Would You Unschool Your Child?

John believed in children very much -- believed in the wisdom of the natural unfolding of their interests and abilities. And he encouraged parents to believe in them too. My recollection is that it was not common for parents who had read his books and were corresponding with him and one another through his newsletter (Growing Without Schooling) to have kids turn out in the manner you describe; quite the contrary. While I'm wary about putting words in John's mouth, I suspect he would have agreed that there's something wrong in this situation, even if he might not have completely agreed with you about what it is.

I do recall occasional stories of kids who showed no interest in reading until they were quite old -- around 10, as I recall. But the usual ending of the story was that at some point they did become interested, not just casually but quite voraciously, so that they more or less caught up with other kids their age.

As for the "manipulation" -- I certainly don't think reading to your kids, to take an important example, would be outside the bounds of unschooling as I understand it. I don't think unschooling is supposed to be like the Prime Directive in Star Trek, where one has to strive to have as little impact of any kind on one's children as possible. That's nuts and I don't think John would ever have endorsed it.

Supposedly in Finland they don't start school to learn to read until age 7 and their country is ranked #1 worldwide in education.

Among unschooling circles, one hears about children who have no interest in reading until age 10, then suddenly learn to read and go on to be an english lit major at a reputable school or such.

I believe I read that Jessica Watson, the Australian young woman who recently broke the record for youngest solo nonstop circumnavigation, learned to read at age 10.

You'd need some formal training on safety issues but maybe you could get educated a lot more cheaply then with the full university system.

To them, it's not quite about being inattentive to your children; quite the opposite. It's about giving them whatever they want. It would not be hyperbole to say that, in their view, a parent should serve the child much like a valet. So it's not that they ignore their children, it's just that they have infinite trust in their children to decide for themselves what is best. So, if they don't want to go to the doctor to get a shot, they don't have to. If they want to eat candy for supper instead of a nutritious meal, candy is what they'll eat. If they want to play instead of do chores, then they will play. They are never asked to do something that they don't want to do, because a parent is not allowed to impose their will upon the child. As such, the parents often run themselves ragged trying to keep up with their child's demands, and the children end up very spoiled and totally unprepared for adulthood.

From what you've described of John Holt's writings, it sounds like he and I would agree on a lot of things. I definitely believe in listening to your child's cues. I also believe in manipulating the situation so as to foster an interest. I'm not sure if he would agree with that or not. I call it a 'manipulation' because it's indirect: instead of directly insisting and pushing my child to read, I try to indirectly entice her into taking the initiative by showing that reading can be fun and rewarding.

In any case, I wouldn't put it past my relatives to misconstrue the true foundations of the unschooling movement, which is why I am always careful to add that I might not be understanding it correctly.