Unschooling? Unlikely!

Some children are not ready to learn "basic" math or "reading" skills by age 6 or 7.

I agree, but these children are unusual. Research shows that even 6- or 7-month-old normal children have some understanding of basic addition. In an interesting experiment, children were shown pictures of simple sums. When the sums were incorrect, the kids' physiological reactions (heartbeat, breathing rate, etc) increased in a statistically significant manner, as compared to when they were shown correct sums.

The issue of symbolic representation of math and language is one that I (and Piaget and others) believe younger children are not ready for. Your average three year old has just learned one symbolic system (spoken language) and most three year olds are not ready for a second level of abstraction on top of spoken language. Three-year-olds are take language very literally. If you tell them that a set of squiggles on a page are "apple", they may humor your because they love you, but they know that an apple is something else, something good to eat.

Likewise, if you pointed to a "5" on a page and told that three year old that it was a 5, I don't think most three-year-olds would really comprehend that it's a symbol for the abstract notion 5. Many three-year-olds can count to 5 (although some do it by way of 9) and they can certainly understand concrete mathematics, but most are not ready to manipulate the written symbols.

I agree with Valorie, here, that a significant proportion of 6 and 7 year olds are probably not ready to manipulate written mathematical symbols on a page without some more concrete representation of the problem at hand.

By the way, I do like Cuisenaire rods. So far, they seem like a great tool for illustrating mathematical concepts to young children.

Ian, who will be 6 on the 22nd of this month, not only "understands" these things, but can use these skills and others at a level at least equivalent to a strong 2nd grader. I like being able to assess reasonably accurately what his skill levels are. I have a real concern about "understanding" versus actually being able to do real calculations.

A person certainly doesn't understand math if he can't apply what he understands. He can, however, learn to perform math "tricks" without understanding the underlying relationships and semantics.

We don't have a math curriculum. But then, Garry and I are both mathematically minded. We just naturally started talking about sets when she was 2 or 3. She is exposed to mathematics daily. I admit to sneaking word problems into every day conversation.

Ah, so you do have agendas.:) I feel the difference between unschoolers and (schoolers?) is the degree to which we feel confident pursuing our agendas, in addition to agendas strictly inspired by things that pop up in the child's life and mind.

There's a common notion (untrue) that unschoolers are limp, wet noodles who have undisciplined children. Garry and I have agendas. We pursue them in our own lives. We value math, so we talk about it and use it. What we don't do is try to fit our children to any timetable but their own. If they are ready to learn something, then the learning comes quickly.

Of course we have agendas. Strong agendas. These agendas exist in the things we choose to do and the things we choose to talk about. They appear in the books and learning aids we keep in our houses. They appear in the things we point out to our children and the way we answer our children's questions. Our family is our children's environment. We are major factors in their environment. We wouldn't try not to be.

I think the difference is mainly philosophical. We provide the soil in which our children grow and try to make it as nurturing and rich as possible. We trust them to take what they need and to do their own growing. So far, we've been very pleased with the results.

I don't think unschooling (or even homeschooling) is for everyone. For the child that Morganne is, it's perfect.

Secondly, if an older child is interested in pursuing a career that requires college, she can certainly understand that mathematics is a prerequisite. I remember reading that a teacher at Summerhill was surprised to discover that your average motivated student could master all of pre-algebra mathematics in 6 weeks. Algebra, geometry and trig could probably each be mastered in a similar timespan.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Besides, what level of competence does "mastered" mean? I'm really wary of these unquantified statements of competence. And how old are these average motivated students? What's the curve of resulting competence against age at starting the 6-week course? Is this a study, or just anecdotal "evidence"?

Do you doubt that an older child who wants to be a chemist or engineer would have the motivation to master mathematics?

Your questions are all good and the Summerhill article that I read 5 years ago did not answer some of them. The children were aged 9-12 and had specifically asked for math instruction.

I personally have no trouble believing that basic mathematics can be mastered quickly. But, then, I was utterly frustrated by the snail's pace of every math class I had until college.

Well, you asked Steve, but here's a question someone asked me while I was doing research in the Quantum Optics department at Bell Labs. "Why do mirrors reverse left and right, but not up and down?" It's good for getting kids to consider the concepts of rotation, reflection, and chirality (handedness).

Hey, Jones, that's really low. That's PHYSICS, for goodness' sakes!

Hint: consider the well-formedness of the question before trying to answer it.:)

Left and right are relative terms. Mirrors don't reverse north and south or east and west or up and down because those terms are not relative to the viewer, but to the Earth.

John Holt has a very humorous discussion of left and right and how confusing they are. I think it's in Learning All the Time.

I do child-led learning all the time, even with mathematics. I just pursue my agendas as a supplement to the random ones that pop up in my kids' lives and minds.

I don't imagine you'll ever find an unschooler who doesn't follow her own agenda or one who doesn't introduce learning topics. What unschoolers don't do is push a child to work on something when the child is resistant to learning it.

Children have an incredible drive to learn. They learn how to walk and talk without any set curriculum of formal lessons. They learn because locomotion and communication give them more freedom and control over their environments.

Unfortunately, not all skills are so obviously valuable as walking and talking. It may be difficult for a child to gauge the value of these skills until the child grows up and has to make a living. I've never met someone who felt they were taught too much. Such people may exist, I just haven't noticed. I've met many, many people who felt they were taught too little.

Well, I'll agree with you that it's the parents' job to provide a rich learning environment. A steady diet of television and Dr. Seuss will not give children an opportunity to learn much, that's for sure.

I teach my kids some things, and they learn some things on their own. Many times, they choose to learn things based on skills that I've taught them. Many times, I teach them things based on skills and knowledge they've acquired independently. We're a team. I don't always lead them, and they don't always lead me. They're often frustrated, but in the good sense, of being stuck on a problem they are fascinated by but can't solve yet. That happens whether it's something they've initiated or I've initiated.

Well, I agree with what you've written here. We do all the same things.

I have no fear at all of crushing their curiosity by giving them too many tools to use to satisfy it.

Nor I.

I do have the fear of crushing their creativity and initiative by imposing my expectations on them. I have to respect them as individuals who are different from me. I've seen many parents and teachers try to impose one mold on all children. I think this is a mistake. Children are individuals who have individual ways of learning and individual interests. Following the bent of the individual is a heck of a lot better than bulldozing him.

I really think it comes down to trust. Trust and giving the child a certain amount of autonomy. A tall order for your average adult.

No, I don't trust my kids to foresee the long-term consequences of neglecting basic skills. I trust my kids in many other ways, and I give them some autonomy. But why not give them total autonomy? Any restriction on the child's autonomy is a measure of distrust!

With all due respect, PIFFLE-PUFFLE!

Giving a child a certain amount of autonomy allows the child to develop responsibility and accountability. Giving a child total autonomy is neglect. Our children get as much autonomy as they can handle (and they must demonstrate their ability to handle it). Our unschooling experiment was an experiment in whether we could trust Morganne to learn. We can. She has great love of learning and I have no doubt that she will choose to cover the basic academic subjects thoroughly.

Steve asked to be convinced of the efficacy of unschooling. I replied, in part, that I wasn't trying to convince him. It works for us. I am not, have not, will not say that unschooling is right for all children and all families. However, if fear is the only thing holding a parent back, why not try it in a subject or two and see how it goes? If the parent doesn't like it, then the parent can go back to a more structured approach after a few weeks or months.

First of all, thanks to Jones for prodding me to look up the Sudbury Valley article I read. I didn't remember all the numbers correctly, so I'll restate the case.

12 children, ages 9-12 asked for a math class. The adult they asked initially tried to discourage them (something I would never dream of doing) and then insisted that the children act responsibly (appear on time, etc) or the math classes would stop.

The class met twice a week for half an hour for 20 weeks, for a total of 20 hours of instruction. The class was structured, but any child was free to leave at any time. There was homework, quizzes, the whole nine yards. The children set the pace. They used a primer written in 1898.

Daniel Greenberg wrote the article "Learning Without Coercion: Sudbury Valley School". It appeared in Mothering magazine, No. 58, Winter 1991.

I was somewhat taken aback at Jones' original contribution. As a homeschooler, I'm not concerned with statistics. I'm concerned with my two daughters. I'm concerned with meeting their educational needs as best I can. I don't feel that I need to defend my educational practices, nor that I'm pushing either unschooling or homeschooling. We're doing what works for us as a family. I assumed that, in this group, there would be pretty universal acceptance of the idea that different things work for different families and different children.

Unschooling is perfectly compatible with directed-schooling, provided the child can choose to opt out. Morganne, for example, takes a structured gymnastics class. She is free, on one month's notice, to stop participating. Once she opts to take the class, she is subject to the class schedule and rules; those are not negotiable.

Unschooling rests on the notion that:

The obverse of this rule is also true, and maybe even more important.

If a child is not mature enough to learn the subject matter being taught, then coercing that child to learn it has the potential to damage the child.

A child demonstrates readiness to eat by sprouting teeth and showing an interest in food. A child demonstrates readiness to read by showing an interest in the written word. A child demonstrates an interest in mathematics by showing an understanding of symbolic representations of real life and demonstrating higher-order thought processes.

There is a fair body of research that shows that introducing children to abstract learning before they are ready:

Raymond and Dorothy Moore, John Holt, and David Elkind all discuss this topic at length in their books.

I think there might be other reasons to unschool.

I think that we homeschoolers have a big advantage. We know our children very well and we have the opportunity to tailor our homeschooling to their individual needs, abilities and learning styles. If we're going to use cookie-cutter education, then why not just send the kids off to school?

Let me describe my daughters. Morganne, age 5.5, is Ms. Gradual. She doesn't do well when pushed on anything. She is very cooperative and eager to please and easily frustrated. When allowed to take her time and figure things out on her own, she gains confidence and soon masters the skill. She would do extraordinary things to meet my expectations and feel very badly if she failed. With her, what has worked well all of her life is to support but not push her and to let her take her time to get used to the water before she lets go of the side. Once she feels confident with a new skill, she will often master it in a short period of time, despite hovering at the beginning stages for a long time.

If I tried to use a set curriculum with Morganne and to determine the pace, I believe it would be a frustrating experience for both of us and quite possibly damage her self-esteem or subject her to a great deal of unnecessary stress.

Matisse, age 17 months, is Ms. Pell Mell. She is very strong-willed, takes to new things very quickly and must do everything in her own way. For example, she learned to stand, not by pulling up on furniture, but by standing in the middle of the room, unassisted. She doesn't get frustrated easily, but will work intently on a new skill until she masters it. She is methodical and extremely determined.

Quite possibly, Matisse would be a better candidate for a curriculum. Still, I shudder to consider what homeschooling would be like if I tried to force her to learn something she didn't want to learn. We could have a battle of wills that would be exhausting.

I prefer to save the battles of wills for more important things, like not playing with sharp knives.

But then, I trust my children to learn. I believe that they will choose to learn important skills. So far, they've proved me right. I also trust myself to notice if unschooling isn't working for us and to change our homeschooling experience to meet the needs of our children as they grow and change.

Oh yeah, and one more thing. I believe that child-led learning is most important for young children. When our children are older (10? 13?), we may well choose a more structured approach. For children under grade 3, however, I believe that unschooling allows them to learn what they truly need to learn and still gives them time to absorb the expected fund of knowledge before adulthood.

The adventure continues,

How do others approach this? What percentage of the kids' (un)schooling time is spent following your lead, and how much following their own?

It's so hard to say! Often I suggest an activity and Morganne either picks it up or not. Other times, she wants to explore an activity and asks me to help. Other times, she sees something that we're doing and she wants to learn. Still other times, there's an interplay of factors.

When you say "child-led", just HOW child-led do you mean?

I think this is where people get confused about unschooling. To me, child-led means that Morganne is in control over what she learns and when she learns it. I think this is simply a statement of fact (Children can choose whether to learn a given skill or not) rather than a philosophical point.

It also means that we don't have a set curriculum, but will follow her interests and inclinations. Perhaps "interest-initiated" is a better term than "child-led"; I don't know.

Where the concept of "child-led" gets strange is where people think that it means that the parent has no input into what the child learns, no influence on the child's learning. Or when people think that it means that the parents set no limits on the children. It doesn't mean that the parents have turned over the reins of the family to the child; instead it means that the parents are sensitive enough and respectful enough to follow the child's cues about what she is ready to learn when she is ready to learn it.

Do the kids develop their own interests out of seemingly nowhere, and either ask you for materials and mentors or seek them out themselves? Or do you suggest and/or expose them to various topics and THEN follow their lead?

Both, as I explained above.

Can you give examples of how a current subject of study got started and who keeps the fire going?

It's often a dance between the two (or more) of us.

Take sewing, for example. I was making Morganne's Halloween costume and she wanted to learn to hand sew and operate the machine. I helped her get started and provided fabric for her to practice on. For Christmas, I bought her some doll dress patterns for her American Girl doll. In January, we shopped for the fabric and notions and began sewing. She soon grew bored and we shelved the project. Two weeks ago, she wanted to finish the dress, so we did. She also branched out to work on other sewing projects.

Sewing, by the way, is very math-intensive.

She's started gardening now. Again, I put the seeds in her Christmas stocking. Morganne asked our next-door neighbor to help her with her corn plot, so they're working on that. She and I are working together on flowers, sunflowers, beans, cucumbers, squash and tomatoes.

Heather, what prompted your daughter to get so wrapped up in automobiles?

Morganne's interest in automobiles was totally child-led. In February, she and Garry participated in the homeschool program's Take Apart Lab (That's a class where children learn to use tools and take apart various broken appliances to see how they work. An educational, and fun, activity.). This sparked awareness in Morganne that machines could be understood in terms of their parts and the relationship between parts.

Three weeks ago, our car died in Watsonville and we had to have it towed to the garage. Morganne found the whole experience fascinating and somewhat frightening. She began asking detailed questions about how automobiles work that week. Once her basic curiosity about the mechanics of automobiles was satisfied, she branched out into traffic rules.

When we went to the garage to pick up the car, the mechanic took the time to show Morganne the wiring diagram for our car and to explain a little bit about how a car's electrical system works. He did this because he heard her asking me questions and he was happy to share his expertise with an interested person.