to do was read from the encyclopedia about jets/airplanes and then tell me about them (hell I was interested, at 8 years old he already knew more about airplane propulsion than I did). Why did my educational goals for them take precedence over their immediate interests, whatever they might be? Was it because I knew better the supposed importance of being a well-rounded person? Well-rounded person, what does that mean, to what extent, according to whose values?

I say all of this even when I know I am also one of those transforming teachers. The children at my academy continued to learn with me at an extraordinary pace pursuing the academic values I had chosen for them. They were fairly happy most of the time, but nowhere near as happy as when they got to choose what they wanted to learn or do. This could range from lounging and reading to science experiments to doing PE/gymnastics at my gym. The extent that they got to choose the activity the happier they were. Sometime later I realize that it was also something else along with that.

I know when I would give the gymnastics lesson and their teacher would participate they loved it even more. I am thoroughly convinced the reason for this was not just because we were so much fun, which we are. The reason they responded so joyously is because just like at the school, they knew we would always try to be fair, we would not criticize, we did not compare them, we were genuinely happy when they succeeded or just attempted. Ultimately what they received was a double dose of adult rationality, which I guarantee they had been missing all their life.

My point with these examples: with Ms. Garlitz (to a certain extent), with the teacher at my academy, with myself, is that we are the type of people that children should have around them, not because we demonstrated the ability to teach academic subjects well (nor the importance of these subjects) but because to a certain extent then (and especially now) we take children�s values seriously by respecting their choices. Which means we let them pursue the things that make them happy as long as these things don�t truly put them in any danger.

So my child doesn�t read until age 8 (which I doubt), she doesn�t worship Aristotle and the founding fathers like her dad, she hasn�t read Tennyson or Jane Austen like her dad, can�t conjugate the pluperfect tense of I don�t even know what, all of those things are there for her choosing when or if she ever decides. Remember happiness is the result of rationally choosing and virtuously pursing the values you have chosen. Give your child exposure to many different things and they will easily determine what they find worthwhile in life. Isn�t that what you do?

Oh I have so much more to say and I want to address all of Philip�s points but I feel like I might be �busting everyone�s crow� so I will stop for now.

PS Kelly�s article has inspired me to possibly write a monograph on unschooling. Seeing as I�m not a professional writer I might review Peikoff�s tapes on the Principles of Grammar I purchased several years ago or might even have Kelly edit the piece (she use to edit students papers in college). The point is, if writing this monograph becomes a high value I will take the necessary steps to achieve this value. Even knowing this now, I would not have appreciated being pulled away from the 10^th basketball game I was playing during lunch recess (when I was 10) to be taught a class in grammar (by Mr. Coates, even if he was a phenomenal teacher, which I will assume he is). My life is my own, even at a young age, and my parents need to respect that if they want to have an enjoyable and life-long rational relationship with me.

PSS You are reading from someone who basically only has a high school education (1 year of college) and not from any great school at that. If anything I have written seems unclear I welcome comments pertaining to that as well as to the subject of my responses. Interesting how someone with very little formal college education would be able to open a classical curriculum based school, no?

PSSS I want to encourage the people on this site to read OPAR and ITOE and all of the psychology pamphlets by Edith Packer along with Ellen Kenner�s tapes: Childhood, As it Should and Ought to BE. All of these works helped me immensely in objectively evaluating my childhood and in helping me realize what my goals should be when I have children. Objectivism is a philosophy for living happily as a result of a constant dedication to explicitly using reason to achieve your values. Most of our parents did not have this explicit philosophy prior to raising us so we will all have a significant amount of �cleaning out� of our psycho-epistemologies before we can be truly efficacious. Generally speaking, the later in life that you came into this philosophy, the more arduous this task will be because of the way our mind automatizes premises and behaviors (I have known a handful of individuals where their progress with cleaning out was nothing short of amazing even though they got into the philosophy a little later in life but I think that is the exception). If a fully rational life is your goal this cleaning out process is a must.

To quote a phrase from Philip where I actually think it is relevant:

�There ain�t no f**king shortcuts�

Aquinas

Post 74

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 5:48pm

The teacher that Aquinas talks about here was me. Aquinas, I guess maybe you think I am not proud of what I did at the school, since I have since changed my mind about the proper methods. I want you to know that isn't true. I am very proud of that curriculum, of my teaching, and of the amazing progress of the students. I am proud of what the two of us did. We know how to do it even better now, but we were amazing, if I do say so myself. Thank you for your kind words; they mean a lot to me.

Kelly

P.S. Awesome post by the way!!!!

Post 75

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 5:50pm

There seems to be a misconception by Phil, Hong and several others about the motivational ability and incisiveness of young children who are left to their devices. If any of you are interested in 37 years of evidence about how children function and thrive when they are in charge of their own learning, you might want to look at many of the Sudbury sites, and this nice commentary by an expert in the field: http://www.sudval.org/05_onli_07.html. Some of this information is also available in books and "positive" parenting lists on the Web.

The vast majority of "life-schooled" children go through the following progression in their non-coercive learning:

(1) Do sensory/perceptual things for first three or four years -- playing, testing, measuring, filling, emptying, play-acting, doing puzzles, block building, alphabet (Montessori stuff).
(2) Get more involved with more highly conceptual things (boys usually later than girls) for next several years, like reading, writing, math, video games, music, cards, dominoes, cooking, board games, art, drawing, making things, woodwork, sewing, cleaning, low-level judicial board activity for school.
(3) Choose to do one skill or activity (science, fishing, cooking, physics, computers, sports, car mechanics, literature, home-building, rodeo-ridin', teaching, linguistics, etc.) over others and focusing on the learning necessary for its fulfillment. (This can begin as early as 8 or 9 or as late as late teens.) They continue to do avocations and side activities also.

There are some children who "lollygag," who would be considered by modern-day schoolers to have fallen through the cracks. They don't get interested in reading or math or any of the stuff that Phil finds necessary for the fulfillment of a young mind and necessary chronologically for their learning. These children simply take their time at learning and choosing; they are the ones in school often who are the "rebels" or are distracted or are "lazy." They DO eventually get around to doing something and finding out what it is they want, and they are often like ecstatic maniacs in going back over the things they allegedly "missed" -- and they always go about their learning hierarchically, getting in their reading, their grammar, their math, their science if necessary, etc., in record time -- with no wasted time.

Another thing to mention with this thread is that children know when they can find information quickly and when the fastest route is to ask somebody they trust where to find the information. The children also know whether they need to have a tutor or teacher to expedite and expand their learning in particular fields. If they think that the complexity of an issue or subject may be such that an explanation from an authority might help them, they don't hesitate to ask -- often if necessary. Sometimes, they will seek commentary or lengthy explanations of stuff. If an adult doesn't know the information or doesn't feel like answering, the child is directed toward an expert or a place for obtaining the information.

Since all great subjects are logical, and with our modern-day miracle that Al Gore invented (the Web -- ;-)), children can delve into anything and find out where to go next. I remember myself doing that in my 20s when I wanted to read up on the great Greek and Latin dramatists. I read some critiques and overviews of the great stuff and read some ideas on how to approach it all, and then I dismissed all that shit and just read everything. :-) Children do that, too. They do reconnaissance. They explore. They set goals. They assess the complexity. They conclude whether they can handle themselves or not. They keep their minds open to having made a mistake in their assessment and alter their direction in midstream. Poetry, mechanics, history, astronomy, philosophy, etc., can be done the same way.

The issue here is not the quality of teaching or curricula, as Phil has stated. The issue here is the coercion of teaching and curricula. This is not to say that teachers cannot be magnificent and impart great learning upon their subjects. Many are (and many more would be in a non-coercive, completely capitalistic system). It IS to say that even when those teachers are great, the students can take a walk at any time, and the teacher (like in any good capitalistic system) knows that he must be on top of his game in front of a mind that has not been forced to sit in a chair and listen. The great thing for the teacher in a noncoercive environment is that any student who stays is staying because that teacher is goddamned good!

All of this is also not to say that you can't have curricula and complex hierarchichal education structures for certain subjects. But, just like in capitalism, that curricula will be chosen by free minds interested in your methods, your structure and your ability to express it well. And those free children's minds will decide whether what you have to offer and say is worth their while. You have to earn it, as John Houseman would terrifically say.

Post 76

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 6:08pm

Phillip, I wanted to answer this post right away. I will get around to making a longer post to answer your last soon.

You are right that I think unschooling is the ideal educational method for every child.

You say, "And in her original second paragraph she has a very extreme view: " I don't force her, pressure her, or try to influence her ". That last --not even trying to influence or persuade-- is even more radical than 'unschooling'."

I was specifically referring to education here. We avoid forcing our daughter to do anything as much as possible, but sometimes it is unavoidable. The consequences for some bad decisions are just too great (running into the street, for instance.) We use force very judiciously, and education is one of the areas we do not think it is appropriate. Anarchists believe in no government. Objectivists believe that only very certain things should be controlled by government. Our approach to parenting and schooling is like that. Only very certain uses of force are justified. In the above quote, when I use the word influence, I mean by manipulation and emotional leverage, the way many parents "influence" their children. We will certainly persuade by good arguments, as we would with adults, but in the cases where we would use persuasion, we would have to take no for an answer. Otherwise, it is just force.

Kelly

Post 77

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 6:54pm

"Why was it important for Jordan (one of the students) to do a math assignment that day (I had him on track to realistically finish Calculus by the time he was 13) when all he wanted to do was read from the encyclopedia about jets/airplanes and then tell me about them." [Aquinas]

I think most students are more flexible than that. Doing a range of things appeals to them. I notice that attention spans, even for things that interest them are short the younger the child is. I believe in flexibility and independent study to supplement this, however.

It's best to *motivate* the kids to -want- to study the things I've argued they need (especially the cognitive 'skills').

I think the harder question, is the one I ask Peikoff on his Philo of Education tapes, when he advocates a completely rigorous and non-flexible approach, which went approximately like this:

"Suppose I am a young Leonardo Da Vinci looking out the window while you are trying to force me to do arithmetic or grammar. I may not be on your 'clock' but I am learning so much from the simple act of observing with the concentrated focus of a genius a bird in flight: I am learning about physics and mechanics of wings and leverage which I will employ later in the devices and machines I invent. I am learning to observe how the body and limbs and appendages look which I will use in painting and drawing. And so. Are you, teacher Peikoff, going to come and rap me on the knuckles and say 'I don't care if you are Leonardo Da Vinci, turn around and do your arithmetic'?"

In these extreme cases, where he really is totally immersed in something and won't appreciate any diversion, I'd let him out. Let him do independent study. Gently lead him to see he needs the basic skills, etc. to fly as high as he wants in his interests. Etc.

But my contention is this doesn't apply to most kids, who have or can easily have a wider range of interest and are less specialized early on. (For example in the early 'poll parrot' stage of the first grades they love repetition, chanting, rote, etc. So memorizing the alphabet or arithmetic tables is cool, or can be made so for them...the three cognitive stage Trivium capitalizes on this.)

They -love- the 'canon', the core curriculum if (and it's a very big IF today..and didn't happen for most of us) it's presented through superb textbooks and materials and great teachers, and not through rote, knuckle-rapping, boring, tyrannical morons.

But this is a -huge- topic which I'm struggling with right now trying to create PES for someday in the future.

[[Oops. There are three new posts by David and Kelly since I wrote this.. Jeez.]]
(Edited by Philip Coates
on 5/08, 6:57pm)

Post 78

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 7:14pm

Phil said,

In these extreme cases (like Da Vinci), where he really is totally immersed in something and won't appreciate any diversion, I'd let him out. Let him do independent study. Whatever.

The "extreme" cases are EVERY child. Each is extreme in his desire to pursue his life in his own way. No child appreciates "diversions" from what is important to him. A child's "wide range of interests" are just as important to him as Da Vinci's special interests were to him -- and the regular child can be "immersed" in those interests with as much tenacity and joy as Da Vinci was.

But even if the regular child didn't have the tenacity and brilliance of Da Vinci, it wouldn't give you license to then take control of his education and life. The regular child has as much right to his pace and goals as Da Vinci had.

Post 79

Sunday, May 8, 2005 - 7:36pm