Any Unschoolers here who ditched that method?

[IndianSummer]

I know you believe this, but there is much research that doesn't support what you're saying and a majority of neuroscientists and cognitive psychologists would disagree.

And just for examples sake. . .sometimes it does work that way. There is something known as a period of susceptibility of deprivation. There was a well know study in the 1960's where they had sewn shut one eye of kittens during a critical time in their development. What they learned is that the kittens even after the sutures were removed, were then blind in that eye. . .even though there was nothing really "wrong" with the eye. There is a huge body of research that proves that there are critical windows of development. You have to remember that children's brains are developing and there is brain plasticity. These things we know. I am much more comfortable relying on the hard science than on some unproven theory based on anecdotal stories.

Is there a specific study that proves this is true with reading? BecAuse lots of people have learned to read fluently beyond the 3-8 year old range. I'm not talking about locking kids in a closet and depriving them of stimulation, I'm just saying that some kids seem to need more time.

 

[disykat]

. I would argue that 'bolded' is in common use.

Couldn't one then also argue that copying something that is obviously from a different source but not citing it is common use?

 

[cornflake]

Is there a specific study that proves this is true with reading? BecAuse lots of people have learned to read fluently beyond the 3-8 year old range. I'm not talking about locking kids in a closet and depriving them of stimulation, I'm just saying that some kids seem to need more time.

Seriously? Do you have any idea how much research has been done in this area?

This is a very basic overview of a segment - fluency development.

To wit -

We have found that children who have early slowed naming speed problems (e.g., on Rapid Automatized Naming, Denckla & Rudel, 1976; and Rapid Alternating Stimulus tests, Wolf, 1986; Wolf & Denckla, in press) often go on to become children with later fluency and comprehension problems (Wolf & Bowers, 1999)....

efforts to address fluency must start at the beginning of the reading acquisition process, not after reading is already acquired

This is another simple overview, but more specific to what you were asking.

In the simplest terms, these studies ask: Do struggling readers catch up? The data from the studies are clear: Late bloomers are rare; skill deficits are almost always what prevent children from blooming as readers. This research may be counter-intuitive to elementary teachers who have seen late-bloomers in their own classes or heard about them from colleagues. But statistically speaking, such students are rare. (Actually, as we'll see, there is nearly a 90 percent chance that a poor reader in first grade will remain a poor reader.)...

But what about those last few years in high school? Did the struggling readers catch up? In the late 1990s, the study of Connecticut youth was extended to grade 12 (Shaywitz et al., 1999). On average, students who were behind in reading in elementary school never caught up to their peers.

From an entire book which addresses the subject -

In this research design, third-grade readers were compared to a less-skilled fifth grade group. The less skilled older children appeared similar to younger children on measures of vocabulary development, pseudo-word decoding, phonological processing, verbal fluency and picture naming tasks.

All of this is meant to demonstrate what the above poster was saying. There are developmental milestones for a reason. When a child cannot or does not meet them, it's not just a matter of catching up later.

Same as the few truly feral or so severely abused children as to have been removed from most all contact show - there are windows for things, for human brain development. There have been children who were not spoken to and thus not taught to speak or were not taught to read or etc. Years later, with psychologists and educational experts doing everything possible, they do not make up those deficits.

Yes, adults can learn to read. They, in general, do not gain a level of comprehension and fluency that one would need to succeed in school. Same as if you isolated a child and never spoke to him or her in any language or pseudo language until he or she was 10. That child likely won't really learn to speak fluently, because the window for that is gone. The brain sets up neuropathways most at a very specific time. Past that, you're fighting a very hard tide.

Same as if you speak to a baby and toddler in two languages consistantly, they'll be bilingual. If you start learning a second language in high school, how well does that stick? Mostly, not well. Many people who grew up in immigrant households, bilingual from birth, though they don't use their second language as an adult and though they attended English-only schools and had English-speaking friends, can still spout fluent whatever as adults. People who start studying a language as teens, even if they get good at it then, can lose it very, very quickly, if they don't use it, because the pathways that link it to language centers properly weren't set up when they should've been.

The 'some kids just take longer, it's fine, in their own time,' does a HUGE disservice to kids. It's not true, it's pablum for adults don't want to think their kid has a problem. If a kid cannot read by age 8 or 9? That's a problem. That's not 'most kids walk between 10-12 mos and he's 12 mos. and 4 days and only cruises'. That would not be a problem. Years past when a skill should have been mastered at the outside? That's a problem. That needs intervention immediately, because that kid has needed intervention for the past four or five years and not gotten it - as demonstrated in the above articles.

As for the Fraser study, I didn't look at it and thus don't know. There could be many explanations from sampling to the kind of thing that generates those homeschooled creepy spelling bee winners - they spend all their time on that. Could also be that motived, uneducated parents can do well, dunno.

The schoolteacher who changes grades isn't "brushing up" from zero. They're educated in the areas they teach, they're educated in pedagogy, they're educated in development. That's not analagous to a parent who got out of high school 20 years ago, remembers very little history, didn't do well on it to begin with, trying to 'brush up' on a subject like history or algebra that's much more than the sum of its parts. You need to really understand history to teach history - have a comprehensive overview of many different areas to know how things in one area at one time interconnect. Memorizing dates is nothing. Same as you can memorize the formula for area vs. perimeter but if you don't actually understand... it's useless, because you'd lack the ability to build on things or use them when there's no indication of what to do.

Parents should be held to the same standard. We've got ways to test and measure the performance of and monitor and retrain, correct or dismiss teachers who do not live up to standards. Why shouldn't the same apply to parents?

 

[cornflake]

Couldn't one then also argue that copying something that is obviously from a different source but not citing it is common use?

No.

 

[hambirg]

Is there a specific study that proves this is true with reading? BecAuse lots of people have learned to read fluently beyond the 3-8 year old range. I'm not talking about locking kids in a closet and depriving them of stimulation, I'm just saying that some kids seem to need more time.

No, any such study like that would be highly unethical.

The general consensus however is 8. . .with 10 being seen as the point of no return.

I'm not saying they can't learn to read after that. . .but the brain metabolism of a 10yr old has been shown to be the same as an adult's. . .it would take as much intervention to teach a 10yr old to read as it would an illiterate adult. Why do that? Why not teach the child to read when the brain is primed and ready to make those neurological connections?

The part that would scare me as a parent is what if your child has a learning disability. Now what? You have frittered away the prime intervention years. Just relying on the fact that the child is uninterested, as is the case the OP is talking about, is not a good sign at this point. People tend to be not interested in things they are not good at. People who are not athletic are usually not interested in playing sports, etc. I am not comfortable with the nonchalant, wait and see, philosophy.

It's not always a case of needing more time. And we also know that there is not unlimited time when it comes to critical brain development. There ARE windows of opportunity where the learning is natural and much easier for the learner.

ETA_Yeah, what cornflake said.

 

[IndianSummer]

Another thing that plays a role in the development of little brains is stress. I wonder how many of those challenged readers from K-12 are stressed because of their poor performance and parental and teacher pressure and that perpetuates the results. In an unschooled environment, the idea is that without the pressure a kid approaches learning from a place of curiosity and interest.

A kid living with a high enough degree of stress is not capable, in that state, of functioning in the same way as a relaxed kid.

I've heard many a story of schooled kids (late bloomers, teens, even)that were expected to never be able to read and write fluently who became excellent writers and/or avid, advanced readers with a brief period of deschooling. Get the stress and pressure out and all of a sudden kids become much more capable of learning and creativity.

Anecdotal maybe, but when you hear, almost weekly, about another kid who has experienced this same thing, something real is happening.

I say, redo these studies, controlling for stress and see what those results show. Okay, that would not be practical, but I really think stress and pressure play a huge factor in kids who don't perform well in school. How could it not? Not to mention the loss of confidence from being judged harshly by teachers, students, anxious parents etc. This is not an ideal learning environment for struggling students.

Another thing that noone mentioned (at least, that I saw) was that these unschooled kids are not living in a lit-free bubble. They go to the library, are read to, I'm assuming use computers, and if they're like most kids, are around texting, messaging, email etc. If they've watched many of the popular kids shows growing up, they likely have solidified some literacy skills. I doubt they just. can't. read. at. all. in the kind of environment the mom is providing. Nobody would be that unobservant unless there were something much more problematic going on, that mom, would have picked up on by now. Again, she shows no sign of being neglectful in any other way, according to her friend. Being read to regularly is a factor that contributes to literacy later on. 200 years ago, everyone trusted this process, kids did learn to read later and it worked. The literacy rate is much lower today than it was before public schools systems were mandatory around 1850, according to John Taylor Gatto's The Underground History of American Education.

 

[hambirg]

Another thing that plays a role in the development of little brains is stress. I wonder how many of those challenged readers from K-12 are stressed because of their poor performance and parental and teacher pressure and that perpetuates the results. In an unschooled environment, the idea is that without the pressure a kid approaches learning from a place of curiosity and interest.

A kid living with a high enough degree of stress is not capable, in that state, of functioning in the same way as a relaxed kid.

I've heard many a story of schooled kids (late bloomers)that were expected to never be able to read and write fluently who became excellent writers and/or avid, advanced readers with a brief period of deschooling. Get the stress and pressure out and all of a sudden kids become much more capable of learning and creativity.

Anecdotal maybe, but when you hear, almost weekly, about another kid who has experienced this same thing, something real is happening.

I say, redo these studies, controlling for stress and see what those results show.

Again, that's a bit of a fallacy. There is plenty of research that shows the effects of stress on learning. It's a double edged sword. It can have some negative effects, but there are also positive effects due to the increased attention and memory function that the release of corticosteroids have on the brain.

Think of something stressful. . .9/11 perhaps. I bet you can remember the details of that day, but you can't remember what you had for dinner 2 weeks ago last Thursday.

Here's just a sample of what is out there research wise. . .

We show that chronic stress enhanced learning in animals performing the hippocampal-dependent task, whereas no stress-induced effect was found in the hippocampal-independent task. Additionally, after five weeks of stress, cell proliferation was reduced in the hippocampal dentate gyrus. These results indicate that specific memory processes not only may remain intact, but indeed are facilitated by chronic stress, despite elevated cortisol levels and suppressed hippocampal cell proliferation.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2002.02043.x/full

 

[IndianSummer]

Again, that's a bit of a fallacy. There is plenty of research that shows the effects of stress on learning. It's a double edged sword. It can have some negative effects, but there are also positive effects due to the increased attention and memory function that the release of corticosteroids have on the brain.

Think of something stressful. . .9/11 perhaps. I bet you can remember the details of that day, but you can't remember what you had for dinner 2 weeks ago last Thursday.

Here's just a sample of what is out there research wise. . .

We show that chronic stress enhanced learning in animals performing the hippocampal-dependent task, whereas no stress-induced effect was found in the hippocampal-independent task. Additionally, after five weeks of stress, cell proliferation was reduced in the hippocampal dentate gyrus. These results indicate that specific memory processes not only may remain intact, but indeed are facilitated by chronic stress, despite elevated cortisol levels and suppressed hippocampal cell proliferation.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1460-9568.2002.02043.x/full

And here's an article that states that while mild anxiety can facilitate learning, chronic and or extreme stress hinders it.
http://dr-c.hubpages.com/hub/Developing-a-behavior-management-system-for-kids

Lots of school kids have chronic and/or extreme stress.

 

[Disneyadore]

The homeschooling or unschooling is a blessing for those that want asylum in the US.

Just tell them the country you live in does not give you the right to educate your children the way you like and the Green Card is in the pocket.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I am much more comfortable relyingscience than on some unproven theory based on anecdotal stories.

Fascinating...and I am sure when it comes to education, Cornflake would agree with you. But I have a difficult time when folks such as he place such credence on the expertise and education of teachers to call homeschooling unsafe while he sat and complained about the ridiculousness of what occurred in NYC for Hurricane Irene.

On one hand, Anecdotes were enough to determine scientists were wrong and things would be safe. On the other hand, when it comes to children, facts regarding homeschooling are without merit and only experts should be trusted to teach children.

Science seems to be an area of flexibility for him.

Folks won't trust anecdotes to support someone elae's opinion but are fine accepting anecdotes to dispute the opinions of others.

I simply don't get that.

Evidently--my uilization of videos is a disservice and dangerous for my children. Who knew? I wonder how they perform well on their standardized tests then. And what about kids enrolled in state sponsored online school. The states thought it was a good idea.

Science does support homeschooling. Teachers take coursework to learn how to deal with a classroom of kids. I have been an expert on my kids since they were born. When I detect a weakness that is beyond my skill, we consult experts to address the issue.

I am concerned mom in the Op does not do that. But I am not interested in an anecdote of poor performance restricting my right to homeschool anymore than I would use Columbine as an example of a daily activity at schools across the country.

 

[Pixiedust34]

In Maryland--they have no mandate on curriculum (i.e. child must take math, science, English, etc...) except for PE. I found that silly. They also have an overwhelming opinion that the kids should be registered with umbrella schools. I have educated my kids fine for the past 6 years. Up until this past year, I have had a certified teacher assess their progress. They do fine. It is my choice, I don't need it to be a mandate. It makes the process much more stressful than it needs to be. We didn't move to that state as a result, but we had a choice between the two states due to my husband's options with the same company and I wanted VA as it was much more homeschooler friendly while still having some oversight.

.

In Maryland, the counties I am familiar with require language arts, math, history, science, art, music, health and PE for grades K-8. For high school, the requirements of hs'ers mirror those requirements of students in public school.

Homeschoolers have a choice of being reviewed by the county's department of education, an umbrella group, or the Calvert School IF you are enrolled at The Calvert School as a homeschooler. You must have a portfolio of your progress throughout the year.

Umbrella groups vary greatly in fees, review systems, and standards though most (if not all--I'm not familiar with every umbrella group in the state) require all of the same subjects that the county requires and some add religious studies as a requirement.

 

[Colleen27]

We disagree. I think there are rare situations in which this can work. Otherwise, frankly, yes I think it's generally ... let's go with 'not beneficial' for people who are often less-than-well-educated themselves to attempt to educate their children in every discipline. Often they do this without having studied child development, any pedagogy, etc., and they often end up relying on DVDs and random programs to 'teach' their kids. I'm speaking about homeschooling in general, not particular posters on the Dis - for all some posters here may say they themselves are educated and etc., in homeschooling in general, this is very often not the case. I've been on other forums with many members very involved in and supportive of homeschooling and their grammar alone would make most people slap regulations on homeschooling in their states.

Past the inadequacy of the teachers, I think the lack of other students is a huge issue. I'm a fan of the socratic method. I don't believe you can learn as much from reading books about a subject as you can from attending a class centered around the subject, involving the books, that incorporates other people as well as instructors to challenge, expand and enrich your interpretations and understanding of the material.

You want to believe it's just as good to have someone who doesn't even hold a college diploma and does not understand algebra his or herself overseeing the math education of their child based on a book or DVD set, that's fine. You want to feel it's just as good to learn American history based on that same type of system, as opposed to a comprehensive course taught by a teacher degreed in the field and educated in pedagogy who designs and tailors lesson plans to the students, who can have classroom discussions and debates about the material? Do whatever you want.

I don't, as bolded above, believe you should be able to, but you can. I think if someone wants to homeschool there should be rigorous oversight and testing to be sure the student is receiving and absorbing what they should.

It is not that my logic is flawed, it's that you don't agree with me. Again,

I think there are several flaws in your logic. First is the way you equate credentials to knowledge; it is possible (and even common, in a nation where a degree is viewed primarily as job training and costs many times an average worker's salary) to be educated without possessing a degree. And the level of information expected to be taught in K-12 education is basic stuff, not in-depth understanding of most subjects. Shockingly, parents do just fine raising their own children without child development training. It shouldn't come as any surprise that they can also educate them without pedagogy training.

Second is your assumption that homeschooling families are islands unto themselves, never utilizing outside services or participating in group learning opportunities. For many (most that I've known) that couldn't be further from the truth - homeschooling isn't Mom sitting at the table teaching from a boxed curriculum, it is a variety of individual and group learning situations that evolves based on the age of the child and the material being studied.

And finally, you constantly compare homeschooling with an idealized version of the public school experience that may be reality in some places but certainly isn't the standard. The Socratic method and individualized, challenging education are far more available to homeschoolers meeting in a literature discussion group or a science class at a nature center than in any public school classroom my kids have been in. Classroom education in the "accountability" era is taught to the middle with special support for the bottom but little energy expended on challenging and engaging strong students.

 

[ajk912]

Seriously? Do you have any idea how much research has been done in this area?

This is a very basic overview of a segment - fluency development.

To wit -



This is another simple overview, but more specific to what you were asking.



From an entire book which addresses the subject -



All of this is meant to demonstrate what the above poster was saying. There are developmental milestones for a reason. When a child cannot or does not meet them, it's not just a matter of catching up later.

Same as the few truly feral or so severely abused children as to have been removed from most all contact show - there are windows for things, for human brain development. There have been children who were not spoken to and thus not taught to speak or were not taught to read or etc. Years later, with psychologists and educational experts doing everything possible, they do not make up those deficits.

Yes, adults can learn to read. They, in general, do not gain a level of comprehension and fluency that one would need to succeed in school. Same as if you isolated a child and never spoke to him or her in any language or pseudo language until he or she was 10. That child likely won't really learn to speak fluently, because the window for that is gone. The brain sets up neuropathways most at a very specific time. Past that, you're fighting a very hard tide.

Same as if you speak to a baby and toddler in two languages consistantly, they'll be bilingual. If you start learning a second language in high school, how well does that stick? Mostly, not well. Many people who grew up in immigrant households, bilingual from birth, though they don't use their second language as an adult and though they attended English-only schools and had English-speaking friends, can still spout fluent whatever as adults. People who start studying a language as teens, even if they get good at it then, can lose it very, very quickly, if they don't use it, because the pathways that link it to language centers properly weren't set up when they should've been.

The 'some kids just take longer, it's fine, in their own time,' does a HUGE disservice to kids. It's not true, it's pablum for adults don't want to think their kid has a problem. If a kid cannot read by age 8 or 9? That's a problem. That's not 'most kids walk between 10-12 mos and he's 12 mos. and 4 days and only cruises'. That would not be a problem. Years past when a skill should have been mastered at the outside? That's a problem. That needs intervention immediately, because that kid has needed intervention for the past four or five years and not gotten it - as demonstrated in the above articles.

As for the Fraser study, I didn't look at it and thus don't know. There could be many explanations from sampling to the kind of thing that generates those homeschooled creepy spelling bee winners - they spend all their time on that. Could also be that motived, uneducated parents can do well, dunno.

The schoolteacher who changes grades isn't "brushing up" from zero. They're educated in the areas they teach, they're educated in pedagogy, they're educated in development. That's not analagous to a parent who got out of high school 20 years ago, remembers very little history, didn't do well on it to begin with, trying to 'brush up' on a subject like history or algebra that's much more than the sum of its parts. You need to really understand history to teach history - have a comprehensive overview of many different areas to know how things in one area at one time interconnect. Memorizing dates is nothing. Same as you can memorize the formula for area vs. perimeter but if you don't actually understand... it's useless, because you'd lack the ability to build on things or use them when there's no indication of what to do.

Parents should be held to the same standard. We've got ways to test and measure the performance of and monitor and retrain, correct or dismiss teachers who do not live up to standards. Why shouldn't the same apply to parents?

Thank you for taking the time to post this, I learned on a lot from this post (and many others on this thread by other posters, as well).

 

[luvsJack]

IMHO, there are good homeschool parents/students and probably good unschooled parents/students and then there are those that are not learning anything.

Someone made the comment that "all kids want to learn". No they don't. There are kids that are totally unmotivated to learn anything at all.

Dd has two former friends that were homeschooled. They have learned NOTHING.

The younger child was pulled from ps at the end of 4th grade. When she wanted to go back when her class reached 7th grade, she had to take a placement test. She tested only high enough to go into 5th grade. She had gained 0 ground. The older child went back to ps in hs, they gave no test. She is on the verge of dropping out. sad situation.

I have also known many kids who were homeschooled and were far above their age group academically.

It can go either way. And I don't understand why anyone that is actually making sure their child is learning would care if the state mandated some kind of testing.

 

[Colleen27]

Parents should be held to the same standard. We've got ways to test and measure the performance of and monitor and retrain, correct or dismiss teachers who do not live up to standards. Why shouldn't the same apply to parents?

Because parents have more rights to make decisions for their own children. There is strict oversight of foster parents too, but I don't think any of us would be happy about the idea that we should be subject to home visits and other comparable requirements to ensure we're properly caring for our own children.

Homeschoolers aren't doing a job for the government the way teachers are - teachers must be held accountable not out of any moral imperative but because an employer always has a vested interest in the performance of employees. And while a bad homeschooler can only fail his/her own children, a bad teacher can fail hundreds of children over the course of a career.

 

[kellyg403]

I think, ultimately, in the end the hard science regarding brain maturity, progression, or window of opportunity as another posted, is right on target. While I don't know much about 'unschooling' I think that there can be good and bad ways to school your children no matter which path you take.

I have a family member, due to religious beliefs, did homeschooling. She was a poor student herself, identified with a few learning disabilities. She has worked hard to overcome them, but homeschooling was probably out of her league. She did the DVD route with little reinforcement. Her children at the age of 16 and 17 went into mainstream high school and did VERY WELL. The reality? They learned early on how to direct and focus themselves on their school work. Their 'teacher' was not as qualified as I would have liked on the outside looking in. However, the one area they did not do well in was constructive critiscm and critiquing by teachers. It caused several instances where parent had to go to school and work out discipline problems. One of the students, while able to get excellent grades almost quit school because he did not like the critiquing of his work. So, I am not sure that personality does not play a large role in that area. I could see that this could be an issue with childre who are 'unschooled'. How do they accept constructive advice? How do they negotiate and learn sometimes its not at their time table but possibly anothers?

I have issues with NCLB and testing, but I have never felt I was up to the task of homeschooling my children on various levels. Unschooling seems to have little structure and life revolves around little Johnny when he is ready, not when he needs to be ready and committed.

I will admit to knowing very little about it, or homeschooling in general. It was never an area I was willing to venture. So please don't take it as a knock against those who do it and excel. But I would be interested to know how letting a child decide when and how they are able to fit in a society where everything in business is about constructive advice, team work etc. How are they able to be flexible enough to do that if everything is done on their timetable from early childhood? I direct that question to 'free range' or 'Unschool' as opposed to homeschooling. I believe for the most part, homeschooling mirrors ps in a lot of ways especially in that area.

Thanks,
Kelly

 

[Colleen27]

It can go either way. And I don't understand why anyone that is actually making sure their child is learning would care if the state mandated some kind of testing.

That's been answered several times with some very concrete examples - because testing means being tied to the public school curriculum, which undermines the benefit of homeschooling. It means setting aside the chronological history curriculum that you chose because the state dictates state history has to be learned in 4th grade and American history in 5th, starting division in 4th grade when your curriculum calls for a complete mastery of multiplication that year before moving onto division the next, etc.

I'm curious, do those of you who support testing homeschoolers also object to the fact that private schools are exempt from state testing requirements?

 

[Magic Mom]

IMHO, there are good homeschool parents/students and probably good unschooled parents/students and then there are those that are not learning anything.

Someone made the comment that "all kids want to learn". No they don't. There are kids that are totally unmotivated to learn anything at all.
Dd has two former friends that were homeschooled. They have learned NOTHING.

The younger child was pulled from ps at the end of 4th grade. When she wanted to go back when her class reached 7th grade, she had to take a placement test. She tested only high enough to go into 5th grade. She had gained 0 ground. The older child went back to ps in hs, they gave no test. She is on the verge of dropping out. sad situation.

I have also known many kids who were homeschooled and were far above their age group academically.

It can go either way. And I don't understand why anyone that is actually making sure their child is learning would care if the state mandated some kind of testing.

And there are a lot of kids (even very bright kids) who will avoid subjects that are difficult for them. How do unschoolers deal with that? Just wait and hope Sally will someday like math enough to learn how to take the square root of negative fractions? Or will slicing up a pie check the box for fractions?

 

[kellyg403]

And there are a lot of kids (even very bright kids) who will avoid subjects that are difficult for them. How do unschoolers deal with that? Just wait and hope Sally will someday like math enough to learn how to take the square root of negative fractions? Or will slicing up a pie check the box for fractions?

I also wonder this. I was an above average student, not mensa by any stretch. Math was one of the more difficult subjects for me, I had zero interest in it. Being a PS student though, I HAD to take a certain amount of credits to graduate. So, if a 'unschooled' child decides math or English is not something they are interested in do they never actually learn it in the conventional sense? Or is it more they know 1 + 1 = 2 therefore the rest will come eventually?

This is a very intersting discussion btw, regardless of the opposing views. Both sides make very good arguments.


Kelly

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

And there are a lot of kids (even very bright kids) who will avoid subjects that are difficult for them. How do unschoolers deal with that? Just wait and hope Sally will someday like math enough to learn how to take the square root of negative fractions? Or will slicing up a pie check the box for fractions?

When I looked into Montessori years ago, I had the same questions but never fully understood how the child could be prepared. The best answer I heard was from a Montessori parent who stated that Montessoir works best when you keep your child in it over several years. Eventually they do master what they need. (Still not sure on the "how" in a child directed learning environment.)

That being said, I think unschooling works a smidge along the same child directed philosophy. The child decides. But you don't see folks up in arms calling for the ban of Montessori schools.

It isn't everyone's cup of tea. But it doesn't automatically exclude it as a possibility either.

I have known families who have used cooking to teach adding/subtraction/multiplying/dividing/fractions They are not so difficult to teach or learn in a creative way.