Is Unschooling Beneficial or Harmful for Child Development?

[zomgwtf]

So to be able to grasp economic policies doesn't require high school math? To be able to understand the impact of social policies doesn't require history/social studies? To understand the relative importance of science fields doesn't require high school science? Heck, the kids in the OP probably can't even read the campaign posters. If anything we should be pushing for more mandatory education.

You're just assuming that these things are only taught in school... if only it were true.

Most people can't grasp any economic policies really... How I would say no just to grasp the general idea presented by politicians on their economic plans you do not need high school math. In high school math I learned courses like: Functions/relations, Advanced functions, Calculus, Discreet + vectors. I wonder if that gives me a better ability to grasp economic policies over someone who can add/subtract/multiple/divide and probably they know algebra.
Why do you need to understand history to know what effects YOU as a person, that's the entire point of democracy to vote for what YOU want. If there was a historical reason behind policies I can assure you, it takes 3 seconds to find it and understand it.
To understand science I do not think you need to take ANY science courses actually. That's why in college/university they have 'intro science' courses, for people who haven't taken prereqs to get into advanced scientific concepts yet. All of this can easily be learned on your own. I'm sure the kids can read, the one kid is seen playing a video game online, I wonder how difficult that would be without being able to read. What does going to high school have to do with your ability to read. I know I was reading chapter books prior to even kindergarden. Highschool english, although mandatory, hardly had anything to do with being able to read. It was mostly learning technical rules of english and reading stories.

Plus, I think you're making the incorrect assumption that because these children don't go to school they are 'primitive' or that they haven't learned anything on their own. That's pretty arrogant in my opinion.

 

[zomgwtf]

Would you ever claim a feral kid has appropriate intelligence?

There it is, the comparison I've been waiting for someone to make! These kids aren't feral by any means. Give me a break.

That's the whole delusion I'm saying you guys are under. No school = feral/wild/stupid/no motivation/no understanding.

 

[zomgwtf]

What benefit is intelligence without knowledge? The problem is that these kids are not choosing to pick up a book and teach themselves. The mother was proud to say that they'd never touched a textbook.

They look to be only pre-teens... the way I look at it is if they have the intelligence then their natural instincts will drive them to want to learn more. They'll thirst for knowledge instead of having a bunch of useless stuff thrown at them. In fact I believe that if one of these children decided to say take up biology as a hobby that they'd have a better understanding of biological concepts, given the proper resources, than your average high school biology student would. People definitely learn more about what interests them and what they choose to go after.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

There it is, the comparison I've been waiting for someone to make! These kids aren't feral by any means. Give me a break.

That's the whole delusion I'm saying you guys are under. No school = feral/wild/stupid/no motivation/no understanding.

I think they are pretty close. They have no parental guidance.

It would be different if Johnny was working on a car engine all day or Cindy was designing clothes or gardening, but these kids aren't developing any skills. They are watching TV and clubbing each other with bats.

You can look at amazon or african tribes. They don't have any formal education, but can be considered intelligent because they are essentially home schooled and tutored in skills by their family.

 

[Evo]

They look to be only pre-teens...

No, the girl would be a junior in High School, so 16, her brother is older.

the way I look at it is if they have the intelligence then their natural instincts will drive them to want to learn more. They'll thirst for knowledge instead of having a bunch of useless stuff thrown at them. In fact I believe that if one of these children decided to say take up biology as a hobby that they'd have a better understanding of biological concepts, given the proper resources, than your average high school biology student would. People definitely learn more about what interests them and what they choose to go after.

But they AREN'T choosing to learn. They said so in the video. It's not important to them.

 

[zomgwtf]

I think they are pretty close. They have no parental guidance.

It would be different if Johnny was working on a car engine all day or Cindy was designing clothes or gardening, but these kids aren't developing any skills. They are watching TV and clubbing each other with bats.

You can look at amazon or african tribes. They don't have any formal education, but can be considered intelligent because they are essentially home schooled and tutored in skills by their family.

That's all that you saw of them in that tiny clip so you assume that's all they do and are feral? I'm pretty sure they do gardening as they had a vast variety of plants growing inside under a proper setup.

I think a lot of people here have a 'biased' view of education. Why would I think that? Because the vast majority of people here are EXTREMELY intelligent relative to the general population. Of course the more intelligent people love school... they have that 'thirst' for knowledge in that particular field. The only way that most people learn about these things is through some sort of formal education, however it's not needed by everyone.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm pretty sure they do gardening as they had a vast variety of plants growing inside under a proper setup.

Growing parsley in a tin can is not gardening! The are not getting any education or direction for the parents. That is the problem.

 

[zomgwtf]

The are not getting any education or direction for the parents. That is the problem.

I'll agree with this but that has nothing to do with going to school.

 

[NeoDevin]

Most people can't grasp any economic policies really...

So you would say it's acceptable to handicap them even more?

How I would say no just to grasp the general idea presented by politicians on their economic plans you do not need high school math. In high school math I learned courses like: Functions/relations, Advanced functions, Calculus, Discreet + vectors. I wonder if that gives me a better ability to grasp economic policies over someone who can add/subtract/multiple/divide and probably they know algebra.

Just because you, and many others, choose not to apply the tool you learned in high school isn't an argument for not giving children the tools in the first place.

Why do you need to understand history to know what effects YOU as a person, that's the entire point of democracy to vote for what YOU want.

Because we all know that how the politicians claim a policy will affect you is how it actually affects you... A basic understanding of history and social studies is required to begin to understand these things.

If there was a historical reason behind policies I can assure you, it takes 3 seconds to find it and understand it.

Whether there is a historical reason for a policy is irrelevant. Understanding history is necessary (though not necessarily sufficient) for understanding the effects of a policy.

To understand science I do not think you need to take ANY science courses actually.

Are you attempting to speak of particular individuals, or the population at large? In the case of rare individuals who are gifted at self study, maybe. For the population at large this is a ridiculous statement.

That's why in college/university they have 'intro science' courses, for people who haven't taken prereqs to get into advanced scientific concepts yet.

Those are for people who want to proceed into more advanced topics, and completely irrelevant to the discussion of having a basic understanding of science/science policies.

All of this can easily be learned on your own.

Not for everyone.

I'm sure the kids can read, the one kid is seen playing a video game online, I wonder how difficult that would be without being able to read.

I'm sure they can read basic sentences, I highly doubt they could understand anything remotely complex, like a grade 3 math text. The amount of reading skill required to play most games is minimal (many games, the only thing you need is "Go" and then the rest is done with auditory commands).

What does going to high school have to do with your ability to read. I know I was reading chapter books prior to even kindergarden. Highschool english, although mandatory, hardly had anything to do with being able to read. It was mostly learning technical rules of english and reading stories.

You are correct, it is about being able to communicate effectively in English, and to understand the communication of others. Hardly skills necessary to be a productive member of society...

Plus, I think you're making the incorrect assumption that because these children don't go to school they are 'primitive' or that they haven't learned anything on their own. That's pretty arrogant in my opinion.

The children interviewed could barely string sentences together (admittedly, I don't think much of their parents ability to speak either). I never claimed that they haven't learned anything, just that they are missing a large variety of important skills, and simply haven't been exposed to a lot of topics which they might otherwise have been interested in.

Edit to clarify: I'm not arguing against home-schooling, or necessarily in favour of the current public school system, just that a complete lack of education is wrong on so many levels.

 

[zomgwtf]

No, the girl would be a junior in High School, so 16, her brother is older.

But they AREN'T choosing to learn. They said so in the video. It's not important to them.

I never heard them say anything about choosing not to learn. I heard the parents talk about them not learning anything that's not important or doesn't interests them...

The boy I think is 13 and I guess your right about the girl 15/16 years old. The lady said the boy was 7 years old when he was in school and they had said that these two teens hadn't been in school for 6 years.

 

[zomgwtf]

The children interviewed could barely string sentences together (admittedly, I don't think much of their parents ability to speak either). I never claimed that they haven't learned anything, just that they are missing a large variety of important skills, and simply haven't been exposed to a lot of topics which they might otherwise have been interested in.

I do agree with this but I disagree that school is the only method for people to be exposed to things that interest them.

I also don't think it's difficult for people to learn things on their own, all they need is to be interested.

 

[Evo]

I'll agree with this but that has nothing to do with going to school.

It's not about them going to school, it's about them not being taught anything and they haven't chosen to learn on their own. It's about wasting a mind. It's about parents "choosing" to do nothing and saying how happy their children are that they are allowed to be dumb as rocks.

I don't know what video you watched, but the video I watched showed a couple of clueless humans a few years away from being classified as adults. Sure, miracles happen, they could, as their mother said, someday decide to learn algebra and so they will pick up a book and learn it, although they don't even have basic math skills, if we are to believe what she's said.

 

[NeoDevin]

I do agree with this but I disagree that school is the only method for people to be exposed to things that interest them.

I also don't think it's difficult for people to learn things on their own, all they need is to be interested.

Then you seem to be missing the point that many of us are trying to make: We're not arguing, necessarily, in favour of the current education system. Rather, we're arguing against a complete lack of education as a method of raising children. If you want to make a case for various alternative forms of education, feel free to start a thread on it. Everyone in this thread is discussing the complete lack of education and guidance present in the family in the video in the OP.

 

[zomgwtf]

that they are allowed to be dumb as rocks.

All children are allowed to be dumb as rocks, going to school doesn't effect this. In fact the vast majority of people I met during school at various schools I would consider to be dumb as rocks anyways.

 

[zomgwtf]

Then you seem to be missing the point that many of us are trying to make: We're not arguing, necessarily, in favour of the current education system. Rather, we're arguing against a complete lack of education, as a method of raising children. If you want to make a case for various alternative forms of education, feel free to start a thread on it. Everyone in this thread is discussing the complete lack of education and guidance present in the family in the video in the OP.

I had originally stated that people are being unfair towards THESE people because they have decided to be 'unschooled'.

EDIT: None of us know them or their family, I don't think atleast. All we know of them is that their parents have decided to not give their children formal education and leave it in the childrens hands to learn what interests them. I do not think that this will lead to 'dumb as rocks' or stupid children by any means... and I also don't think that it's success/failure rate (in terms of understanding in particular fields which interest the children) would be any different compared to the same child who had gone to K-12 schooling.

 

[NeoDevin]

The children interviewed could barely string sentences together (admittedly, I don't think much of their parents ability to speak either). I never claimed that they haven't learned anything, just that they are missing a large variety of important skills, and simply haven't been exposed to a lot of topics which they might otherwise have been interested in.

I do agree with this

I had originally stated that people are being unfair towards THESE people because they have decided to be 'unschooled'.

So you agree that these children can barely string sentences together, and that they are missing a large variety of important skills, yet you still think that people are being unfair towards this particular family's technique of un-schooling?

 

[zomgwtf]

So you agree that these children can barely string sentences together, and that they are missing a large variety of important skills, yet you still think that people are being unfair towards this particular family's technique of un-schooling?

I had only meant to quote the

I never claimed that they haven't learned anything, just that they are missing a large variety of important skills, and simply haven't been exposed to a lot of topics which they might otherwise have been interested in.

part... My bad.

I do not agree that these children struggle any more to speak on TV than any other person. These are not farmers out in the middle of no where with no connection to society. These children have plenty of resources and I highly doubt their communication skills are lacking any more than your average typical 13 year old.

 

[NeoDevin]

I had only meant to quote the

part... My bad.

My point still stands if you cross out "can barely string sentences together", and read it instead as:

"So you agree that these children [STRIKE]can barely string sentences together, and that they[/STRIKE] are missing a large variety of important skills, yet you still think that people are being unfair towards this particular family's technique of un-schooling?"

 

[russ_watters]

The amount of ILL-logic in here from people arguing against formal education is spectacular - not to mention ironic. Its all non sequitur, goalpost shifting and smokescreen and arguing against reality. Most of it is focused on ignoring the reality of the majority and arguing special cases as if they were representative. Most stark is ignoring the OP itself and arguing in the face of a counterexample that kids will 1. Choose to get educated (anyone being honest here knows they won't) or 2. Be ON AVERAGE better educated/more articulate than a high school grad. The possibility that an 18 year old who has never attempted to learn vocabulary could have a better one than even a high shool grad who barely slid by in English class is just silly.

 

[zomgwtf]

1. Choose to get educated (anyone being honest here knows they won't)

Really? You think that because peopl don't go to school they'll choose not to learn ANYTHING?

2. Be ON AVERAGE better educated/more articulate than a high school grad. The possibility that an 18 year old who has never attempted to learn vocabulary could have a better one than even a high shool grad who barely slid by in English class is just silly.

Who said anything about being better? In some rare cases yes children with no formal education will be better than those with... they probably could have been even better if they themselves had gone to formal education but that's their choice, and they probably would make it if they were that rare case. The rest of them I wouldn't say are any more stupid than any other student of similar age.

As well I haven't noticed myself commiting any of those fallacies hmph.

The potential problem I see here isn't with them not being formally educated, it's with their parents.

 

[ViewsofMars]

It's just so stupid, for most of history an edcuation was the privilege of the wealthy. Women were denied formal educations as were the poor. And now we have people that willingly decide to remain uneducated. So many people fought for so long for the opportunity to get an education and these people throw it away.

And let's not forget women's rights have and still are ignored by some men. (Some men see eye to eye and fail to see the female's point of view.) Those men can wreak havoc on a female's life even in the 21st century. I've known a few professional women that have left the field of science due to harassment or threats or insults by men in the workplace. I personally have been a victim but hung in there!:) I usually advise females (young or old) to set their goals high. Work hard and seek a job where you have direct contact with the CEO and other females within the organization to discuss concerns that may crop up. Also, educational standards where I live are set extremely high for K-12 grades. Property tax includes school bonds. Let's just say, the money that flows out of my bank account for those school bonds is just under a thousand a year. I don't mind because the kids in the my school district are extremely intelligent, active in sports, and very happy.

 

[Count Iblis]

Is this a good or bad thing?

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Parenting/unschooling-homeschooling-book-tests-classes/story?id=10410867

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEUzsooa1JE

It was good enough from 200,000 BC right until the late Middle Ages.

 

[D H]

I've been lurking so far on this topic. I'm out of the lurking closet now.

I had originally stated that people are being unfair towards THESE people because they have decided to be 'unschooled'.

Snarky reply: Life is unfair.

The vitriol (well-deserved) is not aimed at the kids. It is aimed at the parents. Those kids will most likely be good at one thing only: Collecting money that is not theirs. They might get this money from the government, or they may get it by more nefarious means. There is, perhaps, a bit selfish going on here, that many of us do not particularly like parents who are raising their kids to be welfare bums or worse. Or maybe not. Maybe, just maybe, we have the best interests of those kids at heart.

Having a high school (or college) education says this about someone: he is capable of doing something he doesn't want to do. And that is very valuable to an employer, because no job is without drudgery.

That has to qualify as the understatement of the month. If would love a job that is 50% or less drudgery. The drudgery may be necessary, but it is still drudgery. Learning to deal with that is important.

frankly most of the pioneers of science actually discovered things out of their own curiosity while they had little or no formal education at all.

Now we're getting to the heart of things. You are talking about people who are six or more sigma away from the norm.

First off, Desiree, please name one pioneer of science who had little or no formal eduction. Certainly not Einstein. He had a PhD in physics, which he obtained before his miracle year. Certainly not Newton. His mother tried to "unschool" him. Fortunately, educators convinced his mother otherwise. Certainly not Gauss, or Poincaré.

Our education system is not aimed at the 6+ sigma people, those who come along less than once a generation. It can't be. Those people come along less than once a generation. Our education system certainly does need to be improved. That does not mean throwing it out.

 

[ViewsofMars]

One observation I've made over the years is unschooled children and adults cuss in public. If children see adults cussing then they think it is ok to cuss too. I don't think the cussing language in dialogue with someone else is considered good manners. I see it only on the Interent. The cusser's use those little stars on their keyboard.

 

[Proton Soup]

It was good enough from 200,000 BC right until the late Middle Ages.

even in the middle ages, you would expect them to be working in some sort of apprenticeship situation unless they were aristocracy.

 

[Evo]

even in the middle ages, you would expect them to be working in some sort of apprenticeship situation unless they were aristocracy.

Even back to the earliest humans, you learned a skill in order to contribute and survive. Going back to earliest recorded history, obviously, you had scribes, you had farmers, shepherds, stoneworkers, artists, you name it.

 

[Desiree]

First off, Desiree, please name one pioneer of science who had little or no formal eduction. Certainly not Einstein. He had a PhD in physics, which he obtained before his miracle year. Certainly not Newton. His mother tried to "unschool" him. Fortunately, educators convinced his mother otherwise. Certainly not Gauss, or Poincaré.

Our education system is not aimed at the 6+ sigma people, those who come along less than once a generation. It can't be. Those people come along less than once a generation. Our education system certainly does need to be improved. That does not mean throwing it out.

I agree with you. I also totally disagree with the complete lack of education. However going through present worldwide education system to get 'educated' is not the only/best thing to do. There are lots of ways and opportunities in life to learn and acquire knowledge and skills. I am not a fan of the idea of having kids sitting around at home all day and doing nothing. Off course such kids will be 'socially paralyzed' in their adulthood, however in order to prevent that, current education system is not the only/best option for them.

As for the pioneers of science, I meant those people who, off course, were educated, but not necessarily formally through their prevalent education system at their time. Their accomplishments and contributions to science were partly due to the knowledge that had been passed on to them from previous generations, and mainly due to their own curiosity.