A fascinating viewpoint on "unschooling" in the Canadian system can be found in today's The Tyee. The article opens with a thick layer of anti-public-school attitude from the mother of a little genius:
Bashu Naimi-Roy is a smart kid...At age 12, Bashu was the youngest student ever to enroll at Malaspina University-College. He's 13 now and still studying there..."...His mother has never been afraid to think, and act, outside of society's imposed norms. None of her three sons were enrolled in elementary or high school, being educated instead by Roy and her husband. "I believe in education," she says, "I don't believe in schooling"...
Roy and her sons are part of a growing community of what they call "unschoolers": parents and students who feel that the pedantic structures of the public school system are stifling kids by starving them of creativity and passion.
Unschooling, also known as "independent learning" or "experience-based learning," differs from conventional homeschooling, where a student will generally follow a set curriculum, which is often based directly on the public school system's program. Instead, unschooling students are encouraged to find the path that works best for them, and empowers them to choose their own intellectual destinies...
Public school students "are told when to be creative, and when to be excited about something," Roy says. "[Teachers] say, 'Now you have to be excited about the ABCs,' and an hour later, 'now you have to be excited about the color red.' What happens if the kid's not? Or what if at nine o'clock she is excited about the color red, and not what the teacher wants her to be? It's always their agenda, and that kills the creativity. The message the kids get is 'your creativity isn't as important as our schedule.'"
Roy says that creativity, above almost all else, is vital to our growth as humans.
Whew! What parents like Roy never seem to notice is that very few kids would actually do well in such an unstructured environment. Do hers? Great! - then give her the option to homeschool, or open a charter school, or spend her vouchers on alternative schools. But I always find myself scratching my head when critics of the public school system say the problem is that the system is too tough, that the environment is too regimented, that the problem is that students shouldn't be expected to be able to learn on anyone's schedules except their own.
Based on what I've heard, the problem is students who don't seem willing to learn at all, who don't have any rules at home and don't expect any at school, who are unfamiliar with the concept of valueing education, or whose parents don't really give a damn (or expect everyone to dance to the child's wishes). Those types of kids aren't going to make it in the real world unless someone helps them focus their intellect and understand that you can't always do what you what when you want.
The wonders of unstructured learning are all well and good for the Bashus of the world - assuming he does at some point learn that other people's agendas matter as well - but for those kids who aren't like that, it's easy to see that what works best is a system which encourages creativity while stifling the undisciplined behavior and thought processes that are problematic in the real world.
Be sure to read all the comments, too.
Update: In the comments, Liz notes:
Yes, it would be nice if I was always excited about exercise, but the discipline (desire for extrinsic reward and to avoid extrinsic punishment) carries me through on those mornings that I'm just not at all intrinsically interested in exercise! Either way, I'm exercising, which gives me more of a chance to learn to love exercise than if I sit around trying to find the motivation first!
That's a very good point. The idea that creativity is stifled when children learn on an external agenda is making the assumption that children do not benefit at all when taught that way. But as with exercise, when the action depends on the state of the motivation, the action probably won't get done.
Another analogy is the concept of good deeds in the Jewish religion (which I studied for two years, but if I get this wrong, please correct me). What's better, to feel charitable or be charitable? From what I recall, the Jewish religion teaches that a man who regularly gives money, regardless of whether he feels charitable towards mankind in his heart, does more good for the world than a man who has to wait until he feels like giving money before doing so. There is no need for the feeling to predate the action; the action is what matters in the end.
Likewise, the kid who learns that math and science and writing are important for him to learn whether or not he feels motivated to learn them may experience a great benefit when he grows up and understands the importance of such knowledge. The very smart little kids might understand all this earlier, but I bet the majority need a push.
Posted by kswygert at December 19, 2005 09:40 AM