A couple of CNN writers cover an intriguing alternative to the traditional schooling approach here. The philosophy of "unschooling" holds fundamental the premise that students will learn more when they choose when and what to learn. The report explains:
An extension of home-schooling, "unschooling" is when parents give their children total freedom to learn and explore whatever they choose...
The term "unschooling" was first coined in 1977 by John Holt, an education reformer, the founder of Holt Associates and author of the book, "Teach Your Own."
Holt felt traditional home-schooling didn't go far enough. He believed parents should not duplicate schools in their homes. He favored an education more freewheeling in nature, one that depends on the child for direction.
The expectation is that along the way they will get an education.
There are no mandatory books, no curriculum, no tests and no grades.
I like the idea of "unschooling" for a number of reasons:
1) Instead of constantly being told what they are expected to learn (ex: Today, students will be able to add fractions with unlike denominators), students will be pushed to find what interests them independently. Essentially, they will learn how to learn.
2) It will diminish student boredom. Despite my best efforts to "hook" students, I invariably find around 1/3 of my class bored to death. Some students simply do not care about integers, state standards, or how to master the Regents. If they chose what to study, students can be expected to pick subjects that don't put them to sleep. By studying subjects they find more exciting, I believe students will grow more enthusiastic about the learning process.
3) It will remove the negative stigma associated with education. Many students view education as unpleasant work. When forced to learn things of no interest or use to them, I can certainly sympathize with this aversion. Must this be the case? I believe we can help students better appreciate the means and ends of pursuing knowledge by empowering them to choose what to study.
4) The students' skills of judging sources of information on internal evidence will not deteriorate as it does under the conventional model of education. In this latter model, students are expected to believe what teachers and textbooks say. Although some teachers can elicit critical thinking in students, these educators are few and far between. With "un-schooling," students will learn in a less dogmatic format and consequently be better prepared to embrace the intellectual bearings of skepticism.
My ruminations on the "un-schooling" model are merely a preliminary assessment. There will undoubtedly be cases where this approach is not appropriate. I believe, however, that thinking about alternative forms of education is a necessary endeavor to preserve the health and legitimacy of the broader system. The conventional model is not the be all and end all for education. If we want students to think critically about what they learn, we must do the same with how we teach.
Posted at 07:03 pm by Lysander
 | | |
irrationale
February 6, 2006 07:59 PM PST
My knee-jerk reaction to this is to say that un-schooling will only work for those students who have a literate, intellectually stimulating home environement; parents with ample time and resources to spend, and an innately curious mind.
For these select few, unschooling may be worthwhile. (I'd imagine, though, that most such kids are doing just fine in conventional education--though whether it's ideal for them is another question).
For the rest of the kids out there, we might take a lesson from unschooling's underlying philosophy of student choice. Still, I remain adamant that most students need a structured school environment. Indeed, the KIPP model and other such schools seem to show that many struggling kids need MORE structure.
Allowing a child to chart her own course might be just fine if you live in rural Iowa. Allowing a child to "chart his own course" if you live in the inner-cities will probably have less than desirable results. |
|
| | |
BrooklynTeacher
February 7, 2006 02:11 AM PST
I was unschooled. Now it is time for bed, but I'll tell you all about it someday and why unschooling simply would not work in public education in any way whatsoever. |
|
| | |
BrooklynTeacher
February 7, 2006 02:12 AM PST
Um, actually, there is a place for it just not in the younger grades (which I teach). |
|
| | |
Tiberius Gracchus
February 7, 2006 09:23 PM PST
I don't know anything about this "un-schooling," although it sounds interesting. The one thing that really seems to make sense is that different educational models and pedagogical techniques work for different students. One of the things I really like aboutm charter schools is the opportunity for students to find the best fit for them as individuals. Anecdotally, I'm sure we all know people who thrived in either more restrictive or more discovery based learning methods; clearly, a one size fits all model is inadequate, or at least, imperfect. |
|
| | |
Chaz
February 18, 2006 07:04 PM PST
I have many students in my school who believe in unschooling. They end up dropping out and ending up in jail.
No wonder CNN is falling off the rating dial.
|
|
| | |
Julie
October 8, 2006 02:41 AM PDT
The problem with unschooling is that there ARE things children *need* to learn, whether they want to or not. I'm much more in favor of delight-directed learning -- exploring a child's interests, letting him dig deep where he is particularly interested, yet recognizing that teachers possess some wisdom that students do not yet have, and requiring them to learn things they will need later in life. |
|
