The Road Less Traveled: Tribute to the Skeptics

Over the course of my unschooling life, I am often faced with skepticism about the quality of my education. There are tow main criticisms of unschooling: lack of resources and lack of interest. "Self-taught" is a difficult concept for many people to grasp because how can a person teach themselves ideas that they do not know? How can you teach yourself advanced algebra when you don't know advanced algebra? This is easily combated: how does a person learn anything? When they are motivated to learn the material, they find the resources to learn about that material. Unschooling predicts that a child that wants to learn about bugs will be motivated to find resources to learn about bugs. They may find formal learning tools in forms such as books, documentaries, zoo trips, and websites. And they may use informal learning tools (something as simple as catching bugs and examining them).
If a child is motivated to learn something, they will find a way. 
And with the help of their parents to find them resources (organizing trips to the museum, getting a library card, or simply taking them for a walk), there is never a shortage of resources available.

In public education you are given the reassurance that your child is being taught by a qualified professional who completely understands the material they are presenting to your child, but that your child may have any number of problems with the material and be taught in a way that may not work for them. With unschooling, the reassurance that you have is the steadfast belief that your child is curious: their natural inclination to learn and grow will foster their intellectual pursuits.
Which leads us to the second issue: lack of interest.
People in public education (though public education has many benefits) are given a disadvantage. They are not allowed to follow their interests beyond taking an elective (if their interest is even offered as an elective). You are told what to think, not how to think. Through a systematic set of barriers the child's natural inclination to learn, that natural curiosity, has been smothered. The flame of curiosity has burned out under the pressure of forced learning. If you are constantly forced to do something, it no longer becomes a pleasant experience, and you do not wish to do it in your spare time. If you are constantly being forced to eat, why would you snack in your spare time?
The end product that you have is this: a guaranteed well of knowledge that knows facts, but lacks passion and interest (the driving force of organic learning). This system, the road frequently traveled, inhibits children from retaining their ability to learn naturally. They lack the interest.
Unschoolers are allowed to learn whatever they want, in any manner that works the best for them. If you want to learn about Shakespeare, you are allowed to learn about Shakespeare, whenever you want, through whatever means you prefer. Therefore, you are getting the most personalized education that you can: your interests, your style, your way. All children have a natural curiosity, and if it is organically fostered it doesn't extinguish. The child keeps learning, and the curiosity never wanes.
An additional benefit is that through learning through life and informal learning tools, you never really stop learning if you are open to the idea. It's not just sitting down with a textbook for an hour, it's experiencing the real world in ways that allow your child to learn. The road less traveled is filled with adversity and skepticism, but can make all the difference.

Excuse the brevity. Thank you for reading! :)
For more info on how public education is often a disadvantage, here is a link to another post of mine:
http://thelifeofanunschooler.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-problems-of-public-school-from.html
For more information about how unschooling works: http://thelifeofanunschooler.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
For more information on the natural desire of children to learn: http://thelifeofanunschooler.blogspot.com/2014/05/every-child-is-matilda-hidden-creative.html

The Magical Cardboard Box: Informal Learning Tools

• Education: noun, defined as "the process of receiving or giving systematic instruction, especially at a school or university" or "an enlightening experience".
• Learning: verb, defined as "the acquisition of knowledge or skills through experience, study, or by being taught".

               People often assume that 'learning' and 'educating' are synonymous. While this linguistic inconsistency may work in PTA meetings and Congressional hearings to discuss funding, it simply doesn't transfer over to the real world. Many assume that learning only occurs in the following settings:

• with a teacher instructing a student in a school setting

• Refer to above.

        Despite the numerous problems with education systems, some learning may indeed occur. The student may, in fact, become enlightened. If their interests are sparked in (more often than not) a curiosity-stifling academic setting, then the hypothetical goal of education (actually learning) has been achieved. If a child is lucky enough to be able to be enlightened in a formal, structured education system, many often assume that learning ceases there. This, as many things with regards to structured education, also does not transfer over to the real world.  
       I'm not utilizing this post to discuss issues with public education systems, I have another blog post for that (linked below). The point of this post is to discuss why, if a child still retains their natural curiosity about the world, they never cease the act of learning. Everyday acts such as lifting a rock to examine the bugs underneath, making a cake, fixing the car, pumping up a bike tire, drawing a picture, giving the dog a bath, etc. are all learning activities. Instead of learning fractions from a textbook, a child learns about them from measuring flour for a cake. Formal learning tools (textbooks, teachers, classrooms, etc.) are not essential for the act of learning to occur. In fact, these formal learning tools stifle the individuality of the student. Informal learning tools are infinitely more flexible in their ability to adapt to the student. If you child learn visually, you can adjust how your child learns by using visual learning tools. In a public school setting, the student would be forced to conform to using the same formal learning tools as everyone else. 
Unschooling uses the entire world as a learning tool. It's led by the child's passions (what's under that rock? What kind of bug is that? What kind of plant is that? What kind of soil does it need to live in? What kind of rock is that? Bingo! Geology, botany, etc.) and allows the child to use whatever informal learning tools (or formal, if that's the child's cup of tea) in order to learn about the world. There is no issue of transferring "formal learning" to real world application because the child learned about it in the real world. Without the constant barrage of formal learning tools that are forced upon the child (article link below), the child is constantly learning throughout their lives. Never underestimate the magic of the cardboard box: who knows what lessons your child might learn from something that seems so simple (and, informal). 

The Problems With Public School From an Unschooled Perspective: http://thelifeofanunschooler.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-problems-of-public-school-from.html
Thanks for reading! Comment below, share with your friends, like us on Facebook for updates about every new blog post (link in 'About Me' section)! :)  

College as an Unschooler: the Ironic Oxymoron of my education

As I entered the wide world of college education, a few of my realizations about the way formal education truly functions were solidified. The first one was that achieving the goal of being educated is truly determined by the motivation of the student. Even though I knew this before, it was truly solidified as I attended my first class of a required course. Students slept through class, turned their work in late (or not at all), and didn't read the assigned material. While this is typical for the unmotivated student that is forced to sit in a required course, the was juxtaposed by the contrast with the students who I encountered while attending my unrequired course. Students wanted to be there, had fought hard to be in that class, and were determined not only to achieve the grades they aimed for but were there to truly learn the material. They were internally motivated to learn the material. But whenever the same students were externally forced to learn material (as one of my classes demonstrated by having frequent pop quizzes) they quickly began to have negative associations with the material, and begin to loathe and neglect it. By frequently assigning the pop quizzes, my professor was forcing us to constantly review the material out of fear of points being taken away. This made many of my peers begin to dread and stress over work that would have been (and had been) naturally achieved otherwise. By unschooling children, we give them the freedom to follow their passions and pursue their interests. It's essentially letting them sign up for a "life-long class" where they want to be, and where they work hard to truly learn the material. They are internally motivated to learn and achieve their goals instead of being externally forced to.
The second solidification was that the points don't matter: quantitative means of measuring education are flawed and often unrealistic. Even though my university only used standardized tests seldomly, and almost exclusively as a diagnostic measure and a way to "test the waters", the idea of standardized testing as means to evaluate how much a person learns is fundamentally flawed. I watched as my friends stayed up for days studying for an exam, and then failed the exam because they were so sleep deprived. They knew the material, but had been so externally forced that they pushed themselves to the breaking point and failed their exams. Others wouldn't eat and would lose their focus, and then fail the exam. And more of my friends had anxiety over exams and would fail the exams. A person could know all of the material presented in class and could be unable to put it into test form. The level of information that they had retained would be the same, but the exam results would say something completely different. In college, education is more personalized to the student and the students are allowed more leniency than in grade school. But, what if a student is not passionate about (or not good at) a required course? What if their knowledge and education aren't on the test? Then the exam shows that they have no education. The student that fails the English exam may be writing exceptionally beautiful poetry in their spare time, and yet the standardized system would deem them uneducated. Personal issues, sleep deprivation, a hectic schedule, lack of proper nutrition, different areas of education, passion, anxiety, how the knowledge learned is translated into the form of the exam, etc. all affected how the exam results were determined. The exams were generally structured to measure the level of learning that one had achieved, without taking into consideration the individuality of that person. There were too many variables that affected the exam than just the knowledge that the student had: therefore, an exam is a flawed way to measure how educated a person is. Additionally, exams are generalized and cannot accommodate the needs and learning styles of a large percentage of students, and therefore cannot be an effective way to quantitatively measure the level of learning accurately. 
 

Modern Media in the Unschooled Life: Why your child won't be mentally scarred from a pop-up ad

My older brother liked horror movies from a young age. Whenever he was around five or so, he asked my mother if he could watch the most recent horror flick. She agreed, and popped the requested tape into our ancient VHS player. Relative to modern bloodbath films, the movie wasn't exceptionally gory or violent. The title has long since been forgotten, but the point remains: my five year old brother was allowed to watch a horror movie (that was probably rated R), a thought that most parents would shudder at. Now, here's where it gets interesting.
My mother sat down with my brother and watched it with him. Instead of throwing him into foreign territory, she slowly eased and guided him into the corn syrup-splattered, high-pitched scream filled corner of the entertainment industry. She paused the movie, and noted the special effects that were used. She made sure my brother was confident that everything he saw was fake. She answered a million questions that he had; about how the movie was filmed, how the special effects were implemented, how the script was written, etc.
As a result, my brother was not horrified. He was intrigued and comfortable. If anything in the movie had made him uncomfortable, he simply didn't watch it. By the age of five, he already knew how to navigate through material that might be unsettling (he knew that it was all fake, and could turn it off whenever he wished), understood the difference between fake violence and real violence, and had learned a bit about how the entertainment industry functioned. All in all, it was a good experience.
There is a difference between setting your five year old in front of a horror film, and then leaving them to deal with material they might not be prepared for all on their own, and letting your child electively watch a film they selected and watch it with your guidance and support. The entire time, the parent is there to answer questions, and the child won't expose themselves to anything they aren't ready to be exposed to. Children aren't naturally drawn to the elicit. They don't want to watch things that are upsetting, or that make them uncomfortable. But banning something-the act of making something seductively elicit-piques their interest. Children and teens will often put themselves in situations they aren't prepared for, simply because the situation is forbidden. The siren's call of the banned is one few children can resist. As a result, they expose themselves to things they aren't ready for.
I'm sixteen now. Every day, I am bombarded with modern media. From billboards advertising naked women (the objectification of women in modern media is a whole different blog post), to magazines, commercials, movies, television shows, pop-up ads, and music, I see (and hear) lots of different things. I am not drawn to forbidden things because nothing is forbidden. As a child, my mother would help me find my internal compass and guide me from things I wasn't prepared for. Now I know where my internal compass is, and can do it myself. Dirty pop-up ad? I can click out of it. I have the tools I need in order to navigate life all on my own (which is the ultimate goal of parents).
There is a difference between forcing, or voluntarily exposing your child to something they aren't emotionally or mentally prepared for. But eventually, your child will find something that intrigues them. With unschooling, the parents' job is to support and guide their children until the child is old enough to do it themselves. They aren't limited-no child will want to see something that makes them uncomfortable or upset. This trust in your child (and yourself), leads the child to trust you and themselves. They can trust themselves; they don't need rules to regulate them because they can regulate themselves.
Trusting your child is very difficult in a world that insists you shouldn't. Trusting doesn't mean throwing them to the wolves. It means guiding them and giving them the tools they need to regulate themselves.

Thanks for reading! :) Here is a link to an article I wrote in Life Learning about children's freedom. It is located on page seven.
http://www.lifelearningmagazine.com/1408/LifeLearningJulyAug14.pdf?utm_source=GraphicMail&utm_medium=email&utm_term=NewsletterLink&utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_content=

Every Child is Matilda; The Hidden Creative Genius of Children

   Whenever I was a child, I read a book called Matilda by Roald Dahl. It chronicles the educational (and telekinetic, but that's a whole different post) adventure of Matilda Wormwood. Matilda loves to read. She constantly goes to her local library, often coming home with piles of books. She spends days reading. She yearns to go to school, where she encounters a lovely teacher named Ms. Honey, who nurtures Matilda's love of learning and eventually adopts her from her neglectful, what's-the-point-in-reading parents.
A key point of the novel is Matilda's upbringing. She has no support from her family. Her parents "don't believe" in reading, and have no interest in their child's education. Matilda is on her own, and learns at her own pace; a rapid, precocious pace. She has no support, no school, no guidance, no introduction...She just learns.
Now here's a secret: Every child is, at one point, Matilda. Learning for Matilda (and for every other child) is a natural, exciting process. How many four year olds ask incessant questions?
"Why is the sky blue?"
"Where do trees come from?"
"Why do people speak different languages then us?"
And a thousand more. These children (who have never been to school) are learning constantly. They have a biological drive to learn about the world. Every child loves to learn.
With Matilda, the evidence that she is learning is obvious. She's reading; one of the most obviously educational activities on the planet. She loves books; another obvious, of-course-she's-learning-from-that item. And all children are interested in something. It doesn't have to be something so glaringly educational; it could be bugs, or vehicles, or plants, or animals, or water, or building things. There are a million things that interest children, and all children love to learn (and each have a personal, specific way that they like to learn).
But then they go to school. Suddenly, they go from a free, natural, personalized environment where they learn about their interests (whatever they may be) to a highly regimented, mandatory schedule. You learn Subject X at this time, and then move on to Subject Y (whether you want to or not), and during this entire time you might be interested in Subject Z. They have to learn in a very specific way which might not work for them at all (or if it does work, it might not be the best, most effective, preferred way to learn), and they are only allowed to learn about the worksheet of the day.
Not every child loses their love of learning, of course. Some children can thrive (or survive) in such a regimented, mandatory environment. Some progress (miraculously) at the same pace as the worksheets, while others are behind or ahead. But, unfortunately, it's not often the case.
Matilda had no support. Her parents were neglectful, yet her love of learning still persisted. Now, imagine if Matilda and Ms. Honey had been together from Day One. Ms. Honey nurtured, guided, cared for, and exposed Matilda to new ideas; and made sure she was happy and healthy the entire time. Imagine how much Matilda would have flourished then.
Every child loves to learn; every child is Matilda before they go to school. A few manage to keep their Matilda-ness as they progress through the system. But many don't, and very few flourish.
Imagine what the world would be like if it was full of Matildas. And imagine how much more incredible it would be if every child had a Ms. Honey at their side. 

The Problems of Public School, from an Unschooled perspective

Do you have children? Two or more? How similar are they? Do they have the same interests, preferences, likes, dislikes, etc.? Does one method work for both? Or, are they two completely different people, who function best under different conditions then the other(s)?
Traditional schooling (and parenting) will tell you that all children are basic, and can be sustained (and thrive) under equal conditions. In my view, giving each child the same education is not the same as giving each child an equal education.
For example, imagine giving a history textbook to twenty students, and telling them to remember all the dates and events of the Civil War, and they're not allowed to use any other resources. They struggle to remember all the dates, names, events, etc. They force themselves to remember the information. They regurgitate it for the test, and most of them do okay, and the ones that didn't regurgitate it properly failed the test. They move on to the next subject. They don't get a chance to review, or use other resources to learn it, because they have to move on to stay on pace with the testing. The ones that did well on the test have no connection to names, dates, etc. and quickly forget the material. Imagine a chalkboard filled with information being erased (to make room for new information), with only traces of the previous information remaining. Some of the twenty children learned from the sole textbook, the others struggled, and some failed.
So, this leads me to problem #1:
1. The concept of 'forced learning' 
 If you force a child to 'learn' something, where they  have no emotional connection or desire to learn it, they won't learn. They'll remember it for a time, but aren't interested in it after the test. This also makes them have a negative association with all learning. If you had been forced to read all day, why would you want to read at home? Reading, etc isn't fun anymore. If a child truly is interested in something, and wants to learn it, they retain the information because it's something that intrigues them and they enjoy it.
Now, imagine asking twenty unschoolers to learn about the Civil War. Five decide to watch a documentary about it, and the visual imagery and emotional connection helps them remember the events. Another five decide to read various history books from the library, and compare the viewpoints of Confederate and Union soldiers. The next five read historical fiction, and quickly get a feel for the emotional and financial strain of the war. The last five go online and compile various resources in order to learn from.  All of them remember the material; because they are all motivated to learn the material. A mind that wants to learn a subject will retain the information much more frequently than a mind that only wants to regurgitate it for a test. Which leads into problem #2:
2. Not utilizing resources
In a biology class, children learn out of one textbook. Occasionally experiments are brought in, but beyond that the children are isolated from other resources. Websites that have interactive games, science experiments, video tutorials, 3D demonstrations online, books from the library, and a million other resources are not fully utilized. Perhaps a child can utilize them at home (if they have the time, or interest) but why would they want to after being forced to study it out of a textbook all day?
3. The assumption that all children learn the same way
Every child is different. Every child learns and grows in a different way. If one learning technique works for one student, it may not work for the other, and if it does work it may not be the ideal or preferred way for the child to learn. If the child had a learning disability, or any other issue that could be impeding the progress of their education, the school can't help them or give them the attention that they need. With thirty children per teacher, how can anyone get the attention they need and deserve?
4. Student interests
If you are intrigued by a subject, you can learn about it for 55 minutes. After that, you shut your textbook and go onto the next subject. You can't stop thinking about the first, and your interest is piqued. You can't take more time to learn about that subject, because you are scheduled to go on to Subject B at the appointed time. With unchooling, you can take as much time as you want to learn about your interests (which goes back to point A). What if you're interested in something else? Art, music, theater, dance, or any elective not offered in school? You are then limited to whatever school says you should learn, and then your passions will fade.
5. Exposing new ideas, and segregation
In public school, from the very first moment you arrive, you are segregated. By age, area where you live, and sometimes by gender. You are exposed to a very limited set of ideas, because you aren't exposed to people of different ages, from different areas, or different backgrounds. How can you learn new things from people that are only your age, and have only experienced a limited number of things? 
6. Social pressures 
We hear about bullying all the time. Children are ostracized by their peers for the slightest differences. Perhaps even worse, many children lose their identity as they try desperately to fit in. Unschoolers and homeschoolers have to deal with conflict, and people that don't approve of them; but we aren't forced to stay with them for eight hours a day for years. We solve our conflicts and move on, and aren't stuck in a conditioned Hell for twelve years. Classes that differentiate students based on age and special needs only exacerbate these tensions.
7. Testing, testing, testing!
Standardized tests are the dominant culture of public education. Everything is measured and compared, and students are taught that test scores are the determinant of success.  Everything is focused on testing. Good test scores = more funding for schools. Desperate for funding, schools are forced to push their students to their breaking points in efforts to get the money they need. Bad test scores = less money = less resources = more bad test scores. It's an inescapable system, and the children suffer for it. One of my homeschooled friends recently decided to try public school (she went back to homeschooling after a month) and was in a Biology class. Her teacher made the students skip entire chapters of the textbook because they weren't being tested on it, and they needed to focus on the areas that were going to be tested. As if their resources weren't limited enough, they are now barred from using portions of that resource. While some testing is important, and can be a fantastic diagnostic tool, it is currently burdening children to value a grade more than their understanding of a subject. Schools should not be focusing on testing; they should be focusing on learning and engagement.
8. 30-1, or 1-1?
  You have 60 minutes to learn a subject, and have 29 other people that require your teacher's attention. If you divide it up completely, if every child gets time with the teacher (let's assume he/she is not presenting materials at all, or trying to subdue disruptive students), each child gets two minutes with the teacher. Two minutes to ask questions about the material, and get all the attention and help that they need to master a lesson. It's inconceivable that anyone can thrive in this situation.

Not all public schools are the same, and not all children are disadvantaged by it. Some students manage to retain their love of learning, and manage to work within the system. Teachers are not the ones to blame here. They are forced to work in a system that ties their hands.  It's a system that trickles down pressure, and can't function as it should. Education is not a mechanical system; it's a human system. It needs to engage human beings, not standardize everything to the point where creativity is stifled and learning becomes a second priority to grades.
Thanks for reading! :)

Defining yourself

How do you define yourself? Do you define yourself by what you were called as a kid? If you asked a twelve year old in public school to define himself, you might run into some speed bumps. People call him a nerd, a spaz, a freak. Is that who he is, or what people say he is? Is he actually evaluating who he is, or what he's supposed to be as dictated by school, peers, trends, and society? Does he define himself by the American Apparel t-shirt his friends insist make him look cool, or the hairstyle his friends say is gay? How can anyone define themselves whenever they are lost in a sea of social standards?
That's a lot of questions. What would you write down if you were twelve again? Public school forces you to define yourself only by what other people reflect back at you. It insists that you blindingly follow orders, sit in a chair behind a desk eight hours a day for twelve years, and the social pressure can confine you into a mold you have no interest in being in. How can you find out who you are if you're never given the opportunity?
Unschooling changes the entire dynamic. Imagine if you were free to explore not only the real world every day, but yourself. You find out what you like, dislike, are passionate about, and ultimately, who you are. I wrote down who I was on a piece of paper (shown above). Thanks to unschooling, I know who I am, and don't believe in being what people tell me I'm supposed to be.
Thanks for reading! :)