Unschooled does not mean Unstructured

Some unschoolers worry that if there is structure in their kids' lives, then they are not really unschooling. This is faulty thinking and sounds as ridiculous as saying that there is no learning being done if you are not seated at your desk in a specially established 'learning institution.'

It's that 'purist' tendency that corrupts all good intentions and good ideas making a prison out of what was initially a way to experience freedom.

You can have freedom in learning as a strategy for educating that includes 'A to B-no deviation' programming. This is what can happen when an unschooler decides they want to study a subject that is best achieved by following a structured curriculum to attain their goals.

Structure is often appreciated by kids. In my case, my daughters have always enjoyed following a course of study in music-two of them follow the Royal Conservatory program in violin and piano, and have been doing so for years.

Karate lessons, Mandarin language,soccer and swimming practice all add 'sought out' structure to the day, helping my daughters gain a sense of achievement and completion.

The key to structure in unschooling is that the learner be in the driving seat-that they are directing their own learning and agree to accept or not accept a structure as they feel meets their needs.

To strictly define oneself as such and such only leads to rigidity and ultimately, that is what we want to get away from.

Rather to be open and adaptable, to be willingly to experiment, try out what works, reject what doesn't is real freedom in learning.

Words of Wisdom from my 11 year old daughter

This summer, I've learned a few things from my wise 11 year old kid:

1. "It's easier to relax and not be so uptight then it is to try to control us.It will all work out. Always does."
This is in reference to my worrying that she and her sisters needed to 'pull their weight' and help out at the cottage, where we had all been invited.

2. She told me her Uncle D didn't want to come to the cottage,talking instead about how in Alberta there is a beautiful place with mountains and lakes; and that's where he dreams about going one day. She tells me she said, 'But you aren't in Alberta! You have a chance to go to this lovely place. Here. Now."

3. When I was frustrated because I had been in the water and I wanted to get back to the cottage to change but I had to keep an eye out for her as she was still in the water she asked me;
"What is it you would like to be doing right now that you haven't done yet?"
"Gaze at the lake."
"Do it. Do it right now."
And I did, And I watched her swirl in the water, arms raised, stretched out in imitation of the blue heron in the distance; both giving thanks to the lake.
"You see what I've given you? I gave you this," she said. And she had.

universal brain control?

If little else, the brain is an educational toy. While it may be a frustrating plaything -- one whose finer points recede just when you think you are mastering them -- it is nonetheless perpetually fascinating, frequently surprising, occasionally rewarding, and it comes already assembled; you don't have to put it together on Christmas morning.


The problem with possessing such an engaging toy is that other people want to play with it, too. Sometimes they'd rather play with yours than theirs. Or they object if you play with yours in a different manner from the way they play with theirs. The result is, a few games out of a toy department of possibilities are universally and endlessly repeated. If you don't play some people's games, they say that you have "lost your marbles," not recognizing that, while Chinese checkers is indeed a fine pastime a person may also play dominoes, chess, strip poker, tiddlywinks, drop-the-soap, or Russian roulette with his brain.

Tom Robbins, Even Cowgirls Get the Blues

Lee Hoinacki; Looking back on a life long friendship with Ivan Illich

Lee Hoinacki is a former Dominican priest, professor of political science, and subsistence farmer. He collaborated with Ivan Illich many projects and still works today to spread the thoughts of his life long friend.

This is an excerpt from an interview a few years back:

Illich's concerns around technology, what it’s doing to society can we talk a little more about that?

He was interested first of all in the effects of technology - the actual effects first of all and later the symbolic effects. He would use an example, say a photograph. The photograph was introduced in the 19^th century and into history. But this technological artifact changed people’s perception so he thought it was a serious question which people should try to look at, figure out, whether anyone sees anything today. Period.

Anyone who is exposed to photographs that is. When you see the person are you able to see the person in front of you - see the nature etc and what you are able to see the people you claim to love etc and that kind of thing, you are not going to see them. That was his point. Because what technology is doing is creating an artificial universe and a lot of it has to do with the question of perception and so he spent a lot of time on perception and how technology affects ones perception, what one sees.

Ultimately, he thought that technology was changing what we call the ‘human condition.’ There he is coming out of an atomistic perspective-say Thomas Aquinas in terms of human nature, based first upon Aristotle and he is saying that those people had a certain notion of what it is to be human-what you call human nature and technology is changing that.

He would say for example, are there any human beings around today? Do humans still exist? He would say that would be a serious question....

I want to backtrack a bit and get to the idea of man created in man’s image- the cosmos in man’s hand.

Illich thought that humans are created in God’s image and he was very traditional in that. So that’s why he was believing that the question of image is important. He did a lot of writing on images i.e. these were late writings. He thought that what is happening today is that people are recreating human beings, but it isn’t in man’s image- it’s in a sort of pseudo man, a technological, artifact man.

He actually called it a kind of perversion that is going on. He believed that because of what is going on in the medical system today with respect to death an so on that what we are doing is producing monsters. So that people under intensive care as they approach death, these are not human any more.

These are creatures or what ever they are- well he used the word monsters and word like that. Now obviously, with respect to schooling there are people who learn in spite of schools- so there are people who die in spite of medical technology- who die their own death. Illich would spend a lot of time on words- so he would say, is it possible today to die? And he would think, "well no. It’s not because of technology."

The thing is, that subject of death and technology is not simple to get at. Very complicated and it would take along time to delineate his meaning with respect to technology and its effect on human beings. He would carry this through on everything. That is, for example any kind of vehicle he would think is a kind of monstrosity, a kind of perversion- once you take a person’s feet of the ground, flying and that kind of thing- he would be very critical of that object. He would be very critical of this kind of thing- of talking over the phone over wires. He was critical of that.

But many people would think-okay, this is going back! Did he want to go back?

No! No he said you’ve got to live right now. You’ve got to live in this world. We’ve go to live in the modern world. So he would get into an automobile, or an air plane for example. Although, realizing that this is not a good thing to do. And he would use things like telephones and so forth but as he said, “I would never want to speak to a person I love over the telephone. He never had any photographs of those friends and intimates. He would say, you have to live in this world but you try to live with technology at the same time being critical of it in terms of trying to see what is good and what is bad in the whole thing.

He placed a lot of emphasis on what he called askesis - he like to use Greek words now and then. We would call that in English an asceticism-which is life long process of trying to discipline your senses so that you are able to feel, to see, to smell, and so on. And it’s a life long process disciplinary practices which one can use- you see that in people today who are into mediation. He did not go for that kind of stuff, because he thought anything that smacked of new age- he avoided. It was sort of an anathema to him. He thought that was the worst kind of junk you can imagine. And he was quite explicit and vocal about that.

But he was very strong on the question of disciplines that are necessary in order to train ones self to be able to hear, to see to taste and so on....the point is to be in the world but not to be of the world. And he said this was a kind of mystery that one had to figure out- him or herself. So renouncing the world, it doesn’t mean that you close yourself up in some sort of ivory tower which he did not do, or go of to the desert some place which he did not to. Because he was in the midst of things all the time.

But he was living in what in the, the Roman Catholic tradition is called 'detachment.' That is, he wasn’t attached to any of these things for example a good wine, flowers, a comfortable bed. Well he didn’t have much of a comfortable bed because he just slept on a futon which I built. But he felt that one could not become attached to any of these things.

I’ve seen him eat all kinds of junk and drink all kinds of stuff and thought well this is crazy to eat and drink this way. But he could also enjoy a good meal and wine without attachment. The question of renouncing the world is a question of attachment - he would give me clothing that his brother would give him.

We were the same size so I could get his brother’s good shirts or whatever because his brother gave them to him thinking, he’s got to wear something! He’d be like in rags- well not rags but these sort of torn, old clothes. His brother would go out and buy him these expensive things and he’d pass them on to me. “I don’t want that stuff. I don’t need that!”

He’d say. So he would take what he needed but that was all. He wouldn’t take any more.

Do you want to go back and talk about the idea of friendship and how that could help us navigate ourselves through this world?

He thought that we live in an awful society. This society is not going to do anything to encourage us to be good. Because it’s just a mess. So the one thing he thought that could possibly save people or,may be that’s not the proper word, was the notion of friendship. Friendship for him was gaditas in Latin-charity that is, it was a grace. It was a supernatural thing. ......

So he would say, "Friends are everything- without my friends I would just be nothing in a sense."

And then of course, one of the deeper key notions is what he called hospitality. That is to be an hospitable host. His door was always open in a sense that any one could come in. I mean I’ve seen all kinds of crazy people come in, living with him over a number of years. And so he felt that it was extremely important to be hospital to the stranger and to friends. There are people I know who interpret Illich just in terms of hospitality- they say that’s the most important thing he had to say in his life - there is some truth in that.

Did he think that the world was just going to hell in a hand basket?

Well yes. I think so. Um hmm.

Do you think so too?

I feel perhaps much more stronger about that then he did. I feel that there’s no hope in a sense.

That’s very discouraging.

He would say, I don’t speak this way to young people because it’s too horrible, I can’t say these things. And so he would talk to me about his views that way. But he wouldn’t really come out and be explicit with respect to others. At the same time, he was a ‘man of faith’ so he believed well, this world could go to hell in a hand basket because it doesn’t make that much difference anyway "because there is another world in which I believe. That’s the world in which I want to die."

He was a peculiar person in the sense that he was a genuine believer so while he was looking at the world and seeing what it was, he also was not discouraged. He was not depressed because he saw that there was more then what meets the eye.

He was very active in Europe protesting the implantation of Persian missiles in Germany and he supported people who were in the green party in Europe and he did a lot of behind the scenes work supporting people when Pinochet overthrew Rajende in Chile and when Goulah was overthrown in Brazil, Illich did a a lot of stuff behind the scenes- very active with respect to Comunotorez in Columbia - those are just incidences that come to mind at the top of my head.. He took a very active part in things that were going on in the world. He would really work for what he thought were good things. So he said, "Who knows what will come of it? ....................

That’s Illich. It’s very hard to say his influence because I met him in 1960 and I’ve live with him for many many years and my wife said what are you going to do when this guy dies because your whole life has been centered around him? .....

I think that Illich’s books are important and as he said himself, "You don’t read these books as you would a newspaper." And so, I worked with him on number of these books, some people would say trying to make them more intelligible but they are his ideas and they require some work to understand what he is all about.

Gender, which I think is the most important book he ever wrote, is not reviewed. There is one review, an important review, but other than that it’s never mentioned in any bibliography and nobody reads it and no one know it. But it’s a theory of economics which if one were to take it seriously, would have to reinterpret what is called a social history of Europe. And it think it’s powerful enough that it requires that kind of rethinking of what is called a social history of Europe.

His book, Tools for conviviality is a theory on technology and no one has ever come whatever near those 5 dimensions that Illich talks about there. Bits and pieces of people are saying all kinds of important things and doing all kinds of good things here and there, but I would just argue that I think Illich too was saying something that could perhaps be taken into account.

Does no Education mean no Culture?

We worry that if there is no overarching curriculum to education, indeed, if there is no education at all then what will happen to culture? How will we be able to identify culture from culture? How will we be able to distinguish ourselves as a people, different from another set of people? What will happen to each county's unifying qualities, flavours and idiosyncrasies?

Again, it's the anxiety of the unknown. We are afraid of deviation because we do not want to be surprised. But if we listen to Ivan Illich, "It is precisely for surprise that true education prepares us."
He continues;

Education implies a growth of an independent sense of life and a relatedness which go hand in hand, with increased access to, and use of,memories stored in the human community. This presupposes a place within the society in which each of us is awakened by surprise; a place of encounter in which others surprise me with their liberty and make me aware of my own.

Let us learn always to receive further surprises. I decided long ago to hope for surprises until the final act of my life-that is to say, in death itself. (Celebration of Awareness: A call for institutional Revolution, 1969).

It is helpful to consider what Leo Tolstoy had to say about culture versus education. From his essay, 'On education,' to be found in Deschooling Our lives,1994 (a collection of essays edited by Matt Hern):

"Culture in general is to be understood as the consequences of all those influences which life exerts on man."

I don't know about you but when I read this, I get the sense of vibrancy, dynamism, movement, ever changing, ever responsiveness to societal interaction and interrelatedness.
The feeling I get when I think 'institutionalized education and learning,' is one of the straight and narrow, linear, a to b movement, rather stagnant or at least slow going. Definitely no room for that flourishing, organic exploration. Predictable -definitely no surprises!

Tolstoy continues;

Instruction and teaching are the means of culture, when they are free, and means of education, when the teaching is forced upon the pupil, and when the instruction is exclusive (when only those subjects are taught which the educator regards as necessary).

Education is a compulsory, forcible action of one person upon another for the purpose of forming a man such as will appear to us to be good; but culture is the free relation of people, having for its basis the need of one man to acquire knowledge, and of the other to impart that which he has acquired. The difference between education and culture lies only in the compulsion, which education deems itself in the right to exert. Education is culture under restraint. Culture is free.

Responding to why you keep your kids out of school.

"But why?" They ask you. "Why do you homeschool?" You haven't dared to tell them that, "actually, we unschool." It's difficult enough as it is to explain why one would keep a child out of school in a culture where 'everybody goes to school.'
Your family doesn't approve. You friends don't get it; "She's crazy." "she's brave! I couldn't do it."

I hear from newbies who are trying to figure out ways to respond to questions about 'home based education' that are often asked with suspicion and dubiousness at best. At worst, they get the very rude person who ends up winding them up and feeling defensive and incompetent.

But the fact is, we can't and shouldn't try to convince others about our choice. It is unrealistic to think this way; to believe that everybody must be on board so that you can unschool without criticism is an unattainable goal. It's beside the point. If you are waiting for that moment, you can expect a great deal of disappointment.

A simple, "It works for us," does the trick. You could also choose not to respond at all. No one says you have to answer a question just because its asked!
If a grand mother or aunt wants to really understand what you are doing, you can offer them books to read and links to follow.

As parents, we must be advocates for our children's learning and this means being strong within one's own self. If you feel insecure, better not be looking to convince others! Rather,it makes sense to work on unschooling yourself.

Leslie Gore-'You Don't Own Me'

Teen pop signer of the 60s, Leslie Gore singing this wonderfully liberating song!

Ignorant, reactionary comments to Unschooling

There are a lot of out right rude, reactions to unschooling; most of them based on fear of the unfamiliar- the different.
Here are some choice reactions that I have picked from a bunch of comments to
Looking back on Unschooling with Kate Cayley (video we made a few years back). I picked these because they are reflective of the type of thinking that you will encounter from people who do not really want to understand what unschooling is about. Beware! You might find yourself getting angry but it's worth reflecting on these comments because they can help us communicate better about unschooling to those people who are genuinely interested. Here goes;

In all honesty, unschooling is ridiculous. Sure, formal education is flawed (and so is homeschooling), but it's a hell of a lot better than complete absence of education. Unschooling parents have honest, honorable intentions, but they are horribly depriving their children of a critical need.
And honestly, there is only a minority of colleges (and scant if any exceptional ones) that would accept "unschooled" applicants.

Things are only getting more competitive and I would not base a kid's future on admissions criteria that change every year. What happens when that college no longer accepts a portfolio and an essay? Your response to my post tells me that unschooled kids have to avoid standardized test... possibly because they perform poorly?

So, she's a "writer, theatre direction, and teacher".Are there any physicians, engineers, or organic chemists who were "unschooled"?

But what about the subjects you are not passionate about? Do you just then learn nothing about them? If so, how will complete ignorance of whole swaths of human knowledge help you?

And what makes you think kids who do go to school don't learn passionately? Do you think they just sit there like blank robots, taking in only what is set before them? Do you think they don't find interesting subjects to pursue as far as possible?

Just because the education system needs to be better doesn't mean you should do nothing your whole life.

So you think that if you have a passion for biology you'll do biology and basically ignore every single aspect of life? You're screwing yourself! Schools teaches you how to work under pressure, this doesn't (hence you're never going to have a 'real' job). Schooling helps you become more well-rounded, this doesn't. Schooling basically teaches you the essentials of life beyond reading and writing at a gr.6 level, this, unfortunately, does not.

Why didn't she unschool herself through university ? she implied that she went there, i'm not sure if it was to clean toilet bowls.

Most educated parents have full time jobs, & wont have time to do this. I think i can safely assume, religious nut jobs & uneducated parents will mostly do this, to detriment of their child.

Okay I think I'll stop there. This is starting to get depressing. As you can see, there's quite a bit of ignorance around unschooling that we have still to overcome.

Beyond Unschooling

Just found this on YouTube (by Rowan Fortune-Wood).  What an articulate and brilliant unschooled person! Bravo!