(In which I intercept other people’s mail and answer their questions for them. The original, non-excerpted letter and response may be read here, at The Chicago Sun Times.)
Dear Ellie,My sister’s friend is supposedly homeschooling her two children, ages 6 and 7. These well-educated parents don’t believe in structured learning. They feel if children want to learn something, they’ll ask.
That isn’t such an uncommon philosophy of education. It goes by different names, with different emphases: unschooling, delight-directed learning and child-directed learning are three of the most popular terms I know of which more or less describe this general idea. In schools of education you might encounter something similar known by the more technical term of “constructivism,” or even “maturationism,” depending on the degree of involvement from adults in assisting the child in the learning process. While I think these theories have obvious drawbacks in a classroom setting, they can be quite effective in the home where children benefit from the one-on-one interaction of loving parents. The teacher is viewed as a guide, facilitator or even “midwife in the birth of understanding.” In fact, there is even research suggesting that pushing structured learning too early is detrimental to a child’s educational success.
These children cannot read and write…
They are six and seven! What do you expect? You will find children in this age range in almost every classroom in America who cannot read and write despite the formal instruction. One thing that most educators will tell you: children learn to read when they are ready. Sure, there are numerous things adults can do to help pave the way, things most educated parents do automatically, but children seem to put it all together exactly when they are ready. In fact, reading experts have put together lists of readiness skills which generally indicate when a child is ready to read. Attempting to do so sooner often leads only to frustration which can do more to damage a child’s self-image and potential love of reading. Waiting to learn to read can be better for the child.
I believe this is a form of child abuse…
Wow. That is a strong accusation against someone because their six and seven year old cannot read. What do you say to the teachers and parents of the nearly one third of all American school children with serious learning deficits? And for this to be abuse, the parents need to be actually denying the children something they need or forcing something harmful upon them. From what you have written, it does not sound as if the parents are denying their children anything. They are only on a schedule that differs from your local school: one determined by their children’s needs and interests rather than by the state-mandated curriculum. How is that abuse?
Outraged
Outraged? About what? Who has greater cause to be outraged? The person who notices that someone has a different philosophy of education than they? Or the parents who are being accused of child abuse for having a six and seven year old who cannot read? This is not about denying a child an education. It is about differing views on what it means to be educated and how to best become educated.
For once, the response of the actual addressee is a breath of fresh air.
However, this situation sounds more like one involving your personal disapproval.
Right on, Ellie.
Principled Discovery is a place to stop and discuss news and information related to faith, family and particularly education. Pour yourself a cup of tea and join the conversation! 
I met a woman once who worked for social services in MO and her job was to make initial investigations into reports of child abuse. She said they got plenty of calls from family or friends of homeschoolers; she said the vast majority of these calls turned out to be without foundation, and that she had observed an obvious difference in the environment of homes where homeschooling of some form or other was actually taking place, and homes where the children were simply truant and the parents were neglectful.
That said, I do think maturationism represents an extreme of unschooling that does a disservice to children. Frankly, if child education unfolds on its own in an atmosphere of complete adult passivity and permissiveness, then there is no such thing as educational neglect and the commands of the Bible to teach and instruct our children are invalid.
I would agree with that…however most unschoolers don’t really seem that passive. I know they are out there, but while I think they are doing a disservice to their children as well, I don’t know that the alternative is necessarily better.
I agree. If we let our children choose when to learn and what learn, we can’t expect some positive results. Scheduling their lessons, maximizes the use of time in teaching them the important ones first.
we’ve posed a question on our blog about improving the education system and reducing the functional illiteracy rate in the US. I found this post and thought I would ask you and your readers for your ideas from a homeschooling perspective.
http://www.oddpodzblog.com/2007/07/question_of_the_week_no_1.html
It’s definitely an abuse. Depriving children of their right to education is like getting rid of their chance to develop and grow as a human being. Parents who do this should be questioned.
If they were depriving the children of anything, I might agree. But all we know from the letter is that they don’t believe in structured learning. What is that? Children learn best when learning is active, constructive, personal and relevant. Not when they are seated at a desk, listening to a teacher and reciting facts.
If they are withholding education, you might be able to argue something, but because they don’t structure their day like the public school?
Abuse? No, I don’t think so. If we charged every sub-optimal parent in this country with abuse, there’d be hardly anyone left [though it would make a weeknight trip to Wal-Mart a bit speedier for me].
The parent is, however, neglectful. He/she is doing a terrible disservice to the child.
Perhaps they’re just lazy and are using constructivist theory as an excuse?
To Matthew Tabor: Taking their kid to all those activities doesn’t sound lazy to me. If they were really lazy, they could just send them to school. Do you know how much work just having children around is? Why not let them just be babysat by the state schools? It costs nothing.
I’d like to know how the letter writer even knows the children cannot read or write. Many children hate to “perform” in front of strangers and will hide their abilities. My 2nd is like that. He’s very slow-to-warm up and people tend to underestimate what he can do because of it.
Matthew, you’re not going to make a lot of friends around here with statements like that, but that’s ok, I still like you. : )
I agree with your first part, though. Their are a lot of sub-optimal and even bad parents out there and we can’t charge them all with abuse. Removing the child would be a far worse abuse, and giving the state that kind of power…well, I don’t want to think about it.
For the rest, I don’t think there is enough information given in the letter to really make a judgment. What does the writer mean by “structured learning?” I run my homeschool very differently from how I ran my classroom. In the home, you can take advantage of that personal relationship with your child, and the perfect home-school partnership. We don’t do a lot of structured learning, but the concept are reinforced continually.
I may take my kids outside with a notebook and some colored pencils and let them study and draw what they find for over an hour a couple times a week. That time has tremendous value, but isn’t very structured. I would never have dreamed of it in my classroom. My directions and objectives would have been precise and the results measurable. I never would have started something and waited to see where it took us. But in the home, that sort of thing works out.
It is more like tutoring, mentoring or discipling.