Talk:Unschooling/Archive 1

Criticism section...

 * What bothers me here is that the criticism section is all opinion and conjecture. Unschooling has been around since the 1970s and studies have been done to objectively address the opinions listed in the criticism section.  I say erase that crap, as it is a completely worthless addition to this article, and put some real information out there. Find studies presenting both sides or something.  Opinions are the lowest form of evidence.99.185.248.110 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Homeschooling Versus Unschooling

 * Yikes! I think this is rather contentious material.  In Canada, at least, there is major debate about whether unschooling is a form of homeschooling, or whether the two are actually antithetical!  No time right now, but I will take a stab at this later.  All comments welcome. Wordie 19:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I think homeschooling covers a lot of different approaches and structures, while unschooling is essentially an abandoning of structure in favor of "living." We are presently unschooling my 9-year-old son, in California.  To do this we (the family) had to apply for purely formal recognition as a "private school" by the state. The comment about public school being too "centralized" by far misses the point of the criticism leveled by John Holt and other unschooling advocates.  Rather, the criticism tends to focus more on restrictions on the child's freedom, humiliations by the authorities and the system itself, and time wasted on trying to keep "order."  Alan Nicoll 22:51, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)

Unschooling is not nessecarily an abandoning of structure. It is having control of how much structure one has.

Self Motivation and Covering the 'Basics'
I actually came to this page because I am very interested in the concept of unschooling, and intuitively it just seems to make sense to me. The first rule of research is that if something sounds really good, go look for the downside. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find anyone specifically critical of the unschooling method as opposed to homeschooling in general. (Too bad no original research means I can't just make something up ^^).


 * The two big problems with unschooling (speaking as one who's done it) are that
 * You need to be the sort of person who self-motivates well.
 * You need to work to make sure you cover the basics completely.
 * Carnildo 06:17, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually no motivation is required, it just happens. The "basics" are subjective and aren't reqired. Most "basics" like reading, writing, and simple math can be easily picked up without study.


 * Self motivation just seems to happen, in the absense of peer and teacher dependency. Children tend to want to become adults, so it helps if the parents model curiousity, learning and critical thinking.  Yes, reading and math perhaps need to be taught more formally, but even they don't need to be rushed, "Better late than early".  Wait until the child is read and motivated. --Silverback 02:01, September 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've been unschooling my son for over a year (he's 10). He does pretty much whatever he wants, with no "lessons" and no formal instruction and no religious instruction.  The environment is enriched but we have little money.  He plays a lot of PS2 and computer games, watches videos (we don't have broadcast or cable TV), but he also reads a lot of fiction (mostly age-appropriate) and some nonfiction periodicals (Kids Discover and National Geographic Kids).  He's extremely well socialized (always was) but gets little exercise.  We are concerned about his reliance on electronic entertainment but are pleased with much of the rest, so it's a mixed bag.  The downside is an awful lot of time "wasted" on games; but we think this time would otherwise have been "wasted" in school, and we despise many other things about school.  Alan Nicoll 19:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I would suggest pushing him to go play outside. It is true he needs peers.  Peers in the neighborhood, church, a sports league, etc.  My brother and I were unschooled and also watched a lot of TV and played video games.  My parents tried hard (and not consistently) to limit the amount of time we had for TV and games but didnt do a great job.  I've seen every episode of matlock and the other cheap afternoon shows that were on.  It was typically when soap operas where on that I'd stop watching and go out and play.  This happened to be around when other kids came home from school.  When we had friends over there were times my parents would force us to put the sega and super nes away and go play basketball.  also, about the study vs video games problem... it's never exact.  there were times my brother and i studied, mostly when my parents were feeling extremely guilty for their choice to unschool us (which was probably because my grandparents would complain, or something).  but i also remember moments when i studied on my own choice.  just try to give your child as much diverse input as possible.  maybe teach them how to make their own video game, if that is what they are interested in?  A good deal of math involved there.   BTW, today I'm 27, have had 2 careers already (one teaching and the other doing systems administration).  Originally from the US I'm now a foreign student in the EU studying in another language my first degree in a form of industrial design while doing software analysis from home to pay the bills.  I know 3 languages and have studied 5.  What the wikipedia article says is true: my older friends found me very socially mature when I was young and all of my previous employers have found my "intellectual vitality" to be their greatest asset.  It's not that unschooling is so awesome, just that the education systems are so horrible. 87.162.48.152 (talk) 14:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! Sound SO much better than all that pesky SCHOOL - he plays videogames, reads fiction (no pesky history, science, or literature!), watches videos, and doesn't get exercise! Congratulations! (When your 22-year old fat potato wonders who Shakespeare was, why he has stunted social skills, and everyone else is working on rewarding careers - at least he can enter videogame contests, content that he didn't "waste" his time in despicable school.... A Doon 02:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You are obviously a critic of unschooling, and, of course, you have every right to be. However, your efforts might be better spent collaborating with us to edit the article. In fact, your anti-unschooling perspective could be a valuable asset because your collaboration with pro-unschooling editors could help create a more NPOV article.


 * That being said, please respect the other editors. From your comment I would guess that the concept of unschooling might be new to you, and your gut reaction might have been to find it slightly ridiculous. If this is the case, your comment is understandable, but still not appropriate or productive.


 * By the way, playing video games, watching TV, and getting little exercise are traits often found in school children as well, and graduation from school is no guarantee of literacy, let alone knowledge of Shakespeare, a love of reading fiction or nonfiction periodicals, or obtaining a rewarding job. In fact, I would be extremely suprised if the majority of formally schooled adults find their jobs rewarding. You might also note that Alan Nicoll stated that the child in question is very well socialized.


 * Video games and television are hotly debated topics in the unschooling community. On one extreme, parents will not allow their children to play video games or watch television whatsoever. On the other extreme, parents allow their children to completely self-regulate these activities. This often has more to do with the parent's personal beliefs about these media than their choice to unschool their children. Amillion 00:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well-Roundedness

 * Update: Concerned over my son's lack of interest in much of anything other than his own narrow interests (primarily electronic entertainment and fiction reading) I have imposed a minimalist academic routine on him.  For half an hour each day he has to read some nonfiction.  So far (first week) it's going well, and he's expressed interest in reading more history.  I think the real problem that unschooling addresses well is that most schools are so absolutely awful (I speak as a working substitute teacher).  Note to Tjstf:  please read Grace Llewellyn's Teenage Liberation Handbook.  Alan Nicoll 17:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * (in response to Silverback in "Self Motivation and Covering the Basics") Actually, if it (learning) "just happened," we wouldn't have the high rates of illiteracy that we have now. I homeschool, and all the unschoolers we know either have children who are "studying" comic books and video games and doing lots of arts and crafts, but learning little else, or are actually being guided and prodded by their parents, who believe they are unschooling, but in fact are basically homeschooling with a less-formal curriculum. There does need to be criticism, because it is also very difficult for unschooled kids to get into college, if that's the chosen path. -- Sarah Tramadol 22:16, 13 September 2006

It is completely untrue that it is difficult for unschooled kids to get into college. Also, I find it hard to believe that you know what unschoolers "study". If you don't live in the same household, its extremely difficult to really know what people spend time doing. -Mary 24/9/06


 * As a semi-unschooled teen, my criticism of the method would be that, despite the fact I am very self-motivated, I am not exactly developing into a balanced individual through this method. Whether being a balanced individual is necessary for leading a successful life is a matter of debate, but unschooling definitely does not strengthen a child's weak areas. Ironically, I wouldn't even think of this if I hadn't been unschooled and spent large amounts of time reading psychology. As far as criticism in the article goes, we definitely need some to balance the article. Are there any homeschool leaders who are critical of unschooling that we could reference? --Tjstrf 03:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Tjstrf, if you don't think that you are well rounded, you can endeavor to become that way if that is important to you. Since you control your education, you can change what you study to fit your needs, desires and plans. I thought that was pretty much the point of unschooling.

Proposing 'Results of Unschooling' Section
We are homeschoolers,somewhere between unschooling and school at home.I have seen unschooling work succesfully. I have seen unschooled kids who are avid readers,writers and researchers. They do all of these things because they like to. I would describe their education as far above their grade level.They have no problem doing real life math, and above all,they ask a lot of questions.

In only one instance I have seen it fail,where an 18 year old could not read. I believe the difference was that the successful unschoolers had parents who were responsive, ever alert to answer questions and to help a child find out what they want to know.They included their children in everything they did,bringing their kids to work,reading the paper, going grocery shopping. Whatever real life experiences they could offer. The one failed unschooler was just left to be on his own,not included,but basically ignored. This involvement is not the same as school at home, because no curriculm is being follwed. The learning is based on the child's interests and needs.The child asks the questions.The parent does not say we are studying Greece today, but instead the child may ask "Where is Greece?" and then you begin the study by answering questions. looking at maps, going to the library. So then the real issue is "What if my child never asks about Greece?" vs will a child being taught about Greece remember any of it if they have no interest?

I would like to point out that there are also 18 year olds who graduate public school unable to read. There are also overweight, game obsessed children who graduate school as well as the unschooler who wrote in above.

What would be most helpful would be to see statistics that show how unschoolers compare with school at home kids.I have seen statistics showing  homeschoolers in general outperform public schooled kids on standardized tests.Now we need to know how many of those kids were unschooled,and how the unschoolers compare. College entrance exams could also be used, and might be better since most unschoolers do not take standardized tests,nor do they believe that they test is an accurate way to show what a student knows.

Radical Unschooling Versus Other Forms
(in response to Sarah Tramadol- in 'Well-Roundedness') Actually, those who are being "guided and prodded by their parents" may still be unschooling. There are at least a couple of different forms of unschooling. Some people practice "radical unschooling." Those are the people who believe that learning "just happens" and minimize parental guidance as much as possible (they may focus on making resources available to their children). There are also unschoolers who have a high level of parental guidance (keep in mind that guidance is different than coercion). They help their children make goals, work out schedules, start projects etc. Many require that their children have goals, subjects they are studying, and some sort of a schedule (the specifics are ultimately up to the child), and work out the details with their children. For many people (if not most), unschooling is not about leaving their child alone to figure things out entirely by themselves, but rather helping their child to make informed decisions about their own education. In such cases, a child's education may look very conventional, and may be easily mistaken for homeschooling, or it may be very different from conventional education. The difference between unschooling and other (perhaps similar looking) forms of education is that ultimately, when the parent suggests a project or topic or manner of study, the child is free to say 'no,' and choose something different.


 * I propose that we create subdivisions in the main article to acknowledge the different practices and views held by supporters of different forms of unschooling (for example, 'radical unschooling,' 'teenage unschooling,' 'unschooling college,' etc.).

Possible Sources of Criticism
Now that I think about it, I know that I used to find editorial columns lambasting unschooling in the more mainstream homeschool magazines that my mother subscribed to. So it's definitely out there. I will see if she has any of those magazines that she hasn't thrown out that I can thumb through tonight, and at least get a couple names I could ascribe to the criticism, but I'm doubtful as to my chances, since they were probably thrown out when we moved a few years ago. --tjstrf 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I Wrote a 'Criticism' Section
I propose that our critism section look something like this:

Criticism:

Some common arguments against unschooling are:


 * There will be gaps in a child's education unless an educational professional controls the material s/he covers.
 * Most children are not motivated to learn anything, and will spend all of their time in uneducational endeavors if not coerced into doing otherwise.
 * Most children lack the foresight to learn the things they will need to know in their adult lives.
 * Children have a vastly greater capacity for learning new things, so it is the resposibility of adults to ensure that they learn a number of essential things (what these things are varies from critic to critic), as it will be much more difficult to learn those things when one is an adult.
 * It will be difficult for an unschooled child to get into college or get a job.
 * It is more difficult for children who are not in school to make friends than it is for their schooled peers.

I have heard all of these arguments many times when debating individual people and people on message boards, but that leaves me with nothing to cite. I need some help finding source material. I already tried posting it and leaving it to someone else to find sources, but it was almost immediately removed.

Actually those critisms were mentioned in several books already listed in the reference section, including The Teenage Liberation Handbook and some John Holt books, so I re-added this section.

Unschoolers' Responses to Criticisms
I think that we should also have a section with unschoolers' responses to these criticisms.
 * I agree. The statements imply that these "critisms" are fact, where the definition of unschooling is implied to be theory.  In fact, like all educational philosophies, it is all theory.  -Mary
 * I agree, as long as the statements are attributable via Wikipedia guidelines. - Freechild 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

"Misconceptions" vs. "Criticisms" for title of section
Calling this section "misconceptions" implies that these arguments have no legitimate basis. The things that are argued in this section are not ridiculous, even many unschoolers believe that some of them are at least partly true, and at any rate it has not been established scientifically that they are untrue (for many of things it could not be, as it is a matter of philosophy, for example one argument is that since children have a greater capacity for learning, adults are responsible to see that they do so). Unschoolers do not as a general rule believe most of these things to be true because of their philosophical beliefs. If you do not think that the reasons for this are not accurately explained in the article, or if you find that some of the arguments in the criticism section really are ridiculous and demonstratably false, we should work on fixing that, but I don't think that renaming the section "misconceptions" is at all appropriate (it might be a good idea to have a separate section called "misconceptions" where we can put common demonstratably false beliefs about unschooling). If no one has any objections, I'm going to change it back. Amillion 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I still stand by this statement. If the person who changed "criticisms" to "misconceptions" again disagrees with it for any reason, they should make that reason known so that we can work together to make the article better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amillion (talk • contribs) 02:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

They do have no legitimate basis. "has not been established scientifically that they are untrue" is a double negative... they have not been established scientifically as true, and have no place here. At least not if it should be NPOV. There are no critisisms on the public school page, and I don't think there should be any here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.112.183 (talk) 06:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Unschooling is an extremely controversial practice. In order for this article to be NPOV, all relevant points of view must be presented. Amillion (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Who says it's any more controversial than public school? But, most importantly, there is nothing NPOV about stating opposing theory as "criticisms". They have no basis in reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.112.183 (talk) 02:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Referring to them as misconceptions definitely isn't NPOV. Please read the article on the NPOV policy. Note this section in particular:

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view, or some sort of intermediate view among the different views, is the correct one to the extent that other views are mentioned only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV". The neutral point of view is a point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, writing clearly about each side; but they are not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias toward one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.

Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." For example, that a survey produced a certain published result would be a fact. That there is a planet called Mars is a fact. That Plato was a philosopher is a fact. No one seriously disputes any of these things. So we can feel free to assert as many of them as we can.

By value or opinion, on the other hand, we mean "a matter which is subject to dispute." There are bound to be borderline cases where it is not clear if a particular dispute should be taken seriously and included. However, there are many propositions that very clearly express values or opinions. That stealing is wrong is a value or opinion. That The Beatles were the greatest band in history is an opinion. That the United States is the only country in the world that has used a nuclear weapon for military purposes is a fact. That the United States was right or wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amillion (talk • contribs) 02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Guardians vs. adults in general
Wildeyeredhead changed the criticism "Children have a vastly greater capacity for learning new things, so it is the responsibility of adults to ensure that they learn a number of essential things (what these things are varies from critic to critic), as it will be much more difficult to learn those things when one is an adult." to "Children have a vast capacity for learning new things, so it is the responsibility of their guardians to ensure that they learn a number of essential things (what these things are varies from critic to critic), as it could be more difficult to learn those things when one is an adult."

I disagree that it should say that critics of unschooling think that it is the responsibility of the guardians of children to insure that they learn certain things, because in most of western society that responsibility is generally given to the government (this is why schooling is compulsory). The wording in the new paragraph makes it sound like these critics are pro-homeschooling, which is only occasionally true. Perhaps saying that they think it is the responsibility of adults in general is not entirely accurate either, but I can't think of a better way to put it.

Defining the curriculum vs. controlling the material covered
Also, recently the criticism "There could be gaps in a child's education unless an educational professional controls the material s/he covers." was changed to "There could be gaps in a child's education unless an educational professional defines the curriculum."

I think that the original version is clearer, because while unschoolers don't use a curriculum, they do cover material. The critism is saying that what that material is needs to be controlled by an educational professional. I think saying that an educational professional needs to "define the curriculum" might not get this point across. Anybody agree? Disagree? Amillion 18:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has voiced any objections, I'm going to change it. Amillion 00:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Social Skills
The newest criticism says "Children do not learn social skills needed to work within mainstream society."

I'm not sure I really understand what is meant by this. Is there something about unschooling in particular (as opposed to home education in general) that critics believe harms the development of social skills? Is this saying that unschooled children don't learn social skills because social skills can only be learned in school? Amillion 23:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm going to change it to "Because schools provide a ready-made source of peers, it may be more difficult for children who are not in school to make friends than it is for their schooled peers." Amillion 00:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

A new criticism, "Students that don't have people skills, will not develop people skills unlike the daily interaction with other students at a public school," was just added. This doesn't really make sense, and I think that it is redundant, because a little further up the list there is a criticism that says "Because schools provide a ready-made source of peers, it may be more difficult for children who are not in school to make friends than it is for their schooled peers," so I'm going to remove it and add "and develop social skills" to the pre-existing criticism. Amillion 03:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's another new criticism: there is a ridiculous claim under the sub-section of Socialization. "Unschoolers cite studies which report that home educated students tend to be more mature than their schooled peers, and some believe this is a result of the wide range of people with which they have the opportunity to communicate," the article reads. This is absurd. Perhaps unschooled students are more mature than schooled students. But the claim made from this quote is that all parents of unschooled children are highly active in putting their children in situations where they would meet and interact with a wider range of people than they would in school. This assumes that unschooling, on its own, makes children more mature. How can this be true? In addition, this assumes that schooled children have less opportunity to communicate with a wider range of people. What are these outlets of communication that unschooled children have access to that schooled children don't? Church? Sports? I think lots of schooled students partake in those extracurricular activities in addition to their time spent in school. If it's the fact that school takes up a lot of time and unschooled children have more time to meet with others -- how in the world can unschooled children ever interact with their peers when 99% of children their age are in school?

Home educated students don't automatically experience the wide range of people that schooled children do. In fact, some unschooled children are a lot more sequestered than they would be if they were in public school. These facts prove this claim to be dead wrong. Pchamberlain2 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Much of what you say, Pchamberlain2, is true:
 * There is absolutely no reason that schooled children cannot achieve the same level of interaction as homeschooled and unschooled children.
 * Many homeschooled and unschooled children (please note, people, I said many, not "all" or even "most") do live "sequestered" lives. This can be the result of the parents' conscious philosophy or simple laziness, but either way, for good or for bad, it is simply true.
 * One statement of yours does make me wonder if you may have misunderstood something. You write: If it's the fact that school takes up a lot of time and unschooled children have more time to meet with others -- how in the world can unschooled children ever interact with their peers when 99% of children their age are in school?, I wonder if you realize that no one (as far as I know) is claiming that unschooled children have more time to meet "other children".  I believe what is probably meant is that they have more time to meet other people in general, and specifically, other people who are not their peers.  Anyway, that's a minor point.  But how does the paragraph stand up?


 * Not very well, as you point out. Despite some attempts at providing citations, the paragraph (like much of this article) contains some weasel words.  Another problem is with the claim that "studies" show that homeschoolers are more mature.  There are three citations there, but they are a) the famous Shyers study, b) an article which references the Shyers study, and c) another article which references the Shyers study and an additional study.  So with those three citations, it looks like there's more meat there than there actually is.  What is far worse is that, as I understand it, the Shyers study did not find that homeschoolers were more mature, rather, it only said that the level of maturity of homeschoolers was indistinguishable from regularly-schooled kids. This is not apparent from the wording in the paragraph.  Now the third citation does reference a study finding homeschoolers to be more mature, so that's fine, but the picture created from the way this is presented is not accurate.  Of course, having acknowledged that, it must also be pointed out that someone has attempted to balance the paragraph with a statement at the end of the paragraph representing the critics, and that too is cited.


 * So you've got some legimate beefs, Pchamb. It's not a whole lot different, I'm afraid, than a lot of Wikipedia.  But I don't think it's as absurd a set of claims as you assert.  Your "facts" proving this assertion to be dead wrong fall short as well.  I mean, are you going to completely ignore the material in the citations?  I respect that this claim seems counterintuitive to you—as it does, I would imagine, to most people.  But your intuition and logic are not really any better a foundation upon which to write this than the exagerated use of citations in this paragraph.  My personal belief (and it is personal, thus not the foundation for rewriting this paragraph) is that homeschooled children do tend to be better socialized than schooled children.  But you see, as a long-time teacher in both public and private arenas, my definition of "socialization" is probably far different than that of most people.  I don't define it as the ability to positively interact with others as much as the absence of the tendancy to negatively interact with others.  In other words, I will concede that some homeschoolers may have a greater degree of difficulty seeking out friends from a group of kids whom they have never met before, or may be more shy about asking a member of the opposite sex to go out on a date.  But I also feel that homeschooled kids are far, far, far less likely to  be disrespectful or violent or be pulled into self-destructive behaviours.  And I guess I'd rather have an introverted child who reaches adulthood than a socially integrated child who dies at 17 in a car driven by one of his drunk friends.


 * Anyway, all of this is absurd, because there are homeschooled kids who turn out, not only shy, but plain out bad, just as there are schooled children that grow up to win Nobel Peace Prizes. The language of this article is unfortunately not as encyclopedic as it should be.  I would like to think that I could make it as good as it can be, but it's an incredibly hard topic to nail down, and right now, I just don't have the gumption.  Un  sch  ool  07:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and incidentally, about 2-3% of kids today are homeschooled, not 1%. No biggie, but just thought you should know.  Un  sch  ool  07:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Difficult work
This criticism was recently removed:


 * If they are not made to do arbitrary and tedious schoolwork, children might not learn how to do difficult, uninteresting, and unpleasant work.

Perhaps that wasn't the best or most NPOV way to express this, but critics of unschooling do often wonder "If no one makes them do schoolwork, how will they learn how to do hard work that they don't like?"

This is a legitimate criticism that ought to be included. Perhaps we can come up with a way to word it that everybody finds acceptable. Amillion 00:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about "Children who direct their own educations may not develop the ability to take direction from others." Amillion 07:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Poor work ethic
The following have been added to the existing criticism "Children who direct their own educations may not develop the ability to take direction from others":

"This could lead to a poor work ethic since the child grows up being allowed to what they want when they want,"

and

"In unschooling, the child is the authority. When other authoritative positions are introduced, children readily dispute that authority."

Unschooling is a form of eduction, and not a form of parenting. The existing criticism already addresses the view that allowing a child to direct their education will make them resistant to authority in other areas of their life. I think we really need to move away from criticisms that reflect an obvious misunderstanding of what exactly unschooling is and is not. Amillion (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree - though, I don't understand why you didn't post this on the bottom of the talk page. Matters of chronology and archiving typically trump old sub-topics. Tparameter (talk) 04:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I just thought that this way it'd be easier to keep track of what's already been said. The criticisms section is so frequently edited that it makes more sense to me to have on single section in which all the changes can be discussed (especially since people have in the past made similar changes many months later). Amillion (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add that I really appreciate your response; as you can see, in much of this section I appear to be talking to myself. It seems that we have a lot of drive-by editors. Amillion (talk) 15:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have experience with homeschooling, and with associating with unschooling parents - so, I'm interested in and familiar with these topics. I just recently thought about these topics on wikipedia. I'll probably contribute more substantially in the future. In my experience, there are a lot of misconceptions about unschooling from the orthodox education community. There are degrees of unschooling, though I think the article, and the critics of unschooling, typically make it seem like a philosophy that is pure and extreme. In my experience, not so much. Unschooling parents are not necessarily purists. Some of their kids occasionally take classes in their community centers - things like tumbling, tae kwon do, science-related classes, and others. I think people like to visualize kids that sleep in until noon, then watch cartoons for 8 hours - but, that's not what I've seen. In fact, in my experience, these parents are very active with field trips, extensive library research, and some even have somewhat formal math lessons. Television and video games are almost entirely forbidden. Just my two cents. Tparameter (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Opinions, concerns, and criticisms
It really doesn't make sense to say "The following are common opinions, concerns, and criticisms of unschooling." It doesn't specify whose opinions and concerns about what we are listing. It made more sense as "The following are common opinions and concerns of people who are critical of unschooling." Amillion (talk) 21:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If no one voices any objections, I'm going to change it back. Amillion (talk) 19:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maria Montessori
Should a link be added to Maria Montessori in this article? D'Agosta 00:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

No.

I think that while the Montessori concept is similar to unschooling, it is not actually unschooling and it should not be likend to. --Clperez390 02:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

External links and Reference List
It looks like most of the external links have been added by people who own/maintain the linked website or discussion groups. That seems problematic, especially in light of the lack of criticism of unschooling presented in the article. The sheer number of links seems unbalanced compared to the content of the article. Looking again, the reference list also seems proportionately large. --Amaxc 16:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, pretty much all of the external links (at least the ones that are currently present) are links to major unschooling websites. One might think that something like "Sandra Dodd's Unschooling Website" would be an inappropriate thing to link to, but Sandra Dodd is actually a prominate unschooling advocate. I don't see any links that are innapropriate. Please point out which ones you think are.


 * I disagree. I don't think it matters if someone is a "prominate [sic] unschooling advocate" but whether the link enhances the specific entry. Referring to "Links normally to be avoided"


 * "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:


 * 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article."
 * --Amaxc 04:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just worked on the links a bit, separating out links to personal websites, to websites for people who I happen to know already have their own Wikipedia entry (like Dodd), to blogs, to conferences, and to unschooling.info, which says it's a nonprofit, but whose nonprofit status or other information I couldn't locate on their website.
 * --Amaxc 04:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, the reference list is a little long. I think we need to sort through the references, mark the places in the article where each one is used, and delete those that are not used.


 * Citation 17 says the opposite of what the 'criticisms' section says it does. The article linked to is in support of unschooling and says that children ARE self motovated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.132.126 (talk) 06:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV
Added npov tag. Article contains no criticism of the subject and it is obviously controversial.--Deglr6328 23:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As a potential education major, I came to this to check out both the pros and cons of unschooling. However, this appears to be a "birthday cake" article to celebrate unschooling, as opposed to really define and discuss it. I tried to find a good site with the cons listed, but it appears to be an uncommon enough concept that only the believers have discussed it thus far.Minidoxigirli 21:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we remove the NPOV tag now?
Since this article now has a 'criticism' section, do you think it's okay to remove the NPOV tag? Does anyone still have problems with the neutrality of the article?

The criticisms just make it NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.39.112.183 (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

College Admission
I know that 'The Teenage Liberation Handbook' has a section about unschoolers and college admission, but I also recall reading some online articles about the topic as well, and I can't seem to find them. Does anyone know of any good articles? It would be nice to have at least one online article to link to, so that people can read further information about the topic (and verify the assertions made in our article) without having to check out a book. It would also be nice to have more than one source for this particular piece of information because I believe it goes against conventional wisdom about college admissions. Amillion 05:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Schools in general are "total institutions?"
In the section "Other forms of alternative education," it says that unschoolers don't use educational institutions because they are a kind of total institution, but when I read the "total institutions" article, it seems to me that only some boarding schools are total institutions. I think you have to live in the institution full time and have it have total control of your life in order for it to qualify as a total institution, but then again I'd never heard of the phrase "total institution" until now. Amillion 23:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added a citation needed tag to that part about total institutions. I'm going to wait about a week or two, and unless someone can verify that a significant portion of unschoolers believe that schools in general are actually "total institutions," I'm going to remove it. Amillion 23:06, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm removing it now. Amillion 23:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section needs to be reworked
While this article obviously needs a criticism section, I don't think any real purpose is served by creating an uncited list of objections that some wikipedia editor thought up (based, no doubt, on their personal experience, but whatever). Worse, some of the criticisms (e.g. "it may be more difficult for unschooled students to get into college or get a job.") contain unverified claims that are, in fact, empirically challengable. I'm going to start editing for criticisms that can actually be cited, but I need help, as I am very much pro-unschooling and therefore biased. Ethan Mitchell 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I have found these criticisms in sources listed in the 'references' section, but I have no idea how to cite things on Wikipedia (perhaps you could help with this?). However, these sources are pro-unschooling, so we really should find anti-unschooling sources as well. It might be a good idea to move empirically challengeable claims into a separate section and present the available evidence. Amillion 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, so, what I've done is compile a list of every significant published criticism of unschooling I could find. I'm condensing that and I will post it to Philica in a few days, maybe faster if the ice storm keeps me inside. And then y'all can do what you like. Ethan Mitchell 03:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That's great! I look forward to seeing it. Amillion 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, here you are. It's at: http://www.philica.com/display_article.php?article_id=74


 * But here's the thing. I don't think you can cite it yet.  If I had posted the same content here, it would be a WP:OR issue, and essentially what I've just done is self-publish, so imho it's still WP:V.  When Philica reviewers come along and review it, if they like it, then we have a usable source.  In the meantime, enjoy.  Ethan Mitchell 14:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ageism
This article was recently added to the category "Ageism." Does unschooling really have anything to do with ageism? I suppose it is indirectly related in that many unschoolers are against ageism, but is there enough of a relationship to justify adding it to the category? Amillion 08:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose that John Holt did support youth rights (he wrote "Escape From Childhood" after all) so there's another connection there, but it's still indirect. Amillion 09:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's that indirect, but it does require some explanation. Unschooling assumes that young people can make intelligent choices about their education; to say that this is not the case is clearly to make an age-based judgment.  68.142.60.120 15:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point. Perhaps there should be an explaination in the article. Amillion 03:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What I see unschooling as having to do with ageism is that is that one of the major objections unschoolers have to the school establishment is what they see as its implicit ageism. Schools and their administrators are full of harmful ageist assumptions and prejudices: what kids are and aren't capable of learning and doing, behavior or knowledge that's appropriate or not, who it's appropriate to be friends with or associate with. Age segregation is seen to reinforce and reward immaturity and to turn different age groups against each other. In Missouri, for instance, it's actually illegal for anyone younger than a high school junior to be awarded college credit (yes, for completing college level classwork!) I once asked a visiting state elected official why this was. (Forgive me, I don't remember who it was; it's been quite a while.) He said "we just don't think anyone that young should be rushing through high school." 207.237.211.21 02:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Emily

Adding a picture
This article could use a picture. Does anyone know what the rules are for adding an image? Would we be able to use the front cover of an unschooling magazine or book? Amillion 11:37, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think even a user-taken photograph (easiest on copyright laws, as the user then controls the rights) of any Unschooling related activity- kids, groups, whatnot. As long as a caption can tangentially relate it, it's fine I believe. --EJFox 20:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the picture on this article is a little too goofy, and kind of gives readers the wrong impression. What if we included a picture, as you say, of an unschooling related activity, that had a bit more to it? For example, people doing some kind of project (collecting samples, building something, etc.), writing, playing music, showing a play. I'm sure there are much more representative examples of unschooling than doing cartwheels, though I don' t mean to discount that in any way.

We could also put in a picture of some figure in unschooling. Obviously, John Holt or John Taylor Gatto or Grace Llwyelln. Then also, there are people like Ansel Adams or Ben Franklin, who, though they lived before the "unschooling" movement, are often referred to as examples of how possible it is to flourish with little or no formal schooling. 137.189.250.86 (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * On the first point, personally I disagree. The cartwheel almost symbolizes the free-spirit of unschooling. However, I love your ideas about Ben Franklin and so forth. Tparameter (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

How is this not illegal?
i thought it was the law that children have to be schooled 208.103.186.214 13:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The law (in the United States at least) requires that children be educated, but not necessarily schooled. Parents are not required in any way to send their children to school as long as they are being otherwise educated. I think that the homeschooling article has a section (or a page) addressing the legality issue in regard to several different countries. I suppose we should probably add a link to that in the unschooling article, huh? Amillion 17:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

In NY, for instance, the law says something like, parents are required to "cause or provide for their children to be educated," and lists the range of subjects required. One of the successful arguments made in lawsuits for the legality of home education was that if schools are avenues for the government to promote and instill certain ideas, that is "speech" under the First Amendment which parents must have the freedom to dispute or reject. 207.237.211.21 02:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)Emily

No references?
There is now a tag on this article that says that it doesn't cite any references or sources. Surely this isn't an appropriate tag? Although most of the articles references aren't properly footnoted, there is a reference list, and almost all of the online sources are cited within the text of the article. Is there a tag that better reflects the actual state of the article? One that says that it doesn't footnote or that certain sections don't cite adequate amounts of sources perhaps? Amillion 04:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I've now footnoted a great deal of the references, and although there is still a large section in the middle of the article with no references, the article can hardly be said to have none at all, so I'm removing the tag. If anyone wants to put a tag on a specific section that needs references, I think that would be more usefull at this point that tagging the whole article. Amillion 06:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong reference. The item "Some children lack the foresight to learn the things they will need to know in their adult lives." is referenced twice, although one of the sources "Criticism Unspooling Unschooling, http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/erbeblog/archive/061127/unspooling_unschooling.htm" doesn't seem to refer to this criticism at all. DW1979 06:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It does say "It's an entirely larger question whether "unschooled" kids can enter the real and highly structured (or schooled) world and succeed without the requisite navigational skills." Amillion 07:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction?
"Unschooling is generally considered to be a form of home education, which is simply the education of children at home rather than in a school. Home education is often considered to be synonymous with homeschooling, but some have argued that the latter term implies the recreation of school in the context of the home, which they believe is philosophically at odds with unschooling."

so, if unschooling is not equivalent to homeschooling but home education, then why quote

"According to Johnathan Reider, an admissions officer at Stanford university, speaking of homeschoolers in general, "The distinguishing factor is intellectual vitality. These kids have it, and everything they do is responding to it." [11]"

if that is about homeschooling and not home education in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Well actually, the article in which the quote in question is found appears to be about home education in general. In fact, the kind of education described sounds like unschooling, even though that is not the term they use to describe it. Not everyone uses the same terminology, and many people use "homeschooling" to mean all forms of home education. Amillion 10:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The Greisse Losengow Experiment - MADE UP!!!!!
I have looked for awhile now to find anything on the internet about "The Greisse Losengow Experiment". I believe that it is completely made up. I request its deletion unless proper sources and citation are given.

Longjohnsilver64 19:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've removed the section, pending the addition of sources to substantiate that it's valid content and not a hoax. --Muchness 20:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I also did some searching for the listed researchers and couldn't find them. Looks made up to me. --lquilter 00:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have discussed this on my blog. (thequodlibetarian.blogspot.com) Both 217.52.13.111 and 41.235.85.159 are Cairo IPs, clearly the same person, who has also vandalized Kodiak bear.


 * To our friend in Cairo--Please do not post false information on wikipedia. Elaborate vandalism such as this may be entertaining to you, but it takes up a great deal of people's time in the good-faith effort to check it. Ethan Mitchell 18:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * To our friend in Cairo, again--It appears very much as if the information you are posting is a hoax. If you came up with it yourself, then you are vandalizing the page and your IPs will be blocked.  If you found it somewhere else, please refer us to a source.  There is no "Ohio Journal of Psychological Development."  Thanks.  Ethan Mitchell 13:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

"This criticism is non-notable"
Today the criticism "Children who direct their own educations may not develop the ability to take direction from others." was removed. The person who removed it said only "This criticism is non-notable." What is your criteria? There is a source cited for this criticism. I'm sure I could find other sources, because it's an extremely common criticism. It's quite relevant. What is your reason for removing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amillion (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The criticism in question appears to be from a single reader letter and I do not believe it is notable or common. Besides this, the criticism is unquantifiable. In what way is the ability to direct oneself measured, and how is it a problem? It simply seems very vague. I think a similar criticism relating to a perceived lack of discipline among unschooled children may be appropriate, but this current criticism seems out of place.--Tzler 21:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've posted a paper on the published critiques of unschooling and freeschooling on Philica. In that forum, I cite three authors who articulate the criticism above: Ernst Papanek (1970), Max Rafferty (1970), and Christopher Hurn (1978).  I would say that if three different authors have described it in publication, it's notable.  That's not to say that it's quantifiable, or a 'real problem' or clear.  But it is notable.  Ethan Mitchell 23:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Photo
I just added the image. It's tricky to get something that visually conveys "unschooling," but I think this works. The subject is by herself, doing something educational yet exuberant...I don't think we could use a picture of, say, four boys clustered around a biology textbook. Ethan Mitchell 13:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the awkward position of the girl - upside down, flying through the air - kind of distracts the reader from the text of the article. It also might make them think "Oh my goodness, she's going to break her neck, unschooling is dangerous!" and not even read the article. Maybe we could use a picture of someone climbing a tree or something instead. -Tea and Crumpets (Talk - contribs) 04:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What this article needs
After quickly reading through the article, here are some suggestions I have (and I will probably help implement them, when I have time):


 * This article needs more citations. All the quotations must be cited, as well as anything else that can be. This will lend more credibility to the article.


 * This article needs a history section. It needs a section to describe how the homeschooling movement developed, gained popularity, gained notice in the news, etc.


 * The "Criticisms" section needs to be expanded. For it to be NPOV, I think the criticisms should be more than just a bulleted list.


 * This article needs to be about the unschooling movement as a whole, not just about the philosophy. It needs to include examples of unschoolers in the news and in books, the history of the movement (as I stated earlier), comparing and contrasting unschooling with other forms of alternative education, and other things that would make the article more encyclopedic.


 * This article needs to include a worldwide view of unschooling.


 * And, as I mentioned above, it might need a better picture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tea and crumpets (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

68.2.159.217: Do not remove a request for a citation unless you have actually added a citation
Either cite a credible source that establishes that Kathy Parra is a notable unschooling advocate or refrain from removing my request for a citation. Amillion (talk) 02:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to remove this name until a credible source can be found that supports the claim that this person is notable. Amillion (talk) 07:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

POV?
This article seems very POV to me. It seems to assume that all schools are "one-size fits all" and ignores the fact that there are schools specifically for the arts, for languages, for technology, for the college-bound, and for trades. It also ignores the fact that most high schools students, outside of certain requirements (usually math through higher-level algebra, science up through chemistry, a language, and English for the entirety of schooling) lets students chose what subjects they would like. And as for the required subjects being all at the same pace for all students, most schools have a regular and an advanced version of most courses. Some even have three versions. Basically, the article seems to only talk about what's good about unschooling and it seems to be saying that regular schooling turns us all into mindless automatons. College acceptance is briefly touched on, but it only says that many students are accepted, even to Ivy League schools. Are there some statistics? What percentage of unschooled children go onto college? Which colleges do they go to? Since there are no tests in unschooling, this is pretty much the only way to say if it's successful or not. If there are any statistics on the percentages of unschooling students who express interest in college that would be good too. The criticisms of unschooling are barely talked about and the wording in that section seems rather vague. The idea is much more radical than homeschooling and homeschooling is criticized often. Maybe the reason there's so little criticism is that it's rare? How many children are doing this? Are there any numbers? And if there are no numbers on any of this, what does that mean? That there's no way to keep track of what's going on with these kids? Only two people on here have talked about their experience with unschooling but for both of them it doesn't seem to be going perfectly. The girl is 9 years old and illiterate; the boy was mainly playing video games until he was finally given some structure (which, from the article, it seems would not be part of unschooling). So it can't be as perfect as the article makes it sound. Millancad (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The part about schools being "one size fits all" is discussing unschooler's views of formal education, so of course it is POV. It is in fact a point of view. It is not necessary for it to be the Ultimate Truth, it just has to be an accurate representation of the opinions of unschoolers. Regardless, while some schools may have some amount of flexibility, it is not the amount of flexibility available to unschoolers, or even "school-at-home" homeschoolers.


 * The criticisms section does in fact need work. As a matter of fact, as discussed above, it needs to not be a separate section at all. Feel free to help with this.


 * I have seen some statistics about the number of unschoolers. I shall look for them, but feel free to look yourself and add what you find. College acceptance would certainly not be the only measure of success in unschooling; happiness in their adult lives and the amount of passion they have for their work would be better measures.


 * No, sometimes unschooling does not work perfectly for individual families. This does not mean that the entire philosophy is invalid. The added structure given to the child who spent his time playing video games would not be at odds with unschooling; while some unschoolers do not restrict video games or television in order to teach their children self regulation, others forbid both altogether. Amillion (talk) 15:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * RE: "happiness in their adult lives and the amount of passion they have for their work would be better measures". But these things can't be measured. While your comment may have merit, these aren't typically discussed measures that people discuss with regard to orthodox education systems. Tparameter (talk) 01:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * They are indeed difficult to measure, but psychologists can and do measure abstract things like job satisfaction, and the fact that it is difficult to measure them does not mean that they are not worth measuring. They would certainly tell us much more than the percentage of unschoolers admitted to college. After all, unschooling is based on the premise that one does not need a school to learn, and universities are schools. Amillion (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * First, can we agree that orthodox educators and unschooling/homeschooling skeptics typically want to compare education by using orthodox measuring standards? Assuming this is true, then rate of college attendance, and success in college, may be good measures to use. Either way, you pointed out that, "unschooling is based on the premise that one does not need a school to learn, and universities are schools" - and you did so to support the idea that job satisfaction may be a better measure. I would say that is a straw man, given the fact that unschooling is most certainly NOT based on the premise that "job satisfaction" is necessarily evidence of a good education. Unschoolers believe very simply that education as a formal institution is not effective - particularly in the way it is implemented in modern public schools. My guess is that unschoolers would measure success in abstract ways, like how well-adjusted their children end up as adults, or even a more general measure like how well the children function as adults - again, unmeasurable measures, if you will. Another consideration on your thesis, I would argue, is that unschoolers typically think of their methods (or non-methods) as a replacement for K-12, and preparation for life-learning in general. This does not mean that they are against the idea of college, which is quite different than K-12 altogether. Tparameter (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not what I meant at all; I hope this time I can write more clearly. I was using job satisfaction as an example of something quite abstract and subjective that academics have methods of measuring, I was not arguing that it is the one true measure of educational success.


 * I did say that "unschooling is based on the premise that one does not need a school to learn, and universities are schools," but I did so not to demonstrate that job satisfaction is a better measure, but to cast doubt on the assertion that college acceptance and/or attendance are good measures of the success of unschooling. Let's imagine that 99% of unschoolers do not go to college. What would we learn from that figure? Nothing, because there could be any number of reasons why they don't go to college. A growing number of unschoolers are beginning to unschool college (often calling it "uncollege"), and those that do not "do" college at all may chose to abstain because they have found something more fulfilling and broadening. What I'm saying is that if the premise is that one does not need an institution to learn, how much sense does it make to measure the validity of that premise by how often people who learn without an institution as children use an institution to learn as young adults?


 * Because of the limitations of such measures of educational success, I suggested that other measures might be more appropriate. I believe the examples I initially gave were happiness in adult life and amount of passion for one's work (not necessarily one's "job"), although these may not be the best available measures either; they are just the examples I was able to think of off of the top of my head. A variety of psychometric tests could be used to measure either of those. Amillion (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent and insightful reply. You make good points. The "uncollege" tidbit is interesting, and I intend to discuss this with some of my friends. In fact, I haven't heard that term; but, I intend to use it. ;] With regard to comparing the success of unschooling with orthodox methods - I would submit that each has distinct goals, at least insofar as any consideration sub-category inside the typical getting a "good education" sort of thing. I suspect that the distinct goals of each respective philosophy will negate any possibility of substantive analysis in our aforementioned measures, whichever measure we choose to implement. Last, your clarification on your job comment helps a great deal - mainly because I think that unschoolers probably think the way you describe about one's work, being distinct potentially from the mainstream idea of "a job" anyway. Cheers. Tparameter (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not everything works for everyone, that's a fact, but I find it hard to believe that someone who unschools their child in the first place would actually restrict access to video games and television, of all things. Is there any way you can prove this? GaeMFreeK (talk) 14:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, here are some examples I found through a brief internet search:


 * http://unschoolgirls.blogspot.com/2006/12/kill-your-television-after-using-it-to.html
 * "Forget that we're vegetarian, atheist unschoolers who boycott mainstream supermarkets and that our second car is a pedicab. Living a television-free existence is by far the most radical aspect of our lives."


 * http://journals.aol.com/granron5557/carteblanchediscovery/
 * "A journal of our unschooling days...we are also discussing going TV free."


 * http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/faculty/displayFacultyNews.php?tablename=notify1&id=615
 * "Unschooling is not unparenting," Ms. Puckett said. "My choice is that too much TV is not good for their brains, and it inhibits their natural curiosity." Amillion (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, you could probably find quite a few examples if you searched for the phrase "unschooling is not unparenting," as it is a phrase commonly used by unschoolers who restrict TV and video games. Amillion (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have some experience socializing with unschoolers, and cooperating with various types of home school families, and I would say that your examples accurately represent my friends. Unschooling parents are typically radical and hyper-analytic parents, questioning and often denying tradition and accepted norms - particularly those norms that are deemed to be potentially harmful, like McDonald's, video games, TV, and so forth. Tparameter (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Unschooling media : participatory practices among progressive homeschoolers is a MIT paper about unschoolers and media use, may be of interest here. PDF, big!  Hafwyn (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

"Resource" section
This section is relavant and referenced. Why has it been removed? Amillion (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but talking about some "unschooling" camp somewhere is not relevant. - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 20:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, mass deletions should be discussed here first. Reverted. Tparameter (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I explained all of my edits in the edit summary - removed point of view, unsourced text, and information that strays from the topic. - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 21:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, we've never interacted. Let me ask you a question. Would you consider this, "(→College admission: remove section)", to be an "explanation"? If so, then I guess we have a major disagreement. If not, then please revert your mass deletions and talk politely about what you would like to do. Thanks. See, when you say, "I explained all of my edits...", I take that to mean that you genuinely believe that you made an adequate explanation. "Remove section" doesn't explain WHY you removed anything. Tparameter (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

My reasons for removing the text was in various edit summaries I gave (and also above the comment you just posted) and it ranged from removing point of view statements, removing a completely unsourced section, and removing a section that strays from topic. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but your revert of all of my edits was too extreme for the situation, and it reverted many non-controversial edits such as this one. However, you proceeded to call my edits "dramatic" and the best reason you can give is that I should have discussed it on the talk page first. Now, I would like to know what your arguments are for keeping the text, because you don't have an argument for the actions you took at this point. Can you honestly say that the paragraph I removed in the lead section belongs in this encyclopedia? And, tell me how is removing a spam-like paragraph is considered a mass deletion. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get in an edit war over this; however, because you have no arguments whatsoever for you mass revert, what I will do is restore my revision of the page until you can give an good explanation for the text you removed. If at some point in time you come up with a valid argument against one of the edits I have made, you should not just revert all of my edits, as that would include a revert of all of uncontroversial edits.  Instead, only made the edits to which you have a valid argument.  Cheers.  - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 21:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I was really hoping that you would answer my question - so I'll ask it one more time. Would you consider this, "(→College admission: remove section)", to be an "explanation"? Next, you seem to want some justification why I described your edits as "dramatic". How about the fact that you deleted over 50% of the article, with SOME of the explanations being "removed section"? If the DJIA dropped 50%, I'd call that "dramatic" as well. Do you agree that "remove section" is not an adequate explanation for removing, for example, a section with four references? Why don't you self-revert and make some of the more obviously helpful edits first. Let's talk it through before such a huge deletion program. Let's start there. Tparameter (talk) 22:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I have already explained all of this to you in my reply above. We are not getting anywhere by discussing this, but you seem to be very comfortable going back to this same point.  Is that because you don't want to answer my questions?  - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 23:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, surprising. Okay, well, I asked you a question twice, which you didn't answer. So, let me in good faith try to answer your questions, which came later, and then maybe you'll answer mine, which came first.
 * 1. "Now, I would like to know what your arguments are for keeping the text, because you don't have an argument for the actions you took at this point." Okay, I'm simply saying that you deleted over half of the article, with some sections being deleted simply with the "explanation" given as "remove section" - which in my estimation is not adequate. My argument is that referenced material should not be deleted unless it is done with a good explanation, if not consensus.
 * 2. "Can you honestly say that the paragraph I removed in the lead section belongs in this encyclopedia?" I never made any such claim. Instead, I noted that you did not adequately explain all of your deletions, so you should revert and make an attempt to do so on the talk page. Do you think it fair that other editors should have to wade through 9000k of edits to determine, without adequate explanation, what is justified? I already have a full-time job. Be polite, and discuss these mass deletions, as I'm sure many of them are probably good.
 * 3. "And, tell me how is removing a spam-like paragraph is considered a mass deletion." Please don't put words in my mouth. You are choosing one paragraph and making it sound like I was speaking about this paragraph specifically, which I clearly was not. On the other hand, would you say that reducing an article from 16000k to 7000k is not a mass deletion?
 * 4. "you seem to be very comfortable going back to this same point. Is that because you don't want to answer my questions?" No. It's because I asked a question, and you never answered it. I think that healthy discussion involves answering each other's respective questions as they are asked.
 * There. Now I hope I answered your questions. Consider my suggestions, and please answer my questions. Thanks. Let's cooperate. Tparameter (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I answered your questions in one of my comments above, and I will not be repeating myself just because you want to go in circles talking about what does not pertain to the future of this article. Now, by reverting all of my edits you were basically saying the you disagreed with my edits, including the non-controversial edits I made. So, what real explanation are you going to give for re-adding the completely unsourced paragraph I pointed out here. My point was that your revert was not appropriate and I did in fact give three very good reasons for the actions I took which applied to all of my edits. So, I want to know exactly why reverted all of my edits without any explanation - something you think is very important. You really didn't answer any of my questions. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 23:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sympathetic with many of Diligent Terrier's changes. However, with or without those changes, the whole article is more like a personal essay than an encyclopedia article. Let's discuss it here, then make changes. OK? --Orlady (talk) 23:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave point by point answers, and you still will not do the same. Then you accuse me of not answering your questions. Nevertheless, I will continue to assume good faith - but, I disagree with your methods. And, once again, you're putting words in my mouth. You deleted a section with four references without explanation, among other things, yet you have a problem with my reverting that deletion and politely asking you to discuss first. Please cooperate. Let's be civil, please. Tparameter (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's start over. Three people here, so far, have questioned your deletions, or at least asked for discussion here first. One person disagrees. Let the majority opinion, which is asking simply for discussion, prevail. Thanks. Tparameter (talk) 23:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A more conservative approach might be to first add "needs citation" tags where there are none, if that's a concern. Just a suggestion. Thanks. Tparameter (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article needs some work. It needs to be rewritten in many places, and several sections still need citations. However, I agree with Orlady and Tparameter that any massive or potentially controversial changes need to be discussed here first.


 * In reference to what you termed "some "unschooling" camp somewhere," I think you will find that it's actually the only such camp in existence, and was started by a famous advocate of teenage unschooling, Grace Llewellyn. I would argue that both it and resource centers are relevant to an article about unschooling, although I agree that the paragraphs ought to be written more encyclopedicly. Amillion (talk) 04:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but "being bold" is one of the core ideas Wikipedia is centered upon. There was nothing wrong with me taking the initiative in this situation, and taking the actions I did. Resource sections do not belong in Wikipedia. Regarding providing an explanation for edits, I gave three good reasons throughout my edit summaries (removed point of view, unsourced text, and information that strays from the topic) ... and I thought editors would be smart enough to figure out the they should be applied to the other edits as well. I had explained this in my second comment in this section. However, Tparameter still asked me the same question again, and I was patient enough to answer him/her. Then, I asked Tparameter a few questions and he/she never answered them. So I will ask them again: Do you believe that the following paragraph belongs here? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Unschooling advocates believe that children learn best by doing; a child may learn reading to further an interest about history or other cultures, or math skills by operating a small business or sharing in family finances. They may learn animal husbandry keeping dairy goats or meat rabbits, botany tending a kitchen garden, chemistry to understand the operation of firearms or the internal combustion engine, or politics and local history by following a zoning or historical-status dispute. While any type of homeschoolers may also use these methods, the unschooled child initiates these learning activities. This article as it is now reads like a personal essay paper documenting people's experiences with Unschooling. What I did was not a mass deletion, re-adding material that quite simply doesn't belong in this article. But Tparameter just called it dramatic and reverted all of my edits, a completely inappropriate action for the circumstance. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it is so obvious that the resources section does not belong here, I have gone ahead and removed it. However, I would like to hear others' arguments for keeping the other text I deleted.  - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It was not at all obvious to me that the "resources" section did not belong, so I restored it, but I renamed it to "Organizations" and removed the subsections. I think is information value in telling about the emergence of organizations to support unschooling. --Orlady (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the FIRST time that you actually made an attempt to directly answer my question. Your answer clearly is that the implied explanation for your unexplained edits were the explanations of the other edits. Fine. However, since you claim to adhere to "core ideas" on Wikipedia, you might look at WP:Civil. Before continuing on this thread topic, I want to say that I consider it uncivil that you would say, as your somewhat peculiar answer to my original question, "I thought editors would be smart enough to figure out the they should be applied to the other edits as well", which clearly questions my intellect. Nevertheless, I am not the sensitive type, nor am I insecure in my intellect - so, no big deal. But, let me just say for the record, and since you brought it up, that I would be happy to compare each other's respective intellectual accomplishments if you feel that you're dealing with an inferior mind here. Of course, this isn't the proper setting for that - so, if indeed you want to compare notes, let's do so on one of our talk pages instead. Cheers. Tparameter (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In reference to the paragraph you quoted, Diligent Terrier, I think that while it should probably not remain as it stands, it does serve an important purpose. By providing tangible examples, it explains the practice more clearly and accessibly than might be possible otherwise. However, since the examples are both hypothetical and the product (I assume) of the mind of a Wikipedia editor, they are not encyclopedic. I propose that we maintain the form and intention of this paragraph, but replace the hypothetical examples with real ones (provided that appropriate sources can be located). Would that suitably address your concerns, or is your problem with the paragraph something else entirely?

Your edit, by the way, was a mass deletion, and it was dramatic. Sometimes edits of that nature are wonderful and necessary, but the fact that it was extreme and poorly explained is not a figment of Tparameter's imagination. Also, if you look a bit further up in this discussion, you will find that Tparameter answered all of the questions you asked, including the one you keep repeating. They are in a numbered list.

Wikipedia's editing policy encourages editors to "whatever you do, endeavor to preserve information." Instead of deleting content, one is supposed to "rephrase, correct the inaccuracy while keeping the content, move text within an article or to another article (existing or new), add more of what you think is important to make an article more balanced, or request a citation by adding the tag" whenever possible. One is also encouraged to discuss major edits on the talk page prior to making them. One is certainly expected to discuss changes when other editors question them, and do so civilly. Take a deep breath, and let's all try to be pleasant to each other. Amillion (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead section of article
In reforming this article, I'd like to begin at the beginning. As currently written, the beginning of this article does not closely resemble what is called for by WP:Lead section. Furthermore, I fail to understand the "distinct" difference between the two meanings of "unschooling." I'd like to see a single concise (one-sentence) definition of "unschooling" at the beginning of this article. Here's a strawman: Unschooling is a term for methods of home-based education that do not resemble schools, particularly for an educational approach envisioned by educator, author, and home education advocate John Holt, who coined the term to refer to an arrangement in which parents aid the child in exploring his or her interests.[source] "Unschooling" does not indicate that the child is not being educated, but rather that the child is not being "schooled".[source] Is that accurate? --Orlady (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty close. Sounds pretty good. One potential change might indicate that a formal curriculum is not used in unschooling, rather than cryptically quoting "schooled". Just a suggestion. I'm glad people are enthusiastic about this article right now. I've been watching it for a while, always meaning to work on it. Tparameter (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So, would you prefer this?
 * Unschooling is a term for methods of home-based education that lack formal curriculum and generally do not resemble schools, particularly for an educational approach envisioned by educator, author, and home education advocate John Holt, who coined the term to refer to an arrangement in which parents aid the child in exploring his or her interests.[source] "Unschooling" does not indicate that the child is not being educated, but rather that the child is not being "schooled".[source]
 * --Orlady (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Tparameter (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Other forms of alternative education section
I really don't think the Other forms of alternative education section belongs in this article. It strays from the topic. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Tparameter (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong as it is presently constituted. On the other hand, there might be a reason to have a Relationship to Other forms of alternative education section that tells how unschooling compares and relates to other alternative education approaches (this would need to be sourced, of course -- not 'original research'). Instead of that, perhaps there should be an article series for Alternative education (to see what I'm talking about, see Discrimination), connected by a navbox that contains links to Unschooling, Sudbury Valley School, School-at-home (educational philosophy), Waldorf education, and other articles about alternative education topics. --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of image
The image was recently removed, along with the "improve citations" tag (although I believe that might have been an accident). The argument was that it didn't show anything specific to unschooling, and that it might depict anybody doing gymnastics. That's going to be true of any picture of the activities of unschoolers. Unschoolers don't do anything that no other group of people does. The purpose of the picture is to provide a visual example of something they might do. It accomplishes this, as it is in fact a picture of an unschooler unschooling at an unschooling camp. Amillion (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing the photo as it does not help readers understand the subject clearer. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
A lot of content in this article, specifically parts of the philosophy section and the college admission section seem to be about impressing readers with Unschooling. I'm removing the college admission section, and proposing a re-write of the philosophy section. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also adding tags related to this. - Diligent Terrier  (and friends) 20:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not unschoolers are admitted to college is extremely relevant to this article. If you want to change the tone of the section, you should do so, but I think that it should certainly be re-added. Amillion (talk) 00:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags
Are so may tags really necessary? I think too many tags become a hindrince,not a help!--Fireaxe888 (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Starting an overhaul
Hello all. I have been watching the recent flurry of edits with some dismay, as I am afraid that some good content has been thrown out with the bathwater, and that the ensuing discussion on the talk page hasn't been very helpful. I appreciate DT's point that we need more sources, but—as a sometimes educational historian—I have to point out that there is very little published research on unschooling, and so the article has to walk a fine line between WP:OR violations and not providing any kind of useful information to the reader. Anyhow, I've added 300 words on the history and usage of the term, with lots of citations. It's a revised and condensed version of a blog I posted over at [elsewhere | www.thequodlibetarian.blogspot.com]. More later. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The new history section is great! Amillion (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Which editor has a conflict of interest, and what is it? Amillion (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * DT added that tag, and I think that he or she was making an assumption based on the general tone of the article. I have a conflict of interest insofar as I work with unschoolers and I publish research about unschooling.  But I don't feel that those conflicts have detracted from the article, and I am fairly sure that DT was not referring to me in particular.  (Please let me know if I'm wrong).  My sense is that all articles about movements are apt to attract people who are in some way involved with the movement, and have to deal with that bias.  Unless the COI tag is letting the reader know something more specific, it is covered by the POV tag, and that should be enough.  Ethan Mitchell (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we should have a POV tag instead of a COI tag then, unless Diligent Terrier was in fact referring to a specific editor? Amillion (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Questions about the recent overhaul
Unschool, I noticed that you've made a lot of edits recently. That's great! However, you seem to be adding a lot of uncited material. Are you planning to add citations later on? Could you add them as you go along? The article already has a problematically essay-like tone; I'm afraid that adding a lot of uncited material and using weasel-words like "opponents argue..." is going to compound that problem rather than alleviate it. Amillion (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. You're right.  I know you're right, and I can't tell you how discouraged I am.  Yes, I was planning on getting back with cites later on, but you're right, I'm just going down the same path as whoever wrote before me.  I've intended for over a year to find some time to get back here and really shape this article up, but unlike the stuff where I spend most of my time, this one really needs some serious time spent on it.  I thought I was going to have the time when I did that to come back and really get it done.  But I didn't, and now I don't know when I will be able to.  I'm just going to have to back away for a while, and come back eventually maybe some day later.  Oh well.Unschool (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get discouraged! This article has a long way to go, but if everybody inclined to work on it just does a little bit at a time; just adding maybe a sentence with a citation or re-writing a couple of lines each time they have a moment, it will eventually be a great article! Amillion (talk) 07:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there is a larger issue with this article and some others that fall into a similar category. There is, to put it mildly, almost no research on unschooling.  There is barely even much coverage of unschooling in the media.  So although we can articulate various observations, criticisms, and arguments related to unschooling from our own experience, most of these would be original research.  Rather than attempt to bypass this, I think we should find some way to acknowledge it in the article.  In point of fact, there are no outcome studies of unschoolers, there are almost no "criticisms" of unschooling in any important fora, and so on.  We should say as much.  (Ethan Mitchell, forgetting to sign in.)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.47.166 (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've pulled out the uncited stuff in the lead and added some stuff.

Are all these criticisms notable? Bonnie Erbe's criticism is a “hunch” she published in her blog on USN&WR; apparently based on no more research than websurfing. Also, her major focus is politics, not education. If that's notable, so are bumper stickers. Holt's list of criticisms are, as the name implies, about homeschooling in general, not unschooling in particular. McKee's article is not critical of unschooling in the slightest, and citing it in this way is perverse. It seems pretty clear that none of these would make the cut if we had more sources to work with.

What's worse is that these criticisms are getting repeated in other (lazy) articles as factually attributed to the wikipedia article on Unschooling. (Viz: http://www.educationbug.org/a/understanding-unschooling.html).

I think by far our best source so far is the MSNBC article and its follow-up piece: a major news source reporting directly on a summary of public opinion about unschooling. That's notable. Pretty much everything else should either be deleted or described in context of who is making the criticism. (And I do hope we can build up a more elaborate picture of the criticisms coming at unschooling from other wings of the homeschooling movement). Ethan Mitchell (talk) 13:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)