"Unschooling" Appeals to Some

http://www.thepilot.com/stories/20070116/news/local/20070116unschooling.html

I think this is probably the calmest, cleanest article on unschooling I've ever seen (that wasn't by and for unschoolers, I mean).

This might be a good one for some people to send to relatives, I think.

Sandra

Sacramento Bee article

http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/106290.html
"No core subjects, no imposed curricula? You must be unschooled."

The sidebar is pretty good. The last quote shown on page 1 unfortunately could make it seem that Pam Sorooshian thinks it's neglect. The sidebar disputes that. I couldn't get to page 2.

2007, and one great article

-=-Isabel, who was listening as her mother explained the philosophy, turned and asked her, "What's a marine biologist?" Pozos answered, teaching her child without her daughter ever knowing she was being lectured.-=-

Uh.... She WASn't being lectured. Her mom was answering a question, just as she would've answered for a reporter or a neighbor. But anyway...

That's from the most positive unschooling article I've seen, maybe ever.

There's only ONE quote from an "expert," and not two. That makes it twice as good as the others even if the rest weren't great (which it is).

http://www.post-trib.com/news/194009,unskul.article

Sandra

The Chicago article from 12/24/06

'You have to trust that the child will learn'
http://www.suntimes.com/news/education/184566,CST-NWS-unskul24.article

Christmas-Day editorial attempt to slam unschooling

I didn't see the Sunday column to which he refers, but this is from the middle of a three parter column by Neil Steinberg in the Chicago Sun-Times. There are lots of unschoolers in Chicago who will comment, no doubt. It's fun to see how wrong he has it.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/steinberg/185462,CST-NWS-stein25.article


"No more teachers' dirty looks ..."

There is a brand of contemptuous, snarling, right-wing American rage, a damnation of all things liberal, that has been rather quiet -- sulking perhaps -- since the recent election. In this job, I hear it expressed a lot, or used to, but never felt it much myself. Though there was one moment, I recall vividly, when it cracked through my soul like an arc of electricity. I was listening to a lullaby, "Child of Mine," by 1960s singer/songwriter Carole King.

"You don't need direction," she sings, one assumes to her raggy, unkempt babe, "you know which way to go. . . ."
No, no, no, NO!! If I've learned one thing raising boys for the last 11 years, it is that kids need direction and lots of it, plus guidance, oversight, discipline, monitoring and constant upkeep. Left to their own devices, they will set the sofa on fire to see what happens. They will juggle knives, or try to. They will spend their days eating frozen sticks of butter and slapping their video game controllers until their fingers bleed.

Thus I was a little unsettled by Rosalind Rossi's provocative front page story Sunday about "unschooling," the practice of letting kids drop out of school and, basically, teach themselves whatever they like on their own schedule.

No doubt it works for certain rare -- very rare -- kids. It certainly worked for Roz's main subject, Abby Stewart: a ballerina, well-read, off to Princeton.

But I would suggest that Stewart is more the exception than the rule -- and that rule we shall call the "Toddler in the Woods Rule." It states: Even though an occasional child will toddle off into Craggy Ravine National Park and be discovered, three days later, happy and fit and berry-stained, having sipped dew and made friends with bears, there are 99 others who won't, 99 others who make a beeline for the first cliff and are never seen again. Thus, despite any heartwarming exceptions, it still isn't a good idea to let your children get lost in the woods.

Someone has to say it. Schools are good and necessary. Teachers are good and necessary. Parents are good and necessary. And while it is marvelous -- in the sense of being a marvel -- that certain autodidactic prodigies can thrive on their own, that doesn't mean that "unschooling" would work for all kids or even most kids. They need direction because they don't know which way to go.

When DROPOUT isn’t a bad word (Boston article)

When DROPOUT isn’t a bad word: Some local teens are thriving by setting their own schedules and learning by doing
12/9/06
The Patriot Ledger

http://ledger.southofboston.com/articles/2006/12/09/news/news01.txt


It's one of the best I've seen for a while, even though it follows the pattern of quoting two experts who know nothing of unschooling.

Near the end there's a sentence that doesn't make any sense. I hope it was a file glitch, because it doesn't even have all its punctuation:

‘‘If I feel like I’m ready to spend $40,000 to talk and learn things, but I feel like first I need to do some more soul-searching.

Poor girl being misquoted, but lucky girl having a life rich enough to be in the newspaper. She wouldn't have had that if she'd stayed in school.

Sandra

New York Times unschooling article

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/education/26unschool.html
November 26, 2006
Home Schoolers Content to Take Children's Lead


Pretty good article, but some of editorial touches reminded me of how others see learning. One of the captions within the slide show is "Hayden and Sydney postpone reading by goofing around in the living room while Ms. Walter selects the books." Most photos involve books.

"Gaby tries to practice piano while Hayden and Sydney run around the living room" was another loaded caption. Maybe she was PLAYING the piano, and they were dancing. But an editor decided to put a negative spin on it.

In the International Herald Tribune's running of the story (credited to the New York Times, and not quite as long nor with as many photos) the title was changed to this: In extreme form of home schooling, kids call the shots

What shots? Why should anyone "call shots"?

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/view.php?StoryID=20061126-070148-9145r UPI report on NYT story, next day.