radical or not??

[KraftigModer]

I am yet to hear what defines a 'radical' unschooler. How is it different from unschooler?
And is a natural learner different from an unschooler?
Cheers :)

[Janet]

Oh yeah crunchy topic straight up :lol

I think there's a lot of crossover between consensual living and unschooling in general but I think the radical unschooling stuff I'd read indicates a slightly different view with more emphasis on children's decision making even than in unschooling. I think of myself as an unschooler but there are some things I choose to decide in our home rather than offering it to my children to decide. They wear seatbelts, they hold hands in the street, they don't jump off furniture, their clothing and toys are managed within the ethical and feminist boundaries we choose as parents. Of course when they make choices to run off and not hold hands, for instance, we don't punish, we just catch them up and keep talking about safety. :lol But I think in RU circles there is a philosophical attachment to offering children choice in all areas as opposed to what I do, which is offer choices within parameters I consider safe and appropriate. We have no interest in controlling stuff like food, tv, bedtimes, washing and the like and we offer emotional freedom, we don't shame or insist that children put on certain emotions in order to gain approval. We don't praise, punish or shame. Those are also part of RU as I perceive it.

What do you think, Kraftig?

[Luna Bloom]

in terms of unschooling and natural learning, i think they both refer to the same thing, though "unschooling" is more commonly used in america, and "natural learning" is used here in australia. they refer to children learning by following their own interests, rather than being given lesson plans etc {i call that school-at-home} .

radical unschooling extends this from just the freedom to learn educational stuff in their own way, to all of the stuff involved in their life...bedtimes, food, tv, etc.

i see it as a natural extension of the practice of trusting babies to breastfeed on demand, to self wean, to sleep when they need.

my experience with my daughter {and the experiences of other families i know}, has shown me that children are far more capable of making good decisions for themselves {and that doesn't always look like what i would choose for my daughter}, and from a very early age, than most adults give them credit for. but that can only occur if they are trusted and supported and shown respect as intelligent beings.

control and fear are so ingrained in our society that it seems to be very difficult for a lot of people to truly and thoroughly examine the necessity they feel to limit their childrens opportunities to make decisions for themselves.

[Quickening]

I see unschooling and natural learning as the same things, I think its just a cultural difference like "putting the washing on" and "doing the laundry". I like the term natural learning much much more than unschooling though because it seems like a better description of the learning. Maybe the concept unschooling came about in the USA because parents were taking their kids out of school, and deschooling them back to unschooling/natural learning ways of learning?

Wasn't it Sandra Dodd who coined the term 'radical unschooling'? I'd love to hear your definition of this Sandra.

I know womyn who think radical unschooling means allowing children to make their own choices and judgments in everything, but like Janet I draw the line at personal safety - physical, emotional and mental safety. I don't think it is "not trusting" children when we acknowledge that their worldviews and experiences are not as encompassing as that of an older child's or adult's.

Personally I view radical unschooling as a form of natural learning that does not differentiate between "educational" and "non-educational" activities. Everything is learning even if it is sitting there doing absolutely nothing, one is learning awareness of their body. Playing a video game according to my mother is not educational - but it is! There isn't any such thing as an "educational" game and a "non-educational" game. Reading comics can be just as educational as reading an encyclopedia etc. I know as a child I would prefer to read comics, play outside, go for hikes, build cubbies and dams - to me allowing a child the freedom to be their own person and to learn as they choose to to be radical unschooling.

[Janet]

I think it was "Continuum Concept" that helped me move out of divisions of activities a la western capitalist mode and into all activities being equal in learning potential and even *gasp* enjoyment potential - I draw the line at enjoying all household maintenance but removing the "bad" label does help.

[Ayla]

I really should get around to reading that book...

[Luna Bloom]

Continuum Concept was pretty key for me, too. and another book by an australian woman, Gaia Grant. it's called "the rhythm of life". where as Jean Leidloff looks at one indigenous culture, Gaia Grant compares many different indigenous cultures from around the world.
and john holt's stuff, i read at a time when mira was just walking and really getting into exploring the world on her own, really helped shape how i viewed my role in her journey.

i'm sensing an integral difference in understanding of how radical unschooling functions in reality, but i'm not sure i can articulate what i'm sensing, and i really don't want to offend or affront people by clumsily trying to define it. but this is what i'm coming up with at the moment.

it feels a little like the conversation i've often heard between homebirthers and hospital birthers. to have a homebirth is scarey for some people and when asked if they don't trust their bodies ability to birth, will say it's not that i don't trust my body, it's that i know that realistically things "could" go wrong, so i feel safer being in the hospital "just in case".
there is a basic schizm in understanding between what is "safe" in birth, but it is very hard to explain to the committed hospital birther just where the trust comes in.

this feels the same to me, in that, if you've already made up your mind about what children are not capable of making decisions about, for their own safety or whatever, you're not likely to see that they can actually be trusted with that decision. you don't give them the oportunity to.

i hope this makes some sense.

[Janet]

I think our desire to control children has a long history with things like Original Sin backing it up. It's deeply entrenched in this society and thus must serve some function in it, yk? Even if I find it abhorrent our world is rooted in those ideas. I dunno about the birth analogy ;) I don't birth at home because I trust my body but because science and evidence demonstrate it to be safe, far safer than the alternatives. ;)

[Luna Bloom]

i like that you said "desire" to control children. thats just what i see it as, not a necessity. men controling women and children has a long history and is deeply entrenched too. not so great when you're a woman though. i feel the same way for kids.

[Quickening]

this feels the same to me, in that, if you've already made up your mind about what children are not capable of making decisions about, for their own safety or whatever, you're not likely to see that they can actually be trusted with that decision. you don't give them the oportunity to.



Why not use the crossing the road analogy?

I'm providing a safe opportunity for my child to gain experience in judging car speed, and car distance, and time available to cross the road safely in front of an approaching car every time I cross the road with them and insist that they hold my hands.

As a radical unschooler, every experience is a learning opportunity even if that experience requires my young child to adhere to what I or another adult, or even an older child experienced in crossing the road, deems is safe.

As they cross with me, they learn how to judge distance, time, speed more accurately for themselves. It gives me the opportunity to ensure their safety as well, should they mis-calculate and step onto the road.

Like I said, I don't think it is "not trusting" children when we acknowledge that their worldviews and experiences are not as encompassing as that of an older child's or adult's. When we acknowledge that our 3 year old does not have the same level of abilities that his older sister did at his age, and insist that his hand is in ours when we approach a road, we are safeguarding his life.

To say this is not giving him the opportunity to show he can be trusted near the road is untrue. As he learns and matures he has started to realise the danger of the road and instead of running towards it with the park singularly on his mind, he now slows down and waits for us.
He'll choose to hold hands now and cross the road with us instead of running straight for the park without ANY thought about what terrain he is crossing. Our 5 year old is a good judge of when it is safe to cross a road, and when in doubt she waits. It isn't necessary to insist she hold hands anymore but she usually prefers to do this and ends up holding her brother's hand and talking about whether he can hear a car coming or not and where to look for cars.

[Luna Bloom]

i've found there are other options for a child to cross the road safely than being forced to hold someones hand. that's the bit i have a problem with. the "insisting" they hold the hand, or they won't be safe.

i've never insisted my daughter hold my hand when crossing the road, and she's never been hit by a car. i've always discussed with her when we'll be crossing a road and talked about ways we can be safe.

that's what i meant by a basic underlying difference in the perception of the possibilities. i feel those well meaning decisions to control and force children to do certain things communicates an underlying distrust of their capabilities. but if you've never tried something different in those instances, you are less likely to believe there is another option to control.

[Quickening]

Control and force indicate something done against a child's will. We have never forced our children to hold our hands when crossing the road. We have used and still use other options.

Discussing safety issues in advance and ways to navigate the risks of the outside world safely by itself was not a feasible option for our son at age 2, not with the park in plain view on the other side. Our son is the child who once gets it into his head to do something, he will singlemindedly attempt to meet that goal even with cautions or warnings. He is a child who listens and communicates in visual and physical ways.

One other option was for one of us to demonstrate crossing the road before our son reached the road, but this visual wasn't effective. So we asked him to hold our hand as we approached the road and reminding him about cars on the road. After a few trips like that, he started to let go and run for the park and we've barely caught him before he's hit the road. Three really heart wrenching occasions he's made it onto the road, one occasion narrowly missing a car coming around the corner. One of those times, he was chasing a BIRD, and was in complete ignorance of his surroundings.

Now we insist he hold someones hand as we approach the park. If he says no, we crouch to his eye level and touch his arm, hand, shoulder or body as we talk to him and point at the road, and use the car sign. He will then accept our offered hand. Sometimes he'll run towards the road but will now slow down now and offer his hand to us.

When our daughter was his age (2-3) she could comprehend safety and dangers when we pointed them out to her. At the age of 15 months however, she could not, and more so, she would not pay attention long enough to explain something or watch us demonstrate something. It was not really much of an issue then because she was happy with babywearing and was in the sling for the majority of the time. By the time she was walking more, she was past that stage and would take the time to listen to explanations. Like you and your daughter, I've never had to hold her hand when crossing the road, and she's never been in a dangerous situation on the road. I wish I could say the same for my son.

If you have other options or suggestions, please do offer them keeping in mind each child is different.

I'm also interested to hear your suggestions on what to do to gain a child's attention when they are completely captivated with something and are not listening. You can't explain dangers if they are not listening. Usually I move the object near my face to draw eye contact, and when I can't do that, I stand in between the object and my son - something that is not easy to do when he's been racing for the playground across the road with a rocket in his pants.

The law also insists that children and adults wear seatbelts, not because they don't trust the child or adult in the car but simply because there are risks to being in a car that are outside one's own control. The law does not force a child or adult to do so. I explain the reasons for seatbelt wearing and do my best to find a variety of options to offer like which carseat they want to choose, what book they'd like to read in the car, or making a game out of it etc. Sometimes that can be frustrating and make us late, but we do not forcibly belt our children into their seat like some other parents we have seen. However NOT wearing a seatbelt is NOT an option. So yes, we insist that seatbelts are on for car travel, but that doesn't necessitate the control or force that you speak of.

[SandraDodd]

-=- Maybe the concept unschooling came about in the USA because...-=-

There was a 7-Up commercial in the 1970's. 7-Up is a carbonated lemon/lime thing. At the time, there was also a huge competition between Pepsi and Coca-Cola (international--one got importation rights to the USSR and the other didn't, one got McDonald's and the other didn't--stuff like that). So 7-Up made a commercial that said "7-Up: The UNcola."

And that is where John Holt got the idea for UNschooling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-jJ-qigVEc&feature=related

And THAT is why it's called "unschooling."

I don't know if I first wrote "radical unschooling" or not, but it was in a sorting-out phase when there was a very big homeschooling forum on AOL in the early 1990s and there came to be tussles over who was or wasn't unschooling, because the forum split out a separate "room" with message boards and all for unschoolers.

In those same days the term "eclectic" came up to describe hybrid school-at-home/natural learning plans.

I didn't keep the discussions. Who knew we would need to know? And who knew AOL would shut it all down and delete a bunch of stuff? But some of us accepted the "radical" label because it could be interpreted to mean total or uncompromising, and that was fine.

My favorite cohorts over they years have been Pam Sorooshian and Joyce Fetteroll. Deb Lewis is fantastic, but often busy with other things. Lyle Perry was wonderful to riff with too, and I heard from him last week! His boys are big, and he's busy.

Anyway...
Pam and I have very often drawn the line when people come to define unschooling to us, or say "I thought unschooling meant..." From time to time one or the other of us has objected to these ideas:
"Child-led learning"
"Non-coercive parenting"

As "NCP," the latter is the name of a very narrow definition and I don't want to be linked with that movement (TCP, Taking Children Seriously)
The former suggests that parents should be passive and wait. Unschooling needs activity and motion!

So then people will say "So you're coercive?"

Seeing the world in black and white is a problem. We're not dealing in opposites. We're dealing in principles.

Some people make rules and say an unschooling parent MUST always or never do this or that. It's better to find the principles behind what you believe and make your best decision in each instance based on a principle.

If anyone read that and is baffled, these might help:
http://sandradodd.com/nest
http://sandradodd.com/rules

It's not all all my writing. It's part of my packrat collection of some of the best things written to help people understand how wonderful their life with their children can be!

[SandraDodd]

-=-i see it as a natural extension of the practice of trusting babies to breastfeed on demand, to self wean, to sleep when they need. -=-

I agree.

Some people gave their babies solid food when the book said to. I waited until the kids were reaching for it, and then I would mush it up for them or whatever made it safe. If they weren't interested, I wasn't in a hurry. They were learning what they liked and what was good for them in their own ways. They slept when they were sleepy, and that continued as they got older. I let them choose what to wear, with advice about what others would be wearing and why (Marty's tiger suit wouldn't have been okay for a funeral, but it was fine for the grocery store). If I thought they weren't dressed for the weather, I would take extra clothes so they'd have yet another choice later in the day.

I see two extremes on the control spectrum. One involves the fear of hell. Children must have their spirits broken because of their sinful nature. The other extreme has to do with a belief that souls came here to complete unfinished business, that they chose their own parents and that everything that happens to them is part of some greater destiny.

I can't decide which of those I think is more harmful. I don't live with either of them, but sometimes people do come to unschooling with the latter belief, and will make their statements and recommendations without saying that's what they're based on.

With that "meant to be" belief, it's simple to justify domestic violence and bad parenting, because after all, the child knew what she needed when she was born. NO THANKS to that.

[SandraDodd]

I used to tell my kids, in parking lots or crossing streets "Hold on to something!" They would grab my hand, or one of the straps of the backback or diaper bag or whatever, or my coat, or a bigger kid's hand. So they had choices and options, and they wanted to hold on to something, because it was safer, not because they would be in trouble if they didn't. It wasn't a command, it was a reminder.

When someone wasn't in a space to be safe on his own, I'd pick him up and carry him, or offer to let him ride in a cart.

[Quickening]

With that "meant to be" belief, it's simple to justify domestic violence and bad parenting, because after all, the child knew what she needed when she was born. NO THANKS to that.

I agree. I don't like it when people try to justify the unjustifiable.


When someone wasn't in a space to be safe on his own, I'd pick him up and carry him, or offer to let him ride in a cart.

I notice you used "him". Is that just a generic her/him or did you have a male child in mind? The reason I ask is because a few parents I have talked to have mentioned that their male children seem to communicate in a more physical way than a verbal way, making it necessary to get in physical contact, touch, eye contact, cuddle, carry, kiss, hold hands, hold something, etc because nothing else works.

[Aurora]

Sandra, alot or what you said rang true for me, and reminded me of why I disagree with the whole ''The Secret'' or ''Law of Attraction'' concept.

Quickening, I only have one male child and the other is only an infant, so I can't really offer much insight yet. DS seems to fluctuate between communicating in more verbal and physical ways, mood may come into it, aswell as context- who else is around, where were are. I'll get back to you in a few years! lol

[SandraDodd]

I guess it was half generic and half Marty Dodd. :-)

[Janet]

I used to tell my kids, in parking lots or crossing streets "Hold on to something!" They would grab my hand, or one of the straps of the backback or diaper bag or whatever, or my coat, or a bigger kid's hand. So they had choices and options, and they wanted to hold on to something, because it was safer, not because they would be in trouble if they didn't. It wasn't a command, it was a reminder.

When someone wasn't in a space to be safe on his own, I'd pick him up and carry him, or offer to let him ride in a cart.

We have always held hands with ours as we stepped off the kerb in front of our house. Now at nearly 5, and just 2, they say "Hold hands?" as soon as I open the front door. :lol On the rare occasions my babe is in a pram, my older child eschews the hand in favour of the pram handle. We've had times when he's been distracted and let go and I've had to dive after him to save him from going onto a busy road so when we pull up at the lights I keep my hand hovering near his. He was a classic bolter which could be very tiring and frustrating when he was wee and would race off as soon as lunch hit the table in the food court. We managed it over time and he now uses the same guiding principles when talking to his little sister about such things. :) And yes, it's a reminder not a command given that holding hands on leaving the house is just What We Do here so they anticipate it and even *gasp* ENJOY having that constant physical contact with their mama. ;) I'm often hearing "I love holding hands with you, mummy!" :D

We've had other safety issues with leaping off furniture or jumping on the couch which we mostly gritted our teeth through while asking if he could sit down on the couch or jump outside in the Jumping Castle. We also bought a little fold out foam children's couch and encouraged jumping on there since jumping wasn't ceasing and we had no intention of forcing him to do anything but wanted to discourage the unsafe parts of the activity. He was also modelling it for his younger sister who was a lot less physically aware than he at that point and the near misses of her launching herself into space were visibly ageing me. :lol I see my children experimenting physically and most of the time I'm utterly cool with it. I do sometimes say "Hold on tight honey, mummy's having issues." and it works pretty well overall because DP's Isshews and my Isshews are different and when we know we're just having a Moment which isn't about the kids at all, the other steps in and stays present. Sometimes I need to look away while the kids do stuff they're fine at that challenges me. :lol I'll catch up sometime, I expect ;)

[Ayla]

I am yet to hear what defines a 'radical' unschooler. How is it different from unschooler?
And is a natural learner different from an unschooler?
Cheers :)

My understanding of it is that unschooling and natural learning are the same thing but 'unschooling' is more common in American circles, whereas 'natural learning' is Aussie. Radical unschooling is where self-regulating is extended into other areas of life to varying extremes depending on the household. I don't have older children, so from my perspective I think some decisions and issues are too weighted for children as they are still developing. Even at 15 I understood the consequences of sex, but I would hate to think that my statutory rape was seen as my 'choice'. I was underage and deserving of protection from the adults around me. But that's a whole other set of issues that I'm just coming into facing now.

[Janet]

:console

[SandraDodd]

How much protection should adults give a fifteen year old? I've known kids who were forbidden to leave the house, yet they did. I've had kids who were free to leave the house, but they're here. (Honestly, I was surprised to see Marty in his bed this morning. He's 19 and has a 22 year old girlfriend with her own apartment and he doesn't have to work today.)

[Ayla]

I think adults should protect minors from other adults.

[SandraDodd]

My daughter is 16 and legally old enough to make her own choices. She has an older boyfriend. Marty is 19 and in some ways "a legal adult" but he's not old enough to drink. His girlfriend is.

In practical terms, how should a parent protect a teenager? I think giving them information and a safe home and the knowledge that if they call the parents will come and get them is the best that can be done.

[Ayla]

My past is something I'm yet to unpack and explore, but a safe & respectful home would definitely be one of the key elements. While I don't want to necessarily talk about my experience specifically, I was just trying to highlight my point that while radical unschooling sounds great in terms of respecting children (the idea of RU is certainly appealing to me), I don't think it should be at the expense of a child's safety. Whether I RU or not I will still always ensure the safety of my child such as crossing the road, wearing seatbelts in cars, protection from predators, objectification, etc.

[SandraDodd]

The safety of an infant is easier to ensure than of a teenager.

Every story (of the very few) I've heard of real-life online predators has involved a child who would rather not be at home than be at home. Some of them had parents who specifically said "no internet" (or whatever). One was a girl who KNEW the guy had lied and pretended to be a girl her age, and she kept up the "friendship" even after she learned he was a liar. Eventually he came, as arranged, to pick her up and take her away.

Where were her parents? In the house, having told her to stay off the computer. So she was herself being sneaky and dishonest. Yet she's making a living now by going to schools, scaring kids and badmouthing the existence of the internet, without seeing that homelife wasn't ideal.

Knowledge and confidence can go a long way, but they can't "ensure" anything. My kids are big seatbelt wearers. I grew up without them. Seatbelts aren't magic. Precautions are good. Safety is great. Limitations don't always ensure safety. At some point in a child's life, limitations can begin to create danger.

When a child is needy for attention, love or freedom he or she is in more danger than a child who loves being home, loves her parents, has choices and has had lots of practice making them.

[triceratops]

i see it as a natural extension of the practice of trusting babies to breastfeed on demand, to self wean, to sleep when they need.

my experience with my daughter {and the experiences of other families i know}, has shown me that children are far more capable of making good decisions for themselves {and that doesn't always look like what i would choose for my daughter}, and from a very early age, than most adults give them credit for. but that can only occur if they are trusted and supported and shown respect as intelligent beings.



I agree. I do think the childs age and maturity makes a difference to their ability to self-regulate (TV, junk food etc), explaining why you should wear a seatbelt to an 18 month old is a lot different to a 5 year old. My 7 year old daughter and I talk about things all the time, in detail, I offer my opinion but allow her to make her own decisions. And she makes wise, intelligent decisions, especially in regards to safety issues, I really have no need to control or regulate her at all, provided she has been given all the information she needs, I trust she’ll make good decisions.

[SandraDodd]

"Self-regulate" is still about rules (just about making your own rules).

Wise choices is a better phrase, I think, and a better goal, than "self regulation." It might seem it doesn't make any difference, but I think it does.

http://sandradodd.com/self-regulation
That has some of the wise words of Joyce Fetteroll and Pam Sorooshian.

[Quickening]

Knowledge and confidence can go a long way, but they can't "ensure" anything. My kids are big seatbelt wearers. I grew up without them. Seatbelts aren't magic. Precautions are good. Safety is great. Limitations don't always ensure safety. At some point in a child's life, limitations can begin to create danger.I agree that limitations don't always ensure safety especially as the child gets older and is capable of making their own choices and carrying those choices out regardless of the limitations put on them. I think fostering a healthy relationship between parent and child is probably one of the best things you can do to ensure their safety. If children feel they can go to their parents to discuss something and be allowed to make their own choices in the end, they are in a safer place than the child who avoids seeking advice or discussion with their parents because their parent-child relationship is not healthy. Those ones are more likely to go behind their parents backs and place themselves in situations where they may need an adults experience or help to get out of safely.

[Aurora]

I see how the use of language can carry over into behaviour. For that reason, I agree that ''wise choices'' is a better phrase than ''self-regulation.'' I like it. Thanks for that!

And I also agree Lisa, that healthy relationships contribute greatly to safety... when kids feel they can come to parents without fear of punishment etc, that's a great thing. Just the opportunity to talk things out, verbalise dilemmas etc to someone ''safe'' who loves you, can sometimes make all the difference between making wise & unwise decisions.

[triceratops]

Wise choices is a better phrase, I think, and a better goal, than "self regulation."



Thanks for the link. "Self regulation" is often discussed on AP and unschooling forums, I've never actually questioned the term "self-regulation" during these discussions but focused more on what that means to me and my family. I like the idea of making "wise choices" as opposed to regulating/controlling myself :).

[Janet]

In practical terms, how should a parent protect a teenager? I think giving them information and a safe home and the knowledge that if they call the parents will come and get them is the best that can be done.

Ah that would be nice :) Not all of us have access to that though, hey? I don't think "safety" or protection is something that we provide to that 15 year old person in isolation though. It should IMO be a long process of layering which has begun with honouring that child's decisions about following their body cues - eating and drinking to need not because it's Dinner Time, sleeping to need not to the school timetable or the Adult Time timetable, honouring children's wishes when they refuse to kiss adults who ask for affection, it's a long process. A child who is used to their bodily integrity and decisions being respected, who is attuned to following their gut rather than having had it praised/shamed/punished out of them, is a child who is able to manage many situations in which a child without those experiences could struggle. A child who is manipulated and made to perform for the convenience of adults OTOH is prey to predators and often unable to protect themselves, or tell their family if something dangerous happens because as a child their pain, worth and word have no value. So yes I think we owe it to our children to support them in acquiring the kinds of life skills which keep them safer, and then the follow up blame-free pick up at 4am by the side of the road is just a part of that process as it applies to teens.

[Ayla]

You make a good point about it being a wholistic picture, Janet. I'm still pondering it all! :)

[Janet]

It kinda reminds me of birth stuff, yk? Like we can't expect women to throw over the system and start assuming control of their lives just because they're pregnant. The skills and knowledge and sense of worth it takes to make sure you get the birth you and your baby deserves are a reflection of your whole life to that point.

[Ayla]

:bump

[Anarcostar]

Was going to start a new thread, instead I am Bumping this one as this has been a thorny issue for me.

Over the last year or so I've come to understand that although I trust my boy to make wise choices, there are certain things that interfer with his ability to do this, or confuse the messages his body is trying to tell him. I'm thnking mostly screen/ tv and food related stuff that stems from poor gut health. I think it's difficult to make wise choices when the effect of damaging influences is too great.

Many would not argue that, say in the case of alcoholism, where the effect of the actual alcohol and subsequent withdrawl is powerful, and interfers with the ability to listen to your body and making wise choices. If an alcoholic lived in your house, I doubt many people would expect them to just "self-regulate".

Some may see this example as extreme and irrelevant in relation to unschooling kids, but for me it couldn't be more relevant. When my boy has certain foods, the moods, reactivity, aggression and disconnectedness that follows, has a huge affect on everyone else in the family and our sense of safety and stability.

The other reason why I have found this to be such a thorny issue is because I have increasingly, and rather ironically come across/ up against a very dogmatic approach to unschooling (not termed radical but I think that was implied). That there were things that you do/ don't do, and if you didn't do this, you weren't really "doing it right", that holding any other philosophy watered down or invalidated the philosophy of unschooling. Never stated that bluntly, more P.A, like "oh well every other unschooled I know who's done it from the beginning has never had those problems" or "oh isn't he *allowed* to have a blue jelly bean?".

Don't know - maybe it's inferiority on my part, maybe I attached too much to the identity of being an "unschooler", that I felt isolated and disheartened at the thought I was "failing" unschooling! Yes I realise how ridiculous that sounds :lol

Anyway, rant over. :uhh I've decided to ditch the labels and the attachment to any particular identity, dogma or "school" of thought (:lol yes pun intended) and make choices for myself and WITH my family with respect to what nurtures us what we each need as individuals and as a family.

Hope this makes sense (on phone one handed!)

[Kris]

Absolutely - I didn't know I was an attachment parent until someone labelled me; I have nfi how I'd label myself with regards the schooling my children and my opinion is the only one that matters :lol

:grouphug I'm sorry you're encountering such PA shite. It's NOT okay.

[Ceres]

I think it's wiser to look at your child and see what he needs rather than embracing a philosophy, whether or not it fits. My DS isn't particularly skilled at self-regulation, I put it down to brain maturity and temperament. I'm not a radical unschooler, but if you put us on the spectrum between complete de-regulation and mainstream parenting I'm somewhere in the middle. There's no better or worse style of parenting, because the best way is going to be the way that meets your child AND your whole family's needs.

[Jo-Ma]

I think it's wiser to look at your child and see what he needs rather than embracing a philosophy
the best way is going to be the way that meets your child AND your whole family's needs.
Absolutely.

Although if I was going to stick a label on it, I would say we verge on the radical side of unschooling. I don't have an issue with the label as such and I'm sure there are differing degrees of what each person sees as "radical unschooling" anyway.

For us the key is the confidence we have in our conscious choices/lifestyle etc and knowing these are based on what works for our family right now. It's taken a while for us to get here but I no longer feel the need to have to justify any of this anymore.

[Jo-Ma]

Sorry, not sure what happened to the quote above

[Ceres]

Fixed the quote for you :)

I no longer feel the need to have to justify any of this anymore. :clap Love it!

[brogeybear]

I find it interesting exploring the different terms, such as 'unschooling, natural learning, consensual parenting', etc. I too, am one who doesn't like to label our family or myself and the way we live, but I do wish there were some not so fluid definitions to the above as it would help when communicating briefly where you sit on certain wide issues. At the same time, I see how it would be difficult to do that, as they are not so much definitions as life philosophies, and as such can be interpreted and practiced slightly differently by each person.

From this discussion at hand, I would say that we are natural/life learners rather than radical unschoolers, as we believe that part of being a parent is providing safe boundaries for our children, while preserving their autonomy. There are some things in life that from a safety perspective alone, are non-negotiable. We take a "don't sweat the small stuff" approach, and the "big stuff" rarely becomes an issue anyway when properly explained.

However I will give an example, my 2.8 y/o is prone to normal meltdowns when overwhelmed with his emotions, particularly when presented with something that he doesn't want to do. When visiting people, there comes a time when you HAVE to go home, you cannot simply stay there until 10pm when your child falls asleep, this comes within the realms of respecting other people's boundaries and not encroaching on them. Now if Mr 2.8 doesn't want to go, this can become an issue. Of course you give plenty of warning and you initiate pack up of toys; which because he doesn't want to go, he also doesn't help with, but that's ok; but at some point you HAVE to leave. Mr 2.8 may not be happy about this and may go into meltdown mode, with which you sit through and support him through. When said meltdown is over though, it is more than likely going to be necessary to carry him out to the car to leave. From what I understand, the radical unschooling philosophy would have you let the child lead completely and not "force" the issue, perhaps I am misunderstanding.

To me, life needs a wholistic view, and while individual respect and autonomy is very important, so is respect for other people and their rights and boundaries. Sometimes children (and even adults!) can be blinded by their own feelings and desires and can forget that they need to consider their context and how their fulfillment will effect others. I think this is where it is important to step in and guide.

[zenifa]

I'm curious what folks think of this argument that there is a
generally accepted definition of unschooling.

http://yes-i-can-write.blogspot.com/2010/12/unschooling-is-not-relaxed.html

Would love to hear what others think of this blogpost. :)

[brogeybear]

Gah! Just lost a huge post in reply.

So one of the comments on there got me thinking...
Firstly I can understand the bloggers frustration, as it is like when people say they are "all for natural birth" and then HAVE to have an induction, etc.
But I think at the same time, it is not a good thing to make 'clubs' that you have to meet all these criteria to be able to join, be part of that community, etc. As I said in my PP, I think it is good to have some basic guidelines for these definitions, but that they would still be open to interpretation.

I know that I highly value the ability to read, comprehend, spell and use proper grammar and have basic mathmatic skills. I see these as very important in order to facilitate all kinds of learning and activities, as well as a valuble mean of communication. I do not agree however with structuring lessons or making times to do particular directed activities with the purpose of learning a specific subect. So how do I/will I facilitate this and ensure that I provide adequate opportunities for my child to learn those things? Will the way I do this rule me out as a "natural learner/unschooler" according to certain people?

Books are a very important thing in our family and our son has always had free access to them and we have always made a point of reading to him whenever he wants. I believe that one of the most effective and simple ways of learning language, spelling, grammar, comprehension, etc. is by being read to and discussing what is being read and being provided free access to reading materials of interest to you.

I believe maths begins at an early age as well, from counting how many fingers and toes, to counting how many ladels of soup is dished out to each person and therefore how many altogther, etc. Some unschoolers no doubt would suggest that using these opportunites to teach like that is structured and not natural. I disagree. I believe that it is using our natural lives to learn, and providing concepts to children.

So where does that put me - some would say, "sure, that's unschooling" and others would say "no, that is relaxed homeschooling". Like I said above, I do not like to solidly label myself, rather use a label to describe in simple terms, without going into personal details, what we do in our lives. Hence, I have chosen "natural learners", as I feel this best describes us.

[Belinda]

It's so frustrating! I don't think you can easily draw lines in the sand between this and that. It drives me nuts. It's like when you try to decide who's a stay at home mum. I might think I am but I study part time, does that mean I'm not? Depends who you ask. Who decides who is in and out? TBH, it is this kind of carry on that made me reluctant to label what I do as unschooling or natural learning etc, because I just think there is so much more to it.

[brogeybear]

Lol, yeah I totally get that Belinda. Try being a full time mum of the SAH kind, who works 1 day a week and another day a fortnight - therefore part time working mother...BUT... and here's the catch - I take my son to work with me (nanny work). So tell me someone, what the hell does that make me so I can fit into your perfect little box? *roll eyes*

[Jo-Ma]

It's so frustrating! I don't think you can easily draw lines in the sand between this and that. It drives me nuts. It's like when you try to decide who's a stay at home mum. I might think I am but I study part time, does that mean I'm not? Depends who you ask. Who decides who is in and out? TBH, it is this kind of carry on that made me reluctant to label what I do as unschooling or natural learning etc, because I just think there is so much more to it.


Totally agree Belinda. Who is to say what radical unschooling/unschooling/natural learning etc looks like anyway - who gets to be the one that says, yes that's unschooling or no that's not natural learning. It is what it is to that family. I can't see the importance of having a label/any label. If pushed, I would say we are radical unschoolers but I've never been pushed so to the people on the street who ask, we are homeschoolers.

[Ceres]

It's so frustrating! I don't think you can easily draw lines in the sand between this and that. It drives me nuts. It's like when you try to decide who's a stay at home mum.
I agree! I think being a SAHM is my full time job (5 days a week) and my part time job is going to work (2 days a week).
It is hard to draw that line in the sand, and really does it matter? I haven't read the blog post yet so I may have something more intelligent to add once I have.
I prefer the natural learning label to unschooling myself. I guess we are also eclectic HSers as we draw inspiration from lots of different ideologies and styles.

[Anarcostar]

I have to say this sort of thing (the blog post) does get my back up a bit. A lot of it semed to be written from the point of "what other people think/ perceive" and needing a clear label or definition to hand to people when they ask why your child is not in school.

I also find it kind of hypocrtical and more than a little ironic when I hear people are suggesting that to unschool, you need to do it like *this*, which really is not that different from people in the school system who suggest to learn anything you need to do it like *that*. It's a rather dogmatic and compartmentalizing (sp?) approach which in itself I find very school like.

Every child (adult too!) is unique and is travelling their own path of learning and growth, however this is not occuring in a vacuum, so therefore every family is unique in their dynamics and needs and likewise travelling a journey that is unique to that family, not something that can be defined by labels, especially ones that have been created by others.

The other thing is, that in real life, when it isn't uncommon for homeschoolers to find themselves feeling isolated, this reinforcing of labels and "club" mentality can further isolate those who don't "fit" into any specific box, makng the whole experience a rather lonely one (a bit of a rant frm personal experience :rolleyes)

For me I've decided to focus on what we *are* doing (learning, exploring, growing, observing) rather than what we are not doing (which is what the word "unschool" does for me).

[zenifa]

I agree! I think being a SAHM is my full time job (5 days a week) and my part time job is going to work (2 days a week).
It is hard to draw that line in the sand, and really does it matter? I haven't read the blog post yet so I may have something more intelligent to add once I have.
I prefer the natural learning label to unschooling myself. I guess we are also eclectic HSers as we draw inspiration from lots of different ideologies and styles.

Similar to you, Ceres, I am working 1 day/week (occasionally 3 day fortnight), so am I a part time working mum or a SAHM who has 1 day off her full time mothering job?

Like you I prefer natural learning as a 'label' to unschooling, but we are also eclectic and in general conversation with those who are very new to the idea, we are just 'homeschoolers.

I thought the blog post was interesting to read, and I always ponder the reason for why we feel we need a 'definition' of who we are and what we are doing and the 'right way to do it' ie you can't call yourself an 'unschooler' if you child likes workbooks for example.
I have a more inclusive, relaxed approach to it all, as I'm just trying to focus on my children, my family and what works for us. I agree with you Chrissy, we are all on our own journey/path and we need to be more inclusive rather than having a rigid club mentality!!

Love hearing everyones thoughts though, so thank you :)

[JKay]

I also find it kind of hypocrtical and more than a little ironic when I hear people are suggesting that to unschool, you need to do it like *this*, which really is not that different from people in the school system who suggest to learn anything you need to do it like *that*.

I hope no-one minds me re-starting this thread, but i think it's really interesting. I totally agree with this Anarcostar - although it doesn't bother me as much as it used to when i was new to unschooling/life learning. I discovered unschooling while we were living in the USA, and most of the members of our group were what you would term radical unschoolers, as are we. But even the most radical of radical unschoolers didn't let their kids ride in cars without restraints, or compromise their safety or health.....I don't think that is part of unschooling or radical unschooling - i don't know anyone that thinks that....

For me, radical unschooling means K chooses when and what to eat - based on what is in the cupboard that i stock. He goes to bed when he's tired, he eats when he's hungry. More and more, if he wants a snack, he's making it himself.

If i have something to do, or DH does, then yes, we have to leave the park, or pool, or wherever - as long as i give K fair warning and explain why, we never have a problem. I brush his teeth - he's cool with that - as he's seen my fillings and doesn't want any (lol! my mom never made me brush my teeth! How English!).

The US group I was part of recently had a problem when one of the moderators was turning people down for not being 'un-schooly' enough, which i think is crazy and really not conducive to making people understand what unschooling is and what the many benefits can be.

People starting out are so confused by all the different definitions and what-not...I remember being criticized for using the word 'teach' when i really meant 'learn'...i know that distinction now, but didn't think of it when i was starting out...and that attitude can really put people off....

And the 'I'm Unschooled, I can Write' blog is written by a guy who was unschooled, not an unschooling parent. I think that should be a big distinction - being an unschooled child is much different to being an unschooling parent.

I also often find the big 'unschool' sites to be overly simplistic and slightly condescending (especially the US one's)...like everything has an easy answer and kids will 'self-regulate' everything from TV to junk food to computer games...and that might be true for some, but i don' think it universally applies...as a child i was given free access to chocolate...for breakfast, lunch and dinner, and i didn't stop eating chocolate for brekky till i was 20 - that's pretty slow in the self-regulation!!

I also used to have a big problem with the word 'unschool', as it seemed to have negative connotations, but after reading a bit about definitions, i don't mind it now, although i still prefer life learning....but having started in the US, i guess 'unschooling' is kinda ingrained in my psyche now!

As for the SAHM label...well, i am a SAHM, but i also work from home...so am I a SAHM, or a WAHM?

Our society these days just has to label everything, and then make sure the label can have an acronym - preferably a witty one! Well, you know what...i'm just Jo, trying to do my best, trying bring up my son the best way i can!

[lost soul]

One of the reasons I decided to look into homeschooling was because I was sick of labels.

I want my children to be free to live, to be who they want to be, learn what they want to learn and at a pace that suits them/us without feeling as though they/we have to 'fit in'.

Just like parenting there seems to be a label for everything. Why can't we just be parents?

Putting labels on things is just stating the obvious fact that we are in fact, all different. How do we learn to be better citizens, parents, partners etc. if we are only grouping together with people who are the 'same'.

While we're at it, why don't we separate ourselves into age groups as well? :giggle

Little did I know there would be a whole new assortment of labels once crossing over to homeschooling. :rolleyes

How unfortunate. :cry

[Ceres]

Some models of radical unschooling sound a bit like unparenting to me!

[irishwillow]

Last thing I want is ANOTHER box for people to try to slot me into...*sigh*

I totally agree Ceres.

[JKay]

While we're at it, why don't we separate ourselves into age groups as well? :giggle


He he!! That is crazy - who would do that!?

Yes, Ceres, on paper they do look like unparenting - and i think that is really a sad and misleading thing, because all of the unschool/radical unschool/life learning parents i know are the most hands-on parents...but a lot of the blurb about bedtimes and food, etc, makes it sounds like parents just sit back and let the kids do whatever with no boundaries!!!

I hate labels, and if pushed i just say we are homeschooling - since that is at least a label most people know, even if they do think we'll have a weird, unsocial, clingy child ;)

I rarely label us radical unschoolers, unless on a forum like this where most people know what i'm talking about, it just takes too long to explain and people really look at you like you are loopy! I might well be loopy....but that's my decision - i'm pretty comfortable with a label of loopy though :)

[Ceres]

Loopy, that would fit around here too! :lol
We are unschoolers but not radical unschoolers I think. But it just feels like we're living a family life to me.

[JKay]

But it just feels like we're living a family life to me.

Exactly and absolutely - and let the loopy unite! lol!! :)

[Shari]

When my boy has certain foods, the moods, reactivity, aggression and disconnectedness that follows, has a huge affect on everyone else in the family and our sense of safety and stability.


This is the same here. I've really had to eliminate some foods from ds diet and many are simply out due to allergies.



Unschooling is genuinely trusting children to learn what they need to know, when they need to know it. It's not really unschooling if you only trust them to learn a couple of things on their own, but think you have to force them to learn other things.


This is from the blog. While I agree in theory and do this mostly, again, I struggle to see how this would work for us. Much of ds skills (and I'm not really talking the traditional academic skills) are ones that have been explicitly taught and he wouldn't ask to learn them.

I'd probably never be called as a radical unschooler. I think we're much more natural learning or just what works best and it's adapted to suit ds specific needs.



Some models of radical unschooling sound a bit like unparenting to me!

I was told that natural learning/unschooling is just where parents don't do anything and can't be bothered teaching or parenting recently when I said we do mostly natural learning.