I don't understand 'unschooling'? Can someone/ anyone explain why this is good for a child?

[TalkingPoint]

I get the concept of home educating and fully understand why someone may choose to home school. It is a decision I have even considered taking myself - but the concept of 'extreme' 'unschooling' where the child has no boundaries put in place seems to divert completely away from the responsibilities of parents. I don't under how this can be considered constructive? Is there anyone who can explain it to me, I see examples on a forum I use of children never having a bedtime and being up till 1am, never having to take regard of any rules and all the learning being completely decided by the child. I get why this may fun but I do struggle to see how these children will grow up in the social structures of the world as it is. I don't agree with all the structures we have in place but until some sort of revolution, if we want children to succeed/ function in the world they need to understand these structures at least to some extent. there is also a very good chance I just don't get it, so happy to be educated?!

Sorry - maybe misunderstood- whatever you do needs to suit you too.

I try to be open minded about unschooling - and homeschooling - but why is it that parents who have home/un/de schooled always say that every child they know who's been brought up in this way has excelled in education and life in general?

Just as conventionally schooled kids are a mixed bag with mixed results, surely there are those that didn't turn out to be perfect specimens? Or for whom this method didn't work?

It just adds to my suspicion that some parents who take this route are deluded and blinkered by doctrine/evangelicalism.

That is my objection backbystealth. Everyone agrees that there are great schools and dire schools with everything in between but all home educators are great. A HEer will never ever admit that some are dire and even damaging when they have the same spread as schools. Some people should never be teachers- wanting to is not enough- and by the same token some parents should never be HEers - wanting to is not enough.
Anyone, apparently, can HE and give a positive experience to their children!
I can tell just by reading the posts that I could quite easily leave my child with them while I wouldn't want some to have my child for 30 mins! But you are not allowed to say that! They like to be equal.

There isn't "a book" on attachment parenting though, it's more of a larger philosophy. Again, shorthand rather than jargon.

The philosophy of AP is nothing to do with slings and co-sleeping, it's about listening to your child. The vast majority of babies do want physical closeness hence AP looks like it's about physical closeness but that's not what it is (continuum concept is probably the one you're thinking of, where you keep the baby in-arms until it can walk).

The husband who stays up all night and plays xbox and eats pizza - I know a few adult men like this! I don't know if it's an actual personality trait - it strikes me as a refusal to take responsibility for oneself.

You could argue that school does nothing to fix this - yes you have to get up in the mornings and do homework but it's very "Now do X, now do Y" with not a lot of opportunity to develop that sense of responsibility for self. Children tend to be far more active than adults, my DS is a total video game and TV fiend but he also loves running and likes to be outside. Just my personal experience, but school totally turned me off the idea of physical activity because PE was hellish and horrendous for me, a not very co-ordinated, not very strong person who isn't interested in sport. I liked Gymnastics and trampolining - because it was all about how you performed, not comparing to others, and you didn't have to stay outside in the freezing cold to do it.

I think that one of two or three things would probably happen in an unschooling environment.

1. The child who liked to play xbox and sleep late would do so, for a while, and then get bored. Children get bored of patterns like this far more quickly than adults do. Adults get stuck into a rut whereas children look for new things.

1. The adult(s) in the household would notice that this was happening and make or encourage changes - e.g. keeping healthier food in the house rather than unhealthy food, having conversations about healthy bodies and responsibility, basically opening up a dialogue about this kind of lifestyle and alternatives or encouraging other interests as well (e.g. the interests in 3). A more structured form of home ed would probably be more forceful or directed about this, I think unschooling philosophy would say more make the information easily available and then let them make up their own mind. But either way, I think it would be far more obvious earlier that this was happening, to the parent, than seeing their child go on the xbox after school - that could be dismissed as "downtime" and it could be missed that it was becoming the only focus of interest until it had gone on for a long time and then it's harder to counter.

1. Linked to situation 1, the child in the situation would go further than just playing the game and look for ways to get more involved with the game or console itself, maybe modding (especially if it was on a PC rather than xbox) or taking the physical hardware apart etc. Or could get interested in the stuff around the game - war history for Call of Duty, Medieval history for Skyrim, storytelling of dystopian futures for Fallout, etc etc.

YY Delph. It doesn't add up. And, like with anything in life especially when it comes to the very difficult and important job of bringing up children, it's dangerous to be blinkered by theory and (dare I say it) by your own insecurities or anxieties and experiences.

PiperIsOrange 'I think home schooling is a gamble on a child's future, children are not mini adults. They need a bed time, routine and boundaries.'

Wow. I find that quite offensive actually.

For one thing, you appear to be mixing up home educating, unschooling, and radical unschooling. Home education simply means educating your child outside of the school system, and in my experience, most home educating familes DO have bedtimes, routine and boundaries. Unschooling often means the actual method of education, it doesn't always extend to other areas of life, so those too may have bedtimes and routine. Radical unschoolers, those who unschool all areas of life, may not enforce a routine, but that doesn't mean there isn't one, just that it's a routine that the child is allowed some input/opinion into, rather one which is forced on them regardless of their own feelings.

My child doesn't have a strict 7pm bedtime because she isn't always tired at 7pm. Rather she is allowed to choose her own bedtime, which is almost always sometime between 7 and 8. Occasionally she has stayed up til 8:30 or 9, but she has never chosen to stay up later than that, and that is 100% through her own choosing, listening to her body. It has never caused her to be tired, irritable or grumpy, but it has avoided battles over bedtime, reduced stress within the household, and allowed her to learn to 'read' her own body.

Unschooling does not mean letting a child do whatever they want and sod everyone else. Parents are VERY involved, and help children to make 'good' choices by being there to talk everything through with them. If a child was choosing a late bedtime every night and it was making them irritable, a parent may chat with the child and help them explore their own feelings, and generally a child will work out for themselves that an earlier bedtime would make them feel less tired. Unschooling is about consensual living for the entire family, not just the children - it's based on mutual respect. The idea that children are spoiled brats, left to run riot whilst their parent is some sort of slave responding to their every whim is not unschooling. I would suggest those who think that haven't met any unschooling families.

Back to the idea that home educating is 'a gamble on a child's future', I would love to know why you think this? Home educated children are not disadvantaged in any way.

In terms of qualifications, home ed children are able to take GCSE's same as any other child. I don't know if i'm allowed to post links here, but if you google 'home education exam results' and choose the second result down, you will see some exam results of home ed children and that they are excelling academically, matching or exceeding that of their school going peers. There are not many studies comparing home ed kids to those in school, but the few there are suggest that home ed kids consistently 'achieve' at a level which matches or exceeds school children, and that the gender divide disappears in home ed too - boys doing as well as girls at exam level.

Many home ed kids (I would probably go so far as to say most home ed kids, actually) go on to college or university and do well there. Of all the home educating children I have known, both online and in real life, all of them have gone on to either higher education or employment. None are NEETS (not in training, education or employment).

In terms of emotional wellbeing and so-called 'socialisation', it is a complete and utter myth to think that home ed children are somehow unsocialised or unable to relate to their peers. On the contrary, because they are used to socialising with a wide range of age groups and a diverse range of people (rather than 30 kids who all share a birth year), they tend to be confident, good conversationalists. You always hear people say they've met a home ed kid who was 'weird' or 'odd' or 'awkward' and people always put that down to the fact s/he was home educated, yet many children who go to school are weird or odd or awkward and no-one puts that down to the fact they went to school. I should know, I was one of them! The 'socialisation' I experienced at school meant that as an adult I now struggle to talk to new people and find the whole idea of socialising quite difficult. My home educated daughter on the other hand already has such a busy social life that we struggle to find time to see everyone and fit everything in!

Home education doesn't suit everyone any more than school suits everyone, so in that respect, it is 'gambling with a child's future', but I would suggest that applies equally to schools too. How many children commit suicide because of bullying at school, or stress over exams? I have seen several examples of that in the media even just over the last few months. How many children leave school with low self esteem and lack of confidence? I did, and I know many others who did. How many children leave school with no/bad GCSE's? Lots. How many people, as adults, are still affected negatively by their time at school? In my experience, a worryingly large amount.

Home education no more gambles with a child's future than school does.

I think it's absolutely true that some parents would be terrible at HE - I would which is why I don't do it. You need to be focused, motivated, interested yourself. As lots have said on here it is not just "let them get on with it". You don't need a degree or teaching experience or buckets of cash but what you do need is drive and willingness to make it work positively.

I would imagine that people only know home ed families who do brilliantly because the kind of parents who are engaged, motivated, focused etc are more likely to seek out and use groups, community facilities, facebook groups etc and hence they know other home educators.

And I said it before but I'll say it again - the parent who truly can't be arsed would surely send their child to one of the many free and excellent state schools that we have in this country, if only to get them out of the house for a few hours a day.

Great post FireSquirrel :)

I suppose there is merit in the idea that some people are harmful teachers despite good intentions, engagement, focus, etc. Just looking at the fundamentalist Christian "quiverfull" movement in the US is one good example of good intentions, damaging outcomes.

combust I would just like to answer your question on how HE children cope in 'extra curricular actives' and whether they are off limits...

If children are unschooled/autonomously educated and their passion is, citing your example, ballet, then in following their passion they are happy and driven to be in the type of disciplined environment you mention - because it is their choice.

This would not however, be seen as an extra curricular activity, simply another activity (or even perhaps their favourite activity) and therefore is no different to say a child who chooses to study History. Most children, schooled or not, find it difficult to be motivated and passionate about something they are not interested in - actually it makes absolute sense for an unschooled child to be perfectly able to cope in a ballet/football/swimming club, or piano/drama/art etc...as per their passion.

It becomes more difficult for any child who is sent to an activity because their parents want them to be the next football/swimming/ballet star, or those who are sent to extra curricular activities as a means of childcare. Those kids will find it difficult, but those are not unschooled. Unschooled/autonomously educated children who are asking to go and understand and the commitment cope in the same way your DD does.

Does this help answer your question?

I don't think that you can compare exam results - you have to have 'like with like' and the biggest indicator for exam success is supportive, involved parents. You would assume that anyone HEing is that supportive, involved parent. School is full of DCs whose parents are not any of these things, they can come from chaotic home backgrounds with addiction, violence etc. It is not fair to have them in the statistics.
Attachment parenting is just common sense to me- people have being doing it for centuries without labels.

You would need to compare exam results from school and HE with only those from supportive, nurturing parents to get the true picture.

Lots of teachers who are enthusiastic and really want to do it are weeded out because they are not suited and not good at it. No one weeds out the parents who want to HE and are useless. I have seen a parent who asked if she could do it when she was depressed and agoraphobic and she was told 'yes- go for it' rather than 'send you child to school, sort yourself out and then see'.

I think as well, to say home ed gambles with a child's future is to suggest its a choice made on a whim and with very little thought put into it, which hasnt been my experience at all. The parents that I know who home educate their children are able to speak very eloquently about their reaspns for doing so. Im sure there are some who choose to home ed for the 'wrong' reasons, some of which have been mentioned by other posters, but in my experience those people are few and far between and tend to give up home edding quite quickly when it becomes clear what a big commitment it it. Its a huge commitment - whether actively teacjong your child or taking a child led unschooling approach, the amount of effort parents put in to support and facilitate learning is massive. Anyone who thinks home ed is an easy or lazy option hasnt tried it.

As another poster said, half the reason I home ed is so that im NOT gambling with my childs future. I think all of us here can at least agree that all children are different and they all learn differently. Home ed gives our family the chance to learn using the method which suits us best, at the pace that suits us best. If we need to slow down and take something at a slower pace, we can. if there were any emotional issues goig on, we can devote as much time to sorting it as needed. However good a school may be, there is only so much individual time and attention they can give to a child whos struggling, whether academically or otherwise. Home ed lets us tailor our learning experience to out family. I feel its ensuring my childrens future rather than gambling with it.

Apologies for spelling mistakes, posting from phone with a tiny screen!

I'm sure that no HEers are gambling with their future- they have thought long and hard, which is why you should only compare exam results with the children whose parents have thought long and hard about school.
Compare like with like.

I think it is a risk.

I send my children to school. I value enormously the education they have at home.
All parents educate their children at home even if they send their kids to school.

School only runs 195 days a year out of 365. A school day is around 6 hours.
Assumming a child sleeps for 10 hours a night then sending a child to school only takes up 22% of a child's waking time during any year.

Giving you 78% of your childs time to educate as you wish.

Madness to miss out on such a wonderful free resource when you have such an amout of time to educate otherwise.

I wouldn't want to be solely responsible. It has been wonderful to see them blossom at school as different adults get a different side of them, and hidden talents come out. They get the 78% with me anyway.

Judging by some things I read we did far more in our time at home than those with the whole day manage!

It saddens me to read that some think Minecraft and Sims are educating their children.

Or that they simple can't switch it off!

I think it's wonderful we live in a relatively free society where we can choose either the local primary school, a boarding prep, a very academic day prep (my choice), no school at all but educate the child at home, a school like Summerhill (no compulsory lessons), theatre, ballet or music schools, a fundamentalist Jewish or Muslim etc school. We are very lucky in the Uk the state allows those choices.

There are totally different things on this thread - home education could mean you are get to Oxford aged 12 and you do much better than children in school and have a lot of formal lessons and the second issue is which is what I think the thread is about - is parents who are at the other extreme - letting children be "free". Given that half children in English schools end up with no decent GCSEs I suspect a lot of those children would do no worse had they stayed home or gone to work with their fathers in the van aged 12. Plenty of cultures want girls who are obedient to a husband and will be a good wife - you don't need to read for that -you just need to stay home with mother copying the culture. Others know the child will work on the farm or selling the scrap metal or whatever so formal education beyond basic reading and writing is not needed. All these are valid choices in a free society.

I read something about a tribe in the Amazon a few weeks ago. The observed the toddlers. They were allowed to do more and take more risks even near fires than in other cultures. They had many adults around them at all times and they were never ever told to stop something or that it was naughty or told off and they were very happy. (I would hope if they were on the verge of drowning though that someone would rescue them)

Each parent has to decide what they think is right for that child. My 3 children with music scholarships, getting children into top fee paying academic schools and hopefully decent high paid careers would not be someone else's way although I am relatively liberal at home actually and I suspect that why the children mostly succeed. I have never had to do anything like punishment or time out or stuff like that and other parents seem to live in a constant malestrom of imposing their own will over a child to force it into some kind of disciplined pattern which seems weird to me.

I think you've been generous with those figures. All of the schools I know are more like 8.45 - 3.15, not 9-3 so that's an extra 97.5 hours a year. Say one half day at Christmas, takes it down to 95 hours.

Then you have time travelling to and from school. If that's 30 minutes each way that's an extra 195 hours a year.

Homework, the guidelines have been scrapped now but just to use that as a fairly recent example, from 30 minutes to 2.5 hours a night depending on age (of course younger children also sleep longer). And usually more than one night's worth of homework for the holidays and weekends. So let's add 100-300 hours' worth of homework for the whole year.

1560-1760 hours at or doing something directly needed for school = 30-34% of your child's awake time in a year. Some of the remaining 56-60% has to be spent relaxing, probably most of that considering they've already spent 30-34% doing stuff which is work. Eating, washing, etc, eats into that time too. And it's not 30-34% of every day, but is concentrated into termtime and holiday time. In termtime it's more like 41-51% of their time spent at or doing essential stuff for school.

Of course parents can teach their children many many valuable things when their children go to school but the bulk of their education is still occurring at school.