Someone asked me to talk more about unschooling so I did. And I'm copying and pasting it here, in case the kids ever wonder what it was I was thinking when we chose to unschool them:
S., I think we're way off topic from the original question. But I like talking about unschooling, the how and the why. So I'm happy to ramble on a bit in the interest of sharing. Other unschooling mothers along the way, over the last 15 years, have been so helpful to me. I like to try and pass that helpful vibe along when I can.
The science underpinning pedagogy is flawed. The understandings we think we have about how children learn best are based on how children learn in classrooms. Its a simple flaw but profound and largely ignored. Pedagogy is based on studies of children in school. This tells us nothing much about human development in general, learning at its core, nor what is best for growing thoughtful people. It took me a good bit of mental wrangling to wrap my head around the idea that no one really knows how and why children learn. But no one really knows how and why children learn best. Which is why its not very meaningful or helpful to hear from a school teacher that an unschooled child felt shy in her class and wrote their 3s backwards. What happens inside institutional classrooms is only pertinent inside institutional classrooms. I'm telling you, its a real shocker to see the full truth of it. Or at least, it was for me. The idea that institutional pedagogy knows what its doing and why, is deeply ingrained in all of us. But the institution, at an elementary level, is only pertinent to itself. This is why children almost never transmute their rank, from kindergarten through 12th grade.
What if the formal study of math, for instance, has almost no bearing on the general intelligence or potential of any specific child? I'm all for rigorous study at a good liberal arts college for older kids. I'm not saying there is no place in society for good solid rigorous institutional academia. I'm saying there is nothing solid on which to hang the idea of force feeding children specific facts. Such a thing might help a specific child in certain circumstances. But in general, math is just another set of facts, another language. No better or worse than any other set of facts when it comes to stimulating neural development.
Which is why, if someone quizzed my children on their times tables, my new response would be to quiz them back on unschooling facts. Can your child multiply 5 times 7 with strange adults staring at them? (I can not, not even at age 47, not even after making As in math at UNC.) Do quizzing adults know how to milk goats or safely deliver kids? Equal factual knowledge, in my opinion. My son can tell you how goat hooves should look emerging from their mother's vagina. Is that more or less important that 5 times 7? For the record, my son can also tell you the answer to 5 times 7---now. But probably not a year ago. And surely not when he was 11. Does that matter at all, in any way? It has exactly no bearing on his general intelligence.
What about, for instance, a kid who wants to study chemistry but isn't up to speed on the math? This is a great example because it happened in my house to my child. What happens? If the kid really wants the chemistry, they begin with the math. Now we have a situation where, unlike small children being forced facts, a kid WANTS and/or NEEDS to learn. The learning that happens in that situation is rich. It matters. It sticks. Its for a reason, answering a need, is never arbitrary, and is immune to the ill affects of unworthy authority.
Here I want to reiterate that institutional curricula can work well for some children. We have all known kids who flourish in that system. I think almost all of us have been there and seen it, in full, ourselves. For a laugh: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/2012/12/aa-gill-schools-ruining-our-kids
I'm the kind of unschooler who believes in boundaries so I do make it my business to set limits for my kids and I insist on good manners. Beyond that basic structure, the educational relationship I have with my kids is without strife on any level. We have no academic conflict. We are fully cooperative and our life is based on respect, curiosity, fun, and love. This sets of tone of inquiry and freedom that turns on mental lights and makes learning a joyous situation. I can't say enough good about the sanity of the lifestyle or the depth of the learning. The human brain is hardwired to learn. That's about all we know for sure--and that language is paramount. I suspect love and play are equally important in the effort to grow smart humans. Is there a middle way? Well sure. There are infinite ways. But true unschooling is definitely one of them.
********
C., I'm so glad you've responded because you bring up an important point and illustrate it well. I did infer from your original comment, that you are a professional teacher. Sorry if I misunderstood. But this: "I maintain that a basic foundation of learning with direct input from the parent mentor is no different than teaching your child to brush their teeth, wipe their bottom or choose healthy foods at lunch." says a lot.
Learning beside your mom or dad, day after day, gently and consistently in an atmosphere of trust love and play is the most fundamental way humans set about teaching their children. A lot of unschooling happens in just that way. As humans, we all intuit the way that works. Right? It is equally true, I think, that a lot of learning happens when kids are playing together. I'm not sure everyone in our society has fully groked that idea, but science does seem to be catching up to it. I frequently see articles about the importance of play in the education of children.
Neither situation is analogous to a Girl Scout leader popping up in a game to ask for math facts. Nor a mentor leading a group of kids in comparative analysis of dragons. Not analogous in any way. I don't mean to be a bit cheeky. I'm not feeling defensive or combative. I think this is a very important point about learning and about teaching. So I want to be clear and as gentle as I can be. A lot of teaching, I might even say most, comes with unintended lessons. These unintended lessons are hugely important.
What good would it do to demand math facts from an unprepared child in the middle of a game of grocery store? And what are the unintended consequences of such a thing? There is no science to back up that kind of pedagogy. The science simply does not exist to tell us that a strange adult stepping into the middle of children's games in a random way (random from the point of view of the child--which is the point of view that matters here) has positive long term benefit. It could have some benefit in some way for some child. Because, again, many ways are valid and can work. But that kind of teaching would have absolutely horrified either one of my kids and shut them down when they were younger than 12. Fairly, I think. Shutting down a child is antithetical to good teaching and genuine learning, and its one of the unintended consequences I was referring to. In many classrooms over the years, I've seen it many times.
Ah but the children were prepared, or should have been, to show their math work to a mentor on a moments notice. One might say that. I disagree. I think that's just a more subtle form of insistence that traditional institutional school matters somehow. And we don't have any scientific evidence to say such a thing. All we can say is that institutional learning matters to institutions. See what I'm mean? Its really weird when you can catch a glimpse of it.
Great teachers who have the trust of their students in enthusiastic and happy classes are an absolute joy and the work they do is wonderful. In all my years of living, I'm met two such teachers, maybe three. We can find ways to enrich our kids and their pursuit of deeper intelligence in a million varied ways including brilliant teaching. You are correct, I think, that carefully watching the children's responses is the best way to assess what kind of pedagogy works.
Does it sound like I'm blaming you for the child with the backward 3s? I don't mean blame at all. I'm trying to make a point that is difficult to see. Teaching, in the way we were all taught to think of it, is often more harmful than helpful. Its a rare teacher who can rise above the intrinsic difficulties of forcing facts into children. (And, again, we have no scientific evidence that trying to do such a thing makes children grow smarter.) I am speaking from my own broken experience. I've made most of the mistakes there are to make. I'm not claiming to be above pedagogy and I'm not suggesting we should never try to teach anyone anything. But I am deeply passionate about trying to penetrate the fog of our collective assumptions with regard to pedagogy. Because I think children suffer our best intentions. And that makes me sad and it makes learning more difficult for the children.
Also, I think I was pretty clear in my response here to S's request for more talking about unschooling and alternative forms of learning that work. To that end, S, last week an unschooler in our group got an academic scholarship to his first choice college. Unschooling works. Its kind of scandalous, really, how well it works and how easy it is. How often does the easy fun way end up being a good way? What a happy surprise! Looking at the kid who did not learn his 3Rs at an elementary age, how does such a kid get into college and even offered money to be there? The truth is, nothing taught in elementary school is all THAT difficult to understand, and to understand quickly. We really don't need to drill that information for 13 years. Its kind of paltry to suggest, we do, I think. Humans are a lot smarter than school would have us believe.
