Cappy

I have decided to take the next step in my interest in and advocacy for unschooling. I am putting together a website that I hope will serve as a resource for people interested in unschooling, those completely new to the idea, and families currently unschooling their own. The site will house an unschooling reading list, along with reviews, steady updates on education and unschooling news, resources for unschoolers, and posts/stories/tips from unschoolers throughout the blogosphere.

There are unschoolers all over the web and I hope to make their own experiences easily available. There is constant news on education, providing ever more evidence against the efficacy of compulsory education, and I hope to make those stories known from a single source. And there are writers and speakers making incredible strides in the fight to bring an end to compulsory schooling, and I hope to help keep their works in the foreground. But far and away the most important goal is to create more unschoolers! To give more kids the opportunity that most of us never had: to run their own educations and follow their own interests, to become the people they are instead of the people school boards want them to be.

Currently I am collecting resources, blog feeds, twitter follows, book lists and the like in order to get the site off the ground. Design services will provided by the uncanny Cristian Popa of ReasonWeekly.com. If you know of any resources, blogs, books or articles I should check out, please let me know! Until then you can follow my progress at http://twitter.com/UnschoolJournal

Education

I’ve moved on to John Holt, the man who began the unschooling movement and penned ten books on the subject of child learning and youth’s rights before dying in 1985. His own education in the minds of children began simply enough: he and colleague Bill Hull, who both taught fifth grade, would take turns teaching while the other observed the class. That is it to say, observe the children, quietly and individually, during the course of the class. Before I say anything else I want to point out what a stroke of simple brilliance this was, as well as, to me, a condemnation of the compulsory system which never does such a thing. He watched kids, one at a time, as they sat in class, and wrote down his observations and thoughts. From this we have the beginnings of what I believe is the first and only true theory of child learning, because a man simply chose to learn about children rather than just teaching them. But on to the point of this post… I wanted to touch on a couple anecdotes that Holt provides in How Children Fail that I think provide some excellent insight into child behavior.

The Balance Beam

In one class Holt had a beam balanced in the center which could be held in place with a peg. The game was used to teach kids about balance and weight distribution by placing a certain number of weights out a certain distance on one end and having a student place a certain number of weights on the other end at a distance they thought would balance it out. For instance, the teacher places 4 weights at 5″ out on one end, and the child is given 2 weights to place on the other end, which in this case would balance at 10″ out. To provide incentive for involvement, the students were divided into two teams. Each student would place his weights, then every teammate, one by one, would bet whether or not the beam would balance. Each correct answer counted as one point. Can you guess what happened?

It became all about strategy! Making the best guess to minimize the maximum possible loss, a decision rule in game theory called minimax. Children focused on hedging their bets and covering their bases, not only for the purpose of gaining points but also to be sure a wrong answer didn’t embarrass them. One student, after being asked to confirm her choice of weight placement, said “Yes, but I don’t think it will balance.” The predictions of other students were very similar in their vagueness. In every case the result was clear: the students were no longer interested in balancing the beam, but rather of beating the points and predictions system.

Few students ever figured out the balance beam.

The Q Shriek

While Holt allowed much more talking and freedom in his class than most teachers, he still needed quiet sometimes. So, rather than simply demanding it like most teachers, he created the Q. The rule was simply this: When he wrote the Q on the board, the class was to be quiet. Holt writes:

And then, slowly, the children invented or developed a delightful custom. When I began to write the Q they would all make some kind of hum or murmur or sound, which would get louder and louder, rising to a shriek as I boxed in the Q with a flourish. But as soon as my chalk hit the edge of the blackboard, completing the box, dead silence.

A year later Holt has his own fifth-grade class in another school, and again used the Q. This class, just like the other, eventually invented the shriek, never knowing that it had been done before.

Competing Objectives

The lesson drawn from this, I think, is that an educator’s objective in a game or class practice should never be assumed to be shared by the students. In the first case, Holt’s objective was to teach kids about balance and weight. But the children, in their brilliance, created their own objective, and attempted to make the game their own, focusing on the incentive rather than the goal. (Also, it’s important to point out that in future classes, Holt put the balance beam and the weights in the back of class, never mentioning it or attempting to teach it. Without his predefined objective hindering them, almost all the kids in the class, even some very poor ones, figured it out on their own.)

In the second case, Holt’s objective was to get quiet in the class. But the children reminded him that this must be their’s as well, and invented the Q Shriek to make it so. And Holt was smart enough to allow the Q Shriek, where other teachers would have stolen the only personal connection those kids had to a rule they chose to follow.

You see, kid’s do not naturally want to please teachers and parents, they do not naturally want to learn specific facts, but are rather content to follow their own interests and will learn as it becomes necessary to fulfill those interests. When forced to learn (very oxymoronic) or forced to obey, children will immediately substitute their own objectives, never focusing where the teacher assumes they will. We are going to talk about this more in the future, as we discover the fear and danger that surrounds a child in compulsory education, and the many, many ways in which the very nature of schooling pulls a child’s mind away from learning.

Education

Some of these I’ve read, a couple I am in the process of reading. But I believe there is great insight in all of them, even if sometimes you have to wade through a little nonsense.

The Absorbent Mind by Maria Montessori: Maria Montessori, the creator of the Montessori Method, made incredible and long-lasting contributions to the principles of educating children. She promoted the concept of the “Normalized” child, meaning that independence and a love of learning of normal qualities which all children possess. The Absorbent Mind is considered her cornerstone work.

The Teenage Liberation Handbook by Grace Llewellyn: This book, written for and to teenagers, presents the argument for quitting school to pursue your own education. Definitely controversial, but very thought-provoking. She makes her points on the negative - but intentional - practices of compulsory education, while providing heaps of information and anecdotes about quitting school and those who have done so successfully.

How Children Fail and How Children Learn by John Holt: Two excellent books by the pioneer of the unschooling method.

Weapons of Mass Instruction by John Taylor Gatto: Coming out very soon, this new book by Gatto exposes the true nature of compulsory education. His book is “a demonstration that the harm school inflicts is quite rational and deliberate, following high-level political theories constructed by Plato, Calvin, Spinoza, Fichte, Darwin, Wundt, and others, which contend the term “education” is meaningless because humanity is strictly limited by necessities of biology, psychology, and theology. The real function of pedagogy is to render the common population manageable.”

Education

Reading over the last couple articles I’ve written on education, I feel it important to reiterate that these are little more than my thoughts on the subject based on the little research I’ve done and my own school experience. I wouldn’t go taking your local principle to task just yet… Not that any of you are so easily swayed. I also realized that targeting public schools is unfair… All compulsory schooling faces the same problems. Thus the change in title.

Think back to the friends you made in grade school. Think about the things you had in common, the things you were pressured to do. Think about, really, all the kids you knew back then. They came from different backgrounds, sure. And some were differently skilled than others. Some grew or read a little faster. Some had a bit more money, or a bit more melanin in their skin. But you also shared so much. At the same stages of development, the same number of years of experience, the same awe of the upper-classmen and the same distaste for the lower-classmen. But most of all, you had all the same classes, learned the same things at the same time, and moved at the same pace.

Again we look back at a situation that seemed perfectly natural. You had all your classes with kids the same age, and you did all the same stuff. Makes sense from a purely organizational standpoint. But the truth is that children are once again robbed of a rich learning experience in the name of easy management.

Age

There is of course nothing wrong with learning alongside students your age. The problem is that students are not given a choice, and cannot learn with older and younger students around even if they wanted to. And their learning potential greatly suffers because of it.

• Age grouping enforces superficial differences: Children that are completely removed from the wide array of development and experience levels around them begin to see all children of other ages as inherently different. Older students become romanticized, and are seen as better simply because they are older. Younger students become demonized, and are seen as inferior simply because they are younger. And truly, it is a completely logical conclusion for children to come to given the circumstances. Why else would they be separated by age?
• Age grouping enforces superficial likenesses: The flip side of this coin is that children are greatly limited in their scope of social relationships, and it becomes very difficult for many to find others who share their real interests. And I don’t just mean their interest in purple or monkey bars. We have to stop pretending that children are these two dimensional cartoon characters that only talk about bubblegum and their wonderful daddies. They have personalities with depth and complexity, they are drawn to virtue and ability, and they long to learn about people like them. But when they are left with no choice about whom they can meet and spend time with, they will try to be social in any way possible since they are unable to foster friendships based on mutual interests.
• Increases power of peer pressure: I am not completely sure about this one yet, so I won’t go into too much detail, but I believe that by cordoning off students from children of other ages you are creating a very narrow set of perspectives, making peer pressure a far more powerful force.
• Causes stagnation in group efforts: Again this is another side-effect of the extremely limited experience levels that children are presented with. They are left with only their direct peers to learn from and brainstorm with, greatly reducing their exposure to new ideas. This also has the smaller disadvantage of leaving older students with no experience in relating their knowledge to others besides their direct peers and the requirements of a specific teacher.

Pace

In a setting where students must, by compulsion, learn all things together over the same amount of time, we are once again making the mistake of assuming that kids are all the same. But there are many levels of aptitude and interest, not only in learning in general, but within any particular subject. Even the average student suffers greatly. In some subjects he does very well, and becomes bored and stagnant. In other subjects he might not do so well, and feels rushed and frustrated.

• No Child Left Behind mentality: Again we focus on the myth that all children, once their primary education has completed, should know all the same information about all the same subjects. A utilitarian mindset leads us to believe that in order for children to be treated equally, they must all learn the same things, with none moving ahead or falling behind the others in anything. But even at the very best application, this method can only engender a level of education that is less than mediocre.
• “Gifted” programs are no solution: All gifted programs accomplish is declaring that instead of their being one type of student: the average student, there are two: average students and really smart kids. This is of course false. Every single child is extremely different, they excel and struggle at different things at different times. They are more varied than pasta sauce at the grocery store! Any educational methodology must provide for children of all types.

What It Could be Like

With a mixture of ages and paces, students can interact freely with one another as - and if - they desire. They will be able to form more solid bonds based on common interests rather than just a common age or seating assignment, and younger students can pursue mutually beneficial and respectful relationships with older students.

Students who are able to move more quickly can do so without hindrance, while students who have trouble with a particular subject - or with learning in general - can focus more on problem areas, spend more one-on-one time with teachers and seek guidance from more advanced students (on a mutually voluntary basis).

I also believe that this would have the happy side effect of a more healthy competition among students that would be based more on actual progress - I wish I knew how to build rockets too - rather than superficial standards - I wish I got all A’s.

Education

Continuing my series on public schools, I want to talk about the practice of using grades and report cards, not to mention standard testing methods, and how it effects the growing minds and personalities of children. This time let’s jump straight to the argument from effect, since the argument from intimidation, coming up right after, might be a little harder to swallow right off the bat.

What They Don’t Accomplish

Grades and report cards are a near-universally accepted method in public schools (and most private schools) of gaging a student’s progress in a particular subject, and are a means of highlighting their strengths and pointing out the areas where more focus is needed. Children are often scored on things like class participation and homework, but the majority of their grades comes from tests following each section of a subject (say, after each chapter of a history book), with a much larger test ending the semester and counting for a significant portion of their grade.

Do they succeed? Not at all:

• Grades emphasize arbitrary goals over the learning experience: The point becomes the A, or the Check+, or the high SAT score, rather than the subject matter itself. Learning is no longer about the joy of exploration and discovery, but is just the means to an end.
• Tests emphasize data memorization over subject immersion: The fact that “cramming” is such a well-known term in our public school should be enough to send a shudder down any parent’s back. If a child is given a four-page multiple choice test on Civil War dates, he will do his grudging best to accomplish just that, do well on the test of Friday, forget everything by 3 o’clock that afternoon, and have nothing to show for it afterwards except a distaste for history. Students are force-fed minutia without context or relevance, rather than experiencing and implementing the subject they are studying.
• It is more profitable for schools to post good test scores than it is to engender intelligence and creativity: When a school’s test scores go up, their funding increases. And the opposite is also true. When a school’s funding goes up, it must take on more students and generalize the testing process even more. When a school’s funding goes down, it must lower the intellectual rigor and challenge of its classes.

What Do They Accomplish?

I believe that people may be dishonest in their words, but will show their honesty in their actions. So if a person claims that his goal is one thing, but all of his efforts consistently produce a different, even opposite, result, then it seems logical that either he is not in touch with reality, or that his goal is in fact the thing which he accomplishes.

Schools claim that their purpose is to teach children, to prepare them for life, to interest them in a wide-variety of subjects and academic endeavors. But they do not accomplish this, despite decades of trying, mounds of research and tons of taxpayer dollars. Are schools out of touch with reality? Most definitely! But the fact remains that they are accomplishing their goals, unstated though they may be.

• Bad grades promote a sense of failure: If a student does badly in a class, for whatever reason (he doesn’t enjoy it, the teacher is horrible, the view through the window is distracting, etc), he is punished with a bad grade. Their is no curiosity in his predicament, no interest in why, only the punishment for his “failure” to test well.
• Good grades create dependence: Most children who make good grades cannot conceive of doing badly. Their grades become their standard of value - to their teachers and parents, as well as themselves - rather than the knowledge and experience they might have gained. It becomes then more important to do well than it is to pursue your own interests or enjoy the learning process.
• Grades create unhealthy competition: Generally I am all for competition as the best means of producing the best result. But two girls fighting over one guy isn’t healthy competition, and neither are grades. Students often become obsessed with one-upmanship, again focusing on their grades rather than content. Or the opposite occurs, and grades become an unchosen authority that they fully reject, along with any activity that smacks of learning.

Teachers alone cannot control students. They cannot stand in front of them each day spewing the same boring, disconnected diatribe and expect to keep a calm house. It becomes imperative then, in order to manage kids (this is, after all, the school’s highest goal), to create an environment where students will manage each other. Fear drives some do to better on the next test, while jealousy drive others to do as well as their neighbor.

Kept in herds with children your same age, all of whom move at the same pace, you are left with very, very little choice in what you can look for in a friend. Grades become a means of categorizing ourselves, and finding others like us. And then those grades become a point of pride, a source of personal value. More than anything, they a means of keeping you calm and quiet, sitting at your desk and doing your work.

Education