The Unschooling movement

M

Mrs.Lucysnow

Valued Senior Member
Their children do not go to school. They raise their kids with no discipline, no rules, no judgement and no punishment. Their children are allowed to make their own schedules, eat what they want, and spend their time doing what they wish when they wish. No, they do not belong to the underclass poor nor are they home schooled, they are being 'unschooled'.

Here is the riveting footage of another experiment being done on ones own children:

http://news.yahoo.com/video/health-15749655/extreme-parenting-radical-unschooling-19218933

Its called extreme parenting, I call it a failure to parent.

The idea is that these kids will initiate and gravitate to what is natural for them to learn either because they enjoy it or because they find it necessary. They believe that without any obstacles, restraints or daily order that they will still manage to turn into fine successful human beings, and they might. But isn't it a crap shoot? :shrug:

I question whether they will they be able to get a job? Will they be able to move towards a goal without any discipline? Will they find themselves unprepared in a demanding world and learn to hate their parents?

What get's me about all this is how the parents can experiment on their own children without thinking of the consequences. What if they have a child that actually NEEDS order, discipline and restraint to personally develop and get ahead in the world? As educated professional parents how can they pile the added pressure of their own children perhaps finding one day that there is a whole lot they need to know if they decide they want to go into medicine for example? Will they be lacking in the basics of knowledge and learning skills to reach their goals?

I find this fascinating. And I think the US is going to hell in a hand basket:D

Mind you this is only a small portion of the home schooling community (I have no problem with home schooling) but the 'movement' seems to be finding a sympathetic audience.

Oh yeah and in some states its perfectly legal. Go figure.
 
Last edited:
They believe that without any obstacles, restraints or daily order that they will still manage to turn into fine successful human beings, and they might. But isn't it a crap shoot? :shrug:
Click to expand...

It can't be much more of a crap shoot than organised schooling, given all the little turds that produces.
 
mordea said:
It can't be much more of a crap shoot than organised schooling, given all the little turds that produces.
Click to expand...

True, but keeping their children home should not equate to allowing them full unrestrained freedoms. Home schooled children may have a looser schedule but they are expected to fulfill certain parental demands for example learning certain subjects, being skilled in certain areas and learning to take responsibility for themselves within a given framework. What these parents have done is take away ALL framework and boundaries and allow their children to 'float' into whatever area if they come across that area at all. I don't think its wise to force a child to focus on something they not only dislike but perhaps have no proficiency towards, but they should at least have an introduction to it and have a sense of its basics. I mean you have a parent saying that her child will learn algebra they somehow come across a situation in life that makes it necessary, another allowing her child to eat donuts for breakfast. This is okay if the first child has the underpinning skills to teach itself algebra and for the other I would wonder if the child has to teach itself basic nutrition if he somehow 'floats' into the subject. I mean what is the center of motivation and discipline? The self so they have that part right. How does a child learn self discipline? They are guided towards it through the choices the parent gives them not by their own choices, that comes later. So for example if a child refuses to wash themselves you say 'you have one of two choices, a shower or a bath', that's called redirection. In that way they feel they have some control and that they have choices but to give a child complete control without any structure just seems mad to me. But I'm open. What are the long term benefits to this kind of unguided, unfettered upbringing? Maybe I have just been living in Asia too long where children are free as toddlers but then thrusted into a very formal structured setting. They learn by rote form and structure before they are asked to break that mold and become 'creative'.

I mean do you believe that one can excel at anything without the notion of self discipline? Some children are able to discipline themselves but not all.

Do you believe that a child will magically know that to which it has never been introduced? Should it be left to chance? Or is there a basic standard, not necessarily the public school mainstream standards, that are aimed for and then perhaps surpassed? If a child is lazy do you allow them to stay that way as its their 'natural disposition' to sit in front of the tv all day or do you get them to engage themselves with something else? I mean is it wrong to try and nudge a child in a direction? Or should we all be like leaves beholden to the wind.

I mean in order to be savvy enough to work outside the constraints of a haiku one must know its form and structure.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School
Click to expand...

Its not a good example. Why? Because they have a STRUCTURE!

Its loose but its there:

Although Neill was more concerned with the social development of children than their academic development, Summerhill nevertheless has some important differences in its approach to teaching. There is no concept of a "year" or "form" at Summerhill.

Instead, children are placed according to their ability in a given subject. It is not uncommon for a single class to have pupils of widely varying ages, or for pupils as young as 13 or 14 to take GCSE examinations. This structure reflects a belief that children should progress at their own pace, rather than having to meet a set standard by a certain age.

There are also two classrooms which operate on a "drop-in" basis for all or part of the day, the workshop and the art room. Anyone can come to these classrooms and, with supervision, make just about anything. Children commonly play with wooden toys (usually swords or guns) they have made themselves, and much of the furniture and décor in the school has been likewise constructed by students.'



Notice how they only have two classes that are on a 'drop-in' basis? Art and workshop.
 
The 15 year old girl in the interview seemed to have a distorted view of reality. Why you'd want your children to be uneducated I'm not sure, but that didn't really bother me as much as the kids eating whatever they want and hygiene being optional. I could never allow that in my house.
 
CutsieMarie89 said:
The 15 year old girl in the interview seemed to have a distorted view of reality. Why you'd want your children to be uneducated I'm not sure, but that didn't really bother me as much as the kids eating whatever they want and hygiene being optional. I could never allow that in my house.
Click to expand...

Its almost as if they are expected to not only know what they need now but also later. It also seems as if they are expected to choose from unlimited choices which I find disturbing. Then to top it off its as if they are supposed to know what will matter to them in the long run. For some children this could later turn into a really stressful situation. I mean think of the responsibility?

You know I was thinking of Matthew Barney as I watched that video because he is a wildly creative person and I recently viewed 'No Restraints' a film about the process he went through creating 'Drawing Restraints 9'. He comes from a very structured background and initially studied medicine at Yale (plastic surgery was his goal) before he went into the arts. Now the whole dynamics of his work is centered around building restraints and resistance. He works a lot with his body and its summed up as this:

"Barney's entire artistic practice investigates the development of form, and DRAWING RESTRAINT is based on the notion that form emerges only through struggle against resistance. The idea grew out of the artist's early experience as an athlete and his thinking about resistance as a catalyst for muscle growth. By extension, he wondered how this bulking of tissue, known as hypertrophy, might make a case for self-imposed resistance as an impetus for creativity. The work proposes the body as an analogy for creative process and a model for the artist's conception of a productive state based on unresolved tensions between desire, stored potential, and repression."

I couldn't help wondering how these kids were going to come across the necessary obstacles to actually push their own advancement. I also wondered if they would be able to even have the basic disciplining groundwork to meet what will be their obstacles.

I'm not entirely against the notion of say greater freedom, its the freedom without constraints that I find baffling. And I don't mean from a social or behavioral point of view but intellectually and creatively.

But hey there's always Walmart:D
 
This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've every heard of. No way this can possibly prepare kids for functioning in the real world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top