Smrt Lernins

“Secular” has several meanings and not everybody groks exactly what you mean when you say you’re a secular homeschooler. The World English Dictionary lists these among the first (and more relevant) definitions of secular:

secular (ˈsɛkjʊlə) — adj
1. of or relating to worldly as opposed to sacred things; temporal
2. not concerned with or related to religion
3. not within the control of the Church
4. of an education, etc
a. having no particular religious affinities
b. not including compulsory religious studies or services

To many homeschoolers, “secular” simply means “not using religious materials/curricula,” or sometimes more broadly as “not using Christian materials/curricula.”

When I say I’m a secular homeschool, that’s what I’m talking about. I’ve largely embraced the popular definition of “secular” as used by the larger homeschooling population. By calling myself a secular homeschooler, I am saying that our academic/educational materials/curricula have no particular religious affinities and is related to “wordly” subject matters, not religious. That’s really all I mean. I’m not hiding some additional meaning. I’m not making a statement about my personal beliefs. I’m not making a statement about my thoughts on your personal beliefs. I’m not making a declaration of our educational style or methodology. All I’m saying is that we do not include religious materials in our studies, that we use evidence-based (not faith-based) materials, and that we do not involve religion in the presentation of subject matter.

Not everybody interprets the term “secular” in the same way. Secular homeschoolers themselves often seem to make a leap to a much narrower definition of secularity. I’ve noticed two fairly common assumptions about what I mean by secular homeschooler: that I am an unschooler or that I am an atheist. I have no animosity towards my fellow secular homeschoolers for making these assumptions; I just find it somewhat strange.

Now, if you’ve read my blog at all, you know I’m not an unschooler. When I meet other secular homeschoolers in person, however, they often make the assumption that I must be. Maybe their thinking is they are secular homeschoolers and they are unschoolers, so all secular homeschoolers must be unschoolers. I suppose it’s normal to assume that someone who self-identifies with language you also use for yourself would be like you in other ways. Still, I am unclear as to why “secular” seems to imply “without curricula” or “informal.” I attended some park days with a local secular homeschooling meetup group, and they would initiate conversations with the assumption that I was an unschooler or at least a non-curricula-using homeschooler.

If you’ve read back through my Secular Thursday posts, I think I’ve also made it pretty clear to my regular readers that I’m not an atheist. I usually refer to myself as an nonspecific areligious believer, the dreaded “spiritual but not religious,” or some derivation thereof. I have beliefs that are vaguely deist in flavor, others that are somewhat humanist, and some that are downright New Agey. None of them fit me neatly into any specific religion or philosophy. I believe in something, however. I’m not an atheist. I’m not even an agnostic. I’m just not at all religious, which is what I’d always believed “secular” meant.

I’m not surprised to discover that many secular homeschoolers are atheists. I have no problem with that. I am surprised that there’s an assumption from my fellow secular homeschoolers that I am an atheist. When the majority of the homeschooling world assumes “secular” means “absence of Christian and/or religious curricula,” it’s odd that the secular homeschooling world makes the additional assumption of a complete absence of spiritual belief. Why? Why do so many secular homeschoolers go that extra length in their mental definition of secularity?

I’m not expecting any answers, though if you are a self-identifying secular homeschooler, I’m interested in knowing if you assume either unschooling or atheism when you hear someone else identify as a secular homeschooler. Heck, if you aren’t a secular homeschooler, I’d be interested in knowing what, if anything, you assume.

Well, if you assume I’m going to hell, I’m not interested in know that, because it will hurt my feelings. I might cry. I might take pictures of myself crying and then blog them. That’s just how I roll.

This is a sort of meandering and uninsightful (or un-inciteful) post, but that whole Waldorf thing wore me out and this is the best I can come up with.

I have fairly regular bouts of insomnia. This is bad for several reasons, but chief amongst these is that it means I’m lying awake in the middle of the night thinking about things. After I’ve exhausted all the things about which I must anxiously and obsessively worry, my brain starts going to weird places.

Last night, I spent about a half-hour mulling over how unschoolers would respond to their children receiving letters from Hogwarts.

Seriously. These are the kinds of things that go through my sleep-deprived brain.

If we did live in the Harry Potter ‘verse, though, how would an unschooling parent react if his/her child received an invitation to attend Hogwarts?

Would it change based on whether or not the parents themselves had magical ability? Would the wizard unschoolers keep their children home and expect that they would learn through going about a magical life with their parents? Would the muggle unschoolers expect the magical abilities to unfold naturally if their children weren’t forced to channel them through specific incantations? Would they leave it entirely to the child’s choice, try to influence them, or make the decision for them?

And what about those unfortunate incidents that occur when the latent magical powers reveal themselves (like Harry disappearing the glass on the snake cage, Lily flying through the air off the swing, or Neville bouncing when dropped out of the window)? Without guidance, wouldn’t those incidents continue, putting the child at risk of some sort of magical legal trouble? Can magic be learned through modeling and real-world application only, especially with the legal limitations placed on underage wizards?

Would magic be viewed as something completely different from academic education, due to the potential danger of inadvertently blowing up one’s aunt, and unschoolers would have no problem sending their children off to Hogwarts? Would those who opted to home-magicschool their children use a more formal curriculum for it? Would they still allow the child’s interests to be more self-guided (no need to learn potions if they don’t show interest) or expect a basic level of proficiency in all areas?

Inquiring minds want to know. If you are an unschooler, how would you respond if your child received an invitation to Hogwarts (outside of the “OMG, I can’t believe Hogwarts really exists!!!” response)?

PhD in Parenting has been writing about homeschooling lately. She currently lives in Germany, where homeschooling is illegal and children are under legal compulsion to attend public school. Today, she wrote a post about different schooling methods and how she views them through the lens of the “right and duty to learn.”

On the whole, I found her opinions on homeschooling to be quite positive, but I take issue with some of the concerns she mentions in her post:

At the same time, there are things that concern me about home education:

• I worry that parents who homeschool for ideological reasons may be shielding their children from the realities of the world (other belief systems, other cultures) and their selves (sexuality, gender issues, personal expression), which I believe is dangerous for the individual and for society.
• I worry that a small minority of parents who homeschool for ideological reasons may be doing so specifically to pass on discriminatory and hateful viewpoints to their children.
• I worry that parents who take their children out of school out of frustration with the school system (generally or for their specific child) may feel forced into home educating their children when really the school system should be changing and adapting to address those concerns.
• I worry that children who grow up under the guidance of the most gentle, patient, loving and inspiring parents without being exposed to teachers who are strict, ineffective, jerks, play favourites, or use coercive methods may not learn how to deal with those types of people before entering the workforce and may be at a disadvantage (although to be fair, a lot of today’s schooled youth aren’t dealing with them themselves anyway – they are getting mommy and daddy to do it for them).

You all know how I feel about the “school as a place to learn to toughen up for the ‘real world’” stance, so I’ll just link to my comment I left on the PhD in Parenting blog and leave it at that.

What about her other concerns, like the idea that parents who homeschool may be doing so to instill hateful or dangerous ideologies in their children? How harmful is “immersing [our] children in [our] beliefs and shielding them from others?” Are parents really more or less likely to attempt to instill their ideologies in their children based on where their child schools? Are homeschooled children more likely to be racist, bigoted, etc. than their institutionally-schooled counterparts? To what extent should the State or the collective get to choose the ideologies to which your child should be exposed?

And what about her assertion that “in most cases [parents choose to homeschool because] there are perfectly reasonable and factual things taught as part of the school curriculum that the parents do not want their children to learn (evolution, birth control, homosexuality, other religious beliefs)?” Was this a motivating factor for you? For the homeschoolers you know? To what extent? Was it because the curricula covered topics you felt were inaccurate or inappropriate? Was it because the curricula were too religious or not religious enough?

And finally, what about her statement that she “believe[s] more strongly in the child’s right to an education than [she] do[es] in the parent’s right to raise their children any way they want?”  Is a child’s right to a specific set of academic knowledge greater than your rights as a parent to pass on your morality, ethics, culture, or ideology? If you’re an unschooler or (I am warming to this term) “life learner,” do you think the child’s right to an education is more or less important than his freedom to make his own decisions, even if those choices are towards the less academic?

I know my answers to these questions. I’ve read some of the exceptionally thoughtful comments to her blog (like Kelly and Kim @ Beautiful Wreck’s). Now, I’d like to hear yours.

I belong to a group on Facebook called I homeschool and I teach the science of evolution.

The group was previously called “I homeschool and I believe in evolution,” but there was dissent amongst members and potential members over the word “believe.” Evolution isn’t something that someone needs to believe in. There’s no element of faith involved. Evolution is an evidence-based scientific theory. Saying you believe in evolution is like saying you believe in gravity, relativity, or germs. A few possible name options were bandied about, but “I homeschool and I teach the science of evolution” was the overall favorite and most of the members seemed quite happy with it.

Then, of course, enter that handful of we’re-never-happy-unless-it’s-100%-our-way unschoolers (you know…those unschoolers. Not the “we’re following our child’s natural pattern of learning” unschoolers, or the “I let me child direct the course of his education” unschoolers, but the “I’d rather be illiterate than have had my parents teach me to read” Doddist unschoolers) with their panties in a twist over the use of the word “teach.”

Yes, “teach.”

“Teach,” you see, is a big, bad word among a particular subset of unschoolers. These unschoolers do not “teach.” Never, ever, ever. They lead such enriched and depth-filled lives that their children all learn exactly what they need to learn through their vibrant social lives or it wasn’t important enough to learn to begin with. The use of the word “teach” in the group name was apparently offensive enough that several unschoolers (probably the ones my friend Heather calls the “radical XTREME unschoolers”) left the group.

Complaints about the new name included:

“I don’t teach anything, I support my children as they explore their passions and interests.”

“We don’t *teach* our kids[...]We fill their lives with rich experiences, and they reach their own conclusions.”

“I’m uncertain if we ‘teach’ any of the subjects. We facilitate.”

Really? Really? You know what that sounds like? A group of people finding the most circumlocutious way possible to say they teach without ever actually using the word “teach.” And what exactly is so wrong with “teach,” anyway? Let’s take a look at the dictionary entry for the little word:

1. To impart knowledge or skill to: teaches children.

Hmm…imparting knowledge to your child. Sounds dangerously similar to telling your child how to think. Yes, I can see why that might be threatening to the [radical XTREME] unschooler.

2. To provide knowledge of; instruct in: teaches French.

Well, “providing” knowledge doesn’t sound as bad as “imparting,” but you’re still thrusting all that knowledge upon your children when they might not want it.

3. To condition to a certain action or frame of mind: teaching youngsters to be self-reliant.

Aha! We have stumbled upon it. Conditioning your child? Conditioning is what Pavlov did with dogs, and your child isn’t a dog, right? Teaching is practically like making your child drool at the dinging of a bell. Horrifying!

4. To cause to learn by example or experience: an accident that taught me a valuable lesson.

But…but…wait a minute! I thought [radical XTREME] unschoolers wanted their children to learn by example or experience. Isn’t that what unschooling is supposed to be about? I thought it was about natural learning, modeling, learning contextually, learning through life experience and all that jazz. If “teach” can mean “cause to learn by example,” why would unschooler have a problem with that word? Now I’m really confused. It must be a product of my public school education’s failure to “teach” me how to understand crazy people on the internet.

Not all (or even most) unschoolers are coocoo for Cocoa Puffs on Facebook, of course. Most of the unschooling members of the group were very supportive of the name change. One unschooler even pointed out that, “Someone better go tell Holt (from my understanding, the person who coined the term ‘unschooling’) to change the name of his book, “Teach Your Own” since the word “teach” is bothering so many unschoolers here.” Virtual fist-bump, sensible unschooler.

I’d like to say something to those unschooloonies who gasp and clutch their pearls over the use of the word “teach.” You may hate the word, but you’ve inadvertently taught me something very valuable today: You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time, because some of the people are just plain ridiculous.

Today’s “Ask a [Smrt] Homeschooler” post is something of a cheater topic, as the person who asked the question was heavily involved in helping me sort out the answer. Still, I think my process could be helpful to other people, so I might as well answer this question somewhat formally.

Patchfire asks, “How did you choose your approach to homeschooling?”

First, I have to give a tremendous amount of credit to Patchfire. When I was first considering homeschooling Captain Science, she never one tried to talk me into it or convince me to use any specific approach. I know she was really hoping I’d make the decision to homeschool. I know she was hoping I’d choose a classical approach. Despite that, she constrained herself to only answering the questions I asked, only giving her opinion when I requested it, and also being honest about the challenges. For that, I am truly grateful, because I don’t have any doubts or regrets about the decisions we have made. I know they were our decisions.

Deciding on classical homeschooling was actually remarkably easy for me, though building up the courage to choose curricula and develop a schedule was hard. I have several homeschooling friends, both in person and online. I looked for the families whose children were most like Captain Science in temperament, ability, and learning style, and then assessed whether I liked how they were learning, how much they were learning, and whether or not I found them to be pleasant and well-rounded individuals.

The winner, hands down, of the “most like Captain Science” and the “most like how I’d want Captain Science to be in the future” was Patchfire’s Eclectic Girl. I loved the things she was learning, the methods by which she was learning, and wphat an enjoyable child she seemed to be overall. Plus, she and Captain Science are like two scrawny, brainy little peas in a pod, so it seemed like an easy choice to give credence to methods that worked well for her.

It was also fairly easy to choose an approach because I knew what approaches I didn’t want. I’ve never been a big fan of unschooling, at least as I’ve seen it modeled in the “real world” (or by online folks like Sandra Dodd of the “I’d rather have dentures than have memories of my parents forcing me to brush my teeth” school of thought). My personal experiences with Montessori weren’t great and I’m just not a centers kind of girl. Waldorf/Steiner? Yeah, not going with any approach that so strongly advocates a delay in reading. Unit studies sound great for some areas or topics, but I couldn’t see myself developing an entire curricula around them.

However fringe or hippie I might be in some areas of my life, when it comes to education, I’m fairly traditional. I value reading and writing, and yes, I think those are skills that should be developed earlier rather than later. I value thorough mathematical education, which includes things like knowing the multiplication tables. I think memorization and recitation are important skills for every person, skills that I have found useful on many occasions in my adult life. I value rigorous, evidence-based science education. I value history education that is both broad and deep. All of these values pointed me towards a classical approach to education.

I would recommend that every prospective homeschooler read The Well-Trained Mind first, even if classical education doesn’t sound like something that would float your boat. It’s the most thorough resource on what children should (or could, at least) learn and on what and how much to introduce when. You might read WTM and love it like I did, developing your own classical curricula for your child. You might say “Eff this noise!” and chuck it into the back yard for your chickens to eat. You might take parts from WTM and parts from other places. Whether or not you strictly define yourself by someone else’s approach isn’t the issue — I’m sure some of the most rigorous classical homeschoolers might consider me to be classical lite, as we haven’t yet started Latin (though we do a Latin-based vocabulary) and we don’t to that many fabulous extracurriculars. You just need to find a place to start if you’re trying to decide how to choose your approach to homeschooling. The rest will fall into place after that.

That’s how the [Smrt] Homeschooler chose her approach to homeschooling. Good luck choosing yours!

Do you have a question for the [Smrt] Homeschooler? Email them to
smrtmama@smrtlernins.com

If you’ve ever wondered why I’m not a fan of unschooling, this pretty much sums up my concerns about what unschooling has the potential to become in the hands of someone who believes children innately have the foresight to know exactly what they need to know, and thus, makes no effort to adequately prepare her children for the future. A woman on the Mothering.com forums writes:

My children have been mostly unschooled which has meant engaged kids who are lovely people.. however they are at an age where they are looking to go to college (like the end of high school, kids here in the UK go at 16). Nearly all home-schooled kids want to go at 16 and mine are no different.
Their literacy is not great though. Spelling is difficult, punctuation and grammar need some work and they need to learn eg. how to write an essay. Most books with this in are aimed at quite young children. Does anyone know any books, websites etc. that we can use to get thier literacy improving?
We have the writing strands programme which is great but we need to work on the other bits of writing which aren’t covered in this.
Any advice?
TIA x

Yes, her children are “engaged, lovely people” who can’t read or write. This isn’t the first time she’s talked about her children’s functional illiteracy on the forums, or about her children’s struggles with math and other subjects, but she has taken no advice and implemented no measures consistently enough (or at all) to lead to any notable difference. When asked if tutoring or putting the children in school is an option, her response is:

School is not an option, they lead busy full happy lives and would not want to go.
Yes we have literacy struggles. I think the eldest 2 are dyslexic but can’t get help till college. We have tried various things, programmes and books. Mostly they type on keyboard which they prefer to writing and use spell-check. They have each just completed a qualification that is an exam equivalent but with no exam and they typed the stuff up. They don’t enjoy writing so I suppose it is a wait and see, carry on what we are doing and let college help them. Thanks for your replies
I was only asking if anyone had suggestions for books that may explain spelling rules/punctuation for older kids.

There is so much wrong with this picture. SO much. How has this mother’s brand of “unschooling” failed her children? Let me count the ways:

1. At least two of these children have a potential learning disability that their mother refuses to address, placing the responsibility for that on the college. Her children “can’t get help,” though I am sure they could if she were to enroll them in any sort of program.
2. Her children cannot read well, cannot use grammar, cannot spell, and do not know the basics of writing an essay, yet she believes all of this can be solved by a book that “explain[s] spelling rules/punctuation.” She also seems surprised that books on basic grammar and usage are all geared towards younger children.
3. Her children’s “busy lives” and “not want[ing] to go” to school apparently outweigh the fact that their mother has allowed them to reach their teen year without the basic abilities to read or write, yet she expects they will magically do well in college.
4. These children have apparently never been made to do work they do not enjoy, yet she expects they will waltz right in to college and be successful there.
5. These children have not been taught even the basics of writing, cannot read, cannot spell, cannot use grammar, and have not yet successfully passed an entrance exam, yet she expects they will waltz right into college and be successful there.
6. She believes that it is the job of the college to teach the children the basics of reading and writing that she has failed to teach them.
7. Her child, who didn’t even realize until age 14 that she would need to know these things, requested to learn them through a curriculum, and had her mother turn down that request because it would be “spoonfeeding her.”

I love how she mentions several times what delightful people her children are, as though that makes up for her complete parental failing to instill any form of academic education in her children. Being pleasant is great and all, but 16 is a bit late to be learning to read, and it’s certainly way too late to be addressing a learning disability like dyslexia. Her “engaged” and “lovely” children could have a successful career ahead of them at Chick-fil-A (which has delightfully pleasant servers). However, her daughter who does absolutely no math (outside of “money stuff”), cannot read well or write well, and who spends hours a day watching “Gossip Girl” and doing trampoline (according to this woman’s other posts) is not likely to flourish in college.

Sure, some of you will say, “Well, this lady is just one example of unschooling gone wrong. She’s hardly the rule!” Take a moment, if you will, to read some of the comments to that post (or to any posts in the unschooling forums on MDC) and you’ll find other unschoolers telling encouraging her in her gross negligence with little gems like, “If your daughter wants to go to college next year, it is up to her to make sure her writing skills are up to par. She can use you as a resource, but it is not your responsibility – it is hers,” “I’d make it HER responsibility to prepare for college- if she slacks off, the result is that she may have to wait longer to go,” “I think because our kids have choices and control over their lives, it’s unlikely that they’ll turn around and say something like, ‘You should have made me do xyz.’”

Yes, mom completely fails to teach her child anything, because the child doesn’t “want to.” Then, when that child is finally old enough to have that “oh shit!” moment and realize that perhaps a little learning might be necessary for a future, the mother is in no way obligated to help, nor is she culpable for the lack of education up to that point. The Unschooler Mantra (or “Radical Unschooler” Mantra, since all the unschoolers always say that what these people are doing isn’t “unschooling,” but “radical unschooling,” despite the fact the people actually doing it just call themselves unschoolers) — if they don’t choose to learn it, don’t make them learn it, and then take no responsibility that they didn’t learn it. Must be nice, being completely absolved of any responsibility or obligation to your children. Of course, it’s nearly impossible to play catch up for 10+ missed years of education in one or two years, but hey, let’s blame the kid!

As an aside, where did these unschoolers get the idea that reading alone will teach everything you need to know about proper grammar, spelling, and usage? Is it to make themselves feel better about the fact that their teenage daughter reading Twilight is the closest thing to an education she’s getting?

While reading the Well Trained Mind forums, I came across this little gem. Classical unschoolers? Really? Their group’s description says the group is “for those of us that love the idea of a classical education but also follow a more relaxed, eclectic, unschooling path.”

I’m seeing several problems with the concept of “classical unschooling,” the primary one being that these people seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of what a classical education is. It isn’t just studying about the Greeks and Romans, especially “by way of self-directed reading and watching videos.” In fact, by Susan Wise Bauer’s (author of The Well-Trained Mind) definition of classical education, learning primarily through videos in and of itself negates the idea of the education being classical. Classical education, through her eyes, is “language-focused; learning is accomplished through words, written and spoken, rather than through images (pictures, videos, and television).”

So how, then, can unschooling be classical? Taking a few elements of classical education, such as learning about Greek history or to speak Latin, doesn’t suddenly impart structure or form to unschooling. It doesn’t fill in the huge gaps of education that can arise from making the child the final arbiter of what s/he should learn.

A child who is unschooled until middle school and is then thrust into a classical curriculum is at a serious disadvantage. While I believe a classical curriculum can be started at any age, an unschooled child will probably have a greater difficulty than, say, a public schooled child in adapting to a rigorous, formal curriculum. Do they really have the foundations upon which you can build a good education? How much catch-up will you have to do to even get the child to the age-appropriate logic stage, when they haven’t had one whit of grammar stage education? If you know you want to educate classically later, why completely unschool now? Do you really think that, come sixth or seventh grade, your child will be willing and able to sit down for formal instruction and that you will be willing and able to offer it?

I think the group’s description sums it up neatly, actually. They “love the idea of a classical education,” but are unwilling or unable to put in the time and effort needed to give their child this education. A 17-year-old working through Saxon Algebra because she realizes she wants to take the SAT, a 10 year old who is only now learning any grammar because he’s only now willing to “pick it up,” a mother logging hours spent on “various activities” so she can fabricate a transcript — these are not examples of classical education. There’s nothing classical about that. Back-applying the “classical” label to half-assed schooling efforts in order to make you feel better about what you’re doing doesn’t actually make the education classical, rigorous, or good.

If you want your child’s education to be classical, educate them classically. Don’t steal the label to dress up what you’re doing if it isn’t an accurate description. If you’re so proud of being an unschooler, just call yourself an unschooler.