Live data from Hacker News

Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild

outsideonline.com

121–130 of 202 posts

Re: Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I am clouded by my own positive experiences with school, but I disagree on two levels. Firstly, your use of the phrase 'in the west' implies that outside of the 'west' there is some different, better elementary education system. This has not been my experience in India, where capacity for rote memorization is regarded as equivalent to intelligence from an early age. What countries fit your boundaries of 'the…

In fact, I think the social interaction with other children of similar age is extremely important to developing social skills and friendships. And unfortunately social interaction is severely restricted and punished in K-12 education (in the US, which is the extent of my familiarity). I volunteered at an elementary school for a year, and the kids there had little opportunity to socialize freely. Recess and lunch were…

You'd still get far more social interaction than what unschooling would get you.

Re: Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild

#122
I was "home educated" - the typically British middle ground. Not "home school" (school at home) and not unschooling. But self-educated / family educated at home, for the whole of highschool level. We'd just moved country, and didn't want to jump into a new school system straight away. It worked pretty well for us. I spent a lot of time learning to program and play music, I joined a local drama group, played in the church band, the town marching band, and taught myself to juggle. My brother did loads of piano, singing, and IT stuff. He's now working as the IT and music teacher at a local private school (after having gone on to do his BA and MA in Theology, as well as a teacher-training certificate), and I'm working as in a non-profit doing all kinds of things. We decided, my brother, my parents, and I, to use a curriculum for a few years, which allowed us to get International Baccalaureate equivalents, which was useful for my brother with going on to Uni, but useless to me. We learned a lot of useful stuff though.

I learned all the sine / cosine stuff around age 10, as I was trying to write a computer game and needed to move things around circles, so asked my mum about it, who asked her friends on the home-educating-parents email list, and eventually someone helped. (This being in the late 90s). I wanted to learn it, so I did. I can still remember everything I need to know about those because it was interesting to me at the time. I never learned to spell at school. I was awful, always in the lowest group in class. Until I wasn't doing spelling tests, and just writing on my own at home on the computer, and kept getting annoyed at the little red squiggle under half my words. My brain eventually learned it was quicker and less distracting to my writing to learn the correct spellings rather than having to go back and correct them.

I do think a certain amount of "education" is required for a sensible life. Reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, etc. But once you've learned to read, and if you've had a love of books instilled into you, you'll probably pick up most stuff you really want to learn along the way. And there's no real reason to force any of those skills at any particular age. My brother learned to read at about 3 and a half, as I was learning in kindergarten, he decided to too. I have another friend who simply wasn't interested, and didn't learn until about 8 and a half. But then he learned to read and write in about 2 months flat.

Kids are all different. Public education was a brilliant, wonderful institution to help move millions of families out of poverty and enforced unskilled labour. But once you've moved a society out of that state, education needs to be much less of a "life support" type system, and become more of a individualised therapy / explorative / personal journey.

Re: Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild

#123

> At the time, my father—who earned his undergraduate degree at Cornell and his master’s at Johns Hopkins Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages they were given and use them to live like paupers with zero concern for the the world around them. > I can report that Fin and Rye both learned to read and write with essentially zero instruction, albeit when they were about eight years old, a year or so l…

Just fair warning, most of the people who are responding to you in disagreement have never actually met a un/homeschooled person / person's parents in real life.

The reason why unschooling is so bad is entirely social. Homeschooled kids are crippled socially.

It sounds good, feels good, etc. but once you actually see it with your own eyes it makes sense why this hasn't caught on.

Re: Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't compare the schools you went to with the Sudbury system. The skipping class happens exactly because you are trapped, because there is something you rather will. But why skip class if you can do what you want?

Sure, if they were allowed to swear and fight in class they might not have skipped so much but what would that achieve besides disrupting the kids who actually wanted to learn?

It's easy to make a point when you make up your own premises. I never swore or fought in high in class but i did skip class.

Re: Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild

#125

The fundamental problem with the elementary school system in the west is that kids are given no room for self-direction whatsoever; school for them is de facto a part-time prison or "labor" camp. As a result they are trained by association to dread to that which the system purports to champion: learning, culture, reading, knowledge, even any demonstration of intelligence. It takes a combination of luck, will and posi…

I'm all for making school more fun. But self-direction? Don't forget: these are children. Most (and certainly enough) of them won't have any natural inclination to learn even reading, writing and math. The whole point of having schools is to give an external sense of direction. I think schools need to be optimized and tuned, but please, please stop these extreme experiments.

Having worked with much younger children for several years, I can assure you that most children start of with a natural inclination to learn how to read & understand math, just maybe not in the structured 'worksheet' type approach you see in some schools.

A child that enjoys baking becomes naturally motivated to learn how to understand recipes, a child that is interested in computers & games wants to learn how to recognise the symbols that start their favourite game. It is all about finding the right motivation.

For the even the most reluctant writers it can be about building up the necessary physical skills using less obvious means- lego, clay, eye droppers in the water area. Then instead of practising writing we are making road signs for our car game or writing a list of things to take on our outing.

The point is when young children are given a supportive, no pressure approach that acknowledges & responds to their interests they do have a natural inclination to learn those skills and others. They just need adults that know how to facilitate & scaffold that learning. What is more important- that a child knows how to read by 4 or a child who learns at their own pace, and is far more likely to become someone who loves reading for pleasure?

Re: Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild

#126

The fundamental problem with the elementary school system in the west is that kids are given no room for self-direction whatsoever; school for them is de facto a part-time prison or "labor" camp. As a result they are trained by association to dread to that which the system purports to champion: learning, culture, reading, knowledge, even any demonstration of intelligence. It takes a combination of luck, will and posi…

I've got too kids in primary school in the UK, and my experiences are entirely different. They've gone through schools with lovely, kind, nuturing teachers who have instilled an interest in learning. My youngest daughter delights in maths puzzled and writing bizarre and gruesome stories, for which she has been awarded and praised. My eldest daughter as just finished primary and enjoyed all of it (apart from French) and the P.E teacher recently unearthed an apparent latent talent for cricket (I couldn't catch a ball if you asked me).

Sweeping generalisations about any mode of education is bad. I was lucky in that my kids and school were well matched. But yes, we did also work hard to support the work of the school.

Re: Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, I think the social interaction with other children of similar age is extremely important to developing social skills and friendships. And unfortunately social interaction is severely restricted and punished in K-12 education (in the US, which is the extent of my familiarity). I volunteered at an elementary school for a year, and the kids there had little opportunity to socialize freely. Recess and lunch were…

You'd still get far more social interaction than what unschooling would get you.

I was home educated. I had far more time for out of schooltime activities than my friends in schools did. I was part of the town band, the church band, the local drama school (learning, and then helping to teach the younger kids, and touring with the team and performing in schools), Karate, etc. Some of my friends had no social life outside of school at all, really. They had school, homework, TV, and sleep.

I had far more time hanging out with adults who were interested in the same kinds of things as me. Wonderful, lovely people who were interested in mechanics, drama, etc. and spent time mentoring, teaching and helping me.

I feel like I had a really good social experience, as I didn't feel any kind of peer pressure, or pressure to conform or like things (like football) that I found pointless, or to do drugs, or whatever. When I was older, I felt secure enough in who I was, and the acceptance I found in likeminded (and differently minded, but good) people, to not feel like I had to conform, or that I had to judge or conform others. We're all different, and all totally valuable.

Re: Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild

#128

> At the time, my father—who earned his undergraduate degree at Cornell and his master’s at Johns Hopkins Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages they were given and use them to live like paupers with zero concern for the the world around them. > I can report that Fin and Rye both learned to read and write with essentially zero instruction, albeit when they were about eight years old, a year or so l…

> I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree.

If you met two 10 year olds, one learnt to read at age 4 the other at age 8- do you think you could tell the difference? Would it really matter?

Actually more than likely it would- the one who learnt at age 8 is more likely to read for pleasure. An overly formal approach in the early years can be counter productive, and often damaging. Not to mention the fact that all the time spent at age 3-4 learning to read, is time missed doing the stuff they should be: learning social skills, problem solving, independence...

See some of the vast amount of research on this by reading the section on reading for pleasure pages 16-19 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/c...

Re: Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild

#129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Secondly, school serves as a valuable social and educational center to most children. Even though elementary education is imperfect, it does not mean that a viable solution is to simply do away with it. In fact, I think the social interaction with other children of similar age is extremely important to developing social skills and friendships. Great, let's make primary school a place to park children so their parent…

Got a newer reference than Benezet 1936? Got a reference where they tested it with good math teachers? Has the study been replicated in a country with a different (better) math tradition, such as France?

[1] looks a pretty reasonable overview of the research on homework effectiveness. The meta-analysis is quite supportive of homework as an effective way of improving results:

With only rare exceptions, the relationship between the amount of homework students do and their achievement outcomes was found to be positive and statistically significant. Therefore, we think it would not be imprudent, based on the evidence in hand, to conclude that doing homework causes improved academic achievement.

[1] http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/mar0...

Re: Unschooling: The Case for Setting Your Kids Into the Wild

#130
post #117

The case against abandoning conventional schooling: In developing countries, every month a child goes to school significantly increases final IQ and future earning power. You think you have an ADHD epidemic on your hand? Just wait until children who don't have ADHD don't have to learn to sit still and discipline themselves and their emotions.

> The case against abandoning conventional schooling: In developing countries, every month a child goes to school significantly increases final IQ and future earning power. That may be true, but it omits a control group -- a comparison with people who don't attend school. It therefore lacks a scientific basis for comparison. Therefore it's not a "case against abandoning conventional schooling", it is a case where mea…

Controlgroup? I don't think science means what you think it means. The finding that I am referring to is an observational study. There might not have been a "control group" with exactly zero time in school, but plenty of datapoints, and the "dosage effect" is undeniable. That is scientific enough.

"Some argue [about cause of ADHD]" reveals that you just quote the scientific method if you want to argue a point, and don't really understand it. ADHD has been established as a syndrome, and about as firmly as it gets in medicine.

"Present evidence" includes ADHD being a consistent syndrome in Neuroanatomy, EEG, fMRI, genetic studies, and psychological testing. There are even successful treatments for it. The most important factor in ADHD is genetic, other factors include early injuries, environmental toxins, alcohol exposure in the womb, low birth weights - very clear evidence that there are causes for ADHD that a school system can't be changed to prevent.

What kind of evidence do you need for a "clear conclusion", if you don't accept decades of research, involving hundreds of thousands, if not millions of cases?

Post reply on HN