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! :)

"That weird teenager with a tattoo" or, Letting go of the fear

I'm radically unschooled, and a component of this lifestyle is letting your children make educated, informed decisions about their bodies. Unschooling is implemented differently in every family, so there is no "right way" to do it, but this is my family's way.
About three weeks ago, my mother let me get a tattoo. I'm only fifteen, so she had to sign the consent form. The tattoo artist was astonished that my mother let me make such a big decision about my body. Here's some of the preparation I did for my tattoo:

• I found all the available places to get a tattoo, and picked the one that seemed the best and ensured that it was a clean place to get a tattoo. 
• I thought about my tattoo for a very long time, and did not rush into the decision.
• My mother was with me the whole time, and supported my decision. 
• I placed it on my inner foot because it's an area easily concealable for job interviews, etc. and relatively impervious to change from growth or other things.
• I picked an inscription from "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" by T. S. Eliot.

So why do parents fear letting their children make decisions about their bodies?  Many parents who restrict their children watch as they break rules without thinking of the consequences (whether arbitrary ones set by parents, or real-life consequences). Sometimes they do this to be rebellious. With unschooling, we circumvent that because there is nothing to rebel from. We're free to live our lives (with our parents' guidance/assistance) and make educated, informed decisions. Parents don't do this, because they fear their children will make a bad decision. But yet, the unschoolers I see haven't. They assume their children aren't prepared to make decisions as permanent as a tattoo, and maybe they're right. One of the main points of unschooling is preparing your child to live their lives and make informed decisions. My parents prepared me to make good decisions about my body, so I do. If you constantly limit your children, and don't help educate them on the consequences, they never learn it.
How many people drink and party whenever they go off to college? Do they do this because they have a burning desire to get drunk and hung over? I believe they do it because they are experiencing freedom from limits and arbitrary punishments for the first time. Their parents aren't around to restrict them, and they aren't prepared mentally or emotionally to regulate themselves, so they do things that aren't logical. If a child is prepared to think things through logically, they realize it doesn't make any sense to drink, get sick, get hung over, and not study. The message to parents should be: Raise your children to think, not just obey. Let go of the fear that they'll do crazy things without thinking of the consequences. Trust yourself and your children.
Thanks for reading! :)

What is Unschooling?

Unschooling is a form of homeschooling that is based on the belief that children learn throughout life, not just in a classroom, and encourages the use of informal learning tools (books, documentaries, and everyday life)! It's the freest and most natural way to learn. Unschooling (or Radical Unschooling/Whole Life Unschooling) is different for every family. The gist of it is: the education is based off of what the child is interested in, no textbooks/curriculum, no forced learning, no pointless regurgitation of facts, just freedom to live and to learn while living! Many families incorporate unschooling into other aspects of their lives as well. They let their children make educated decisions about their bodies, what they eat, what they do, and how they live.

How many of you just shuddered? No schooling? No formal education? It sounds insane, and completely unnatural. But let's step back for a moment. How do children naturally learn? A child has a natural, inherent inclination to learn (unless there is a learning disability present). It's pre-programmed; it's part of the fabric of out DNA. We are constantly learning. How many four year olds incessantly ask questions? Their natural curiosity spurs them to try to find out about the world we live in. The parents provide answers (sometimes they know the answers, sometimes they learn them with the child) and the child learns something new. This would continue forever-if it wasn't for public education. Through forced learning, children begin to despise learning. If you were force-fed everyday, how would you feel about food? Before public education, children continued to learn outside of a classroom. They learned from books, games, events, experiments, and everyday life. Now, in a world with unlimited resources, you can learn anything! I learn from books, documentaries, experiments, games, the internet, classes, video tutorials, art projects, and the world!
Where did public education come from anyway? It emerged during the Industrial Revolution. The purpose was to educate in mass millions of people to be able to work machines in textile mills, etc. The goal was to give the same skill sets to millions of people, preparing them for a workforce that desperately needed more button-pushers. It prepared a workforce for a simple economy.
The problem is: it hasn't changed. It still functions under the same principle: teach every child the same thing, in the same way (never mind if it's actually working, or if it's the most effective way). Everything needs to be measured through testing, and whole areas of learning (art, music, theater, creative writing, sports teams, etc.) are usually not taught at all.
 How does unschooling redesign education? It lets children learn about everything; art, math, science, theater, cinematography, neurology, history, oceanography, etc. In essence, anything that can be learned you can learn. We meet people of all ages from all walks of life, and learn from them as well. You aren't limited to the subjects offered in school, and you aren't limited to the one textbook you're supposed to learn it from. You can learn about it from a million different resources. Children always want to learn. It's only whenever learning becomes forced that children make negative associations with it; and then begin to dislike it. The children are never forced to learn, because they always want to learn. It's child-led learning; the children learn about what they like. They're never turned off to any subject unnecessarily because they haven't been forced to 'learn' it. Unschoolers always want to learn because learning is fun and exciting! It allows the child to find out who they are, and what they love. They discover their passions, and learn about them.
What about whole life/radical unschooling? That takes it a step further. It lets children (once they are old enough) to make informed, educated decisions about other areas of their lives. They are usually granted permission to decide what they want to eat, how they dress, to make decisions about their bodies, all with the guidance of their parents. Unschooling doesn't mean unparenting. It means teaching your child to make responsible, informed decisions about their own lives. My parents guide me constantly, and help me if I need it. They don't let their child get hurt, but assist them through life. They teach them the ropes, and then let their child (once they're old enough to make educated decisions) guide their lives.
Public school forces you to stay inside a cement room for eight hours a day, only with people your own age (whenever you can learn so much more from being in the real world with people of all different ages and different backgrounds), from your own area. You are told what to learn, and given incredibly limited resources to learn it from. You are given hundreds of tests to measure how well you can regurgitate information. As if it wasn't bad enough, your peers constantly pressure you to look, behave, and think in the same way. The crippling social pressure can make you lose yourself. You're then told that what you may naturally be interested in (art, music, theater, certain sports, etc.) isn't offered, and besides it wouldn't be a lucrative career. It's best to forget it. After all of this, why would any child want to come home and learn? Which way seems unnatural now?

Let's address some other concerns:

• Socialization: How do you meet friends? I meet friends the same way people out of school do. I meet people at homeschooling cooperatives, sports teams, libraries, classes (if I choose to take them), and everyday life! I meet people that live from lots of different places that are all different ages, so I learn more from them than only local people that are my age. 
• What about college? How does unschooling prepare you for that? While it's difficult to pinpoint unschooling specifically in any statistics (it's usually put under the umbrella of homeschooling) it shows that homeschoolers who decide to go onto college have higher GPAs than public schooled students, and graduate at a higher percentage. I recently got accepted (at age fifteen) to a baccalaureate college with three scholarships. The college told me that my unique education had empowered me, and that it would make the transition to college life easier. This response isn't unique; many colleges are taking an interest is homeschoolers/unschoolers since our love of learning has been retained and we have learned out passions. 
• What about radical unschooling? Do the children just run wild? Unschooling doesn't mean unparenting. The parents have to constantly guide and help their children. They prepare them for life, not just following the orders of their parents. They keep them safe until they are old enough to make educated decisions, self-regulate, and keep themselves safe. The parents are ALWAYS available for help or assistance if needed, and ensures the child's safety. They don't let their child go into the street because they know they can get hit by a car. They wait until the child is old enough to look both ways, and understand the consequences and avoid them. The parents are constantly discussing life with the child, and preparing them for it.
• What if the children don't want to learn? There's no school to force them! Schooling and education are two different things. Schooling is forced regurgitation of facts, while education is genuinely learning. So, unschooling doesn't mean uneducating. Children always want to learn, it's only whenever children are forced to that they have negative associations with it. We retain that love of learning. Are we sometimes disheartened/disinterested? Sure. But there's always something cool around the corner to learn about. It's a free, natural way to learn. Would you rather have your child learn to paint by paint-by-number, or by using a white canvas and a paint brush?

I hope that successfully introduced you to unschooling. Thanks for reading! :)