Unschooling Formatted for TV
Friday, October 14, 2011 at 10:14AM Unschooling was featured on the Today Show this morning and it was generally a fair portrayal of what it is and how it is done. The Bentley family, featured in the video segment, was particularly articulate and they were shown actively learning and doing things in their community; as a result, I don’t think the audience viewed unschooling as children doing nothing or as unparenting, which is a relief.
The education experts on the show expressed the standard concerns: unschoolers aren’t tested so how do we know they’re learning compared to their schooled counterparts? Parents may not be qualified to teach certain things. The kids could be isolated if they aren’t involved in activities outside the home. Aren’t there going to be gaps in their knowledge? By the way, these are the same concerns that are often raised about homeschooling in general, which proves to me, again, that homeschooling and unschooling are inextricably linked and efforts to separate them are not wise. Since most unschooling and homeschooling resources cover these questions in detail, as have I, I won’t respond to them here.
It was good to hear Robyn Silverman, a teen and child development expert, note that unschoolers get into college with non-traditional transcripts, but it was disappointing to hear her say that unschooling is primarily for parents of “self-propelled” children. All children are born with self-motivation and a very common thread among unschoolers are stories about how they decided to unschool after their children went to school and became morose, unmotivated learners. They know their children weren’t this way before they went to school, so they view unschooling as a way to reinvigorate their children’s love of learning. Unschooling can work for any child and there are thousands of examples online and in print.
Further, both experts and the show overall make it seem like unschooling is a new trend, some recent development that doesn’t have a track record and is therefore somewhat dangerous to do with your children. There is no mention of John Holt and his creation of unschooling in 1977 after years of teaching in and writing about schools. There is no mention of the thousands of unschoolers who are now productive, adult citizens, some of them unschooling their own children now. There is no mention of teachers, in both alternative and conventional schools, who either unschool their children or take inspiration from it in their work. There is no mention that unschoolers are forging their lives earlier than those in school can, building up resumes and experiences that serve them well as adults, and that two-thirds of all American colleges and universities have admission procedures for homeschoolers/unschoolers. Indeed, according to U.S. census data only about 27.5% of all Americans have four-year college degrees, so it is odd that the media and society view getting into college as the ultimate sign of adult success. Shouldn’t we focus on how the 73.5% of Americans without four-year degrees find work, careers, and lives worth living instead of making them feel less worthy for not going or completing college? Uncollege is a concept that I hope gets further attention and it’s founder acknowledges the influence of unschooling on his thinking.
Further, unschooling is an option for families, not a mandate. You can try it and adapt it as you see fit; your kids can move in and out of school as necessary; you can do it for any amount of time. It is NOT school, which is why it is a true option for children who hate school, or don’t fit in, or find class too boring, or find class too challenging. I wish the experts had considered these issues instead of finding fault with unschooling because it does not follow conventional school techniques; that is the point, after all. As noted earlier, people often come to unschooling because their children were not flourishing in school, or because even though they did well in school (as the adult Bentley’s say they did in their segment) they want an education that is more involving for their children than marching through the steps of standardized curricula.
Unschooling is about learning and doing things that matter in the real world and in your life, and the Bentley family provides a great model of this for viewers. In six minutes, The Today Show condensed and analyzed an educational movement that has been growing for decades. Some day, I hope the deeper stories that lie beneath the surface of this one will be examined.
Reader Comments (28)
Thanks Pat for those numbers! Have a good weekend! Be well!
Pat & Cooper;
Well there is little to say or write since it seems before anyone can say something he or she must invent and examine the hundred different ways what is being said will be twisted to mean something all together stupid.
For example:
Pat declares, “unschooling as a program, as a method, as a cult. I really wish we could talk about learning and living, but these terms have been marginalized by schoolspeak: now babies and children must learn how to learn (it isn't something they have a biological imperative to do); unschooling is a program administered by parents rather than a description of how children can grow while they explore the real world with different types of support from their families and others.”
I apologize Pat, I had no business speaking of how one learns how to learn. It is clear from your writings that you know nothing about the subject and more to the point, I was lazily unwilling to supply the necessary background needed to set the foundation that would bring you up to speed. Please, forgive me for my laziness. Perhaps what I write below will correct my earlier neglect.
What astonishes me is that under the circumstances it does not matter what form education takes, unschooling or whatever, it is only through close association with those who know how to learn, how to learn, how to learn can a child or adult (for that matter) develop those skills … true it is a biological imperative, but in no way is the skill automatically developed. Since you do not know how to learn, how to learn, tell me, within your environment who is available for your children to associate with … the capacity is developed, without exception by means of immersion and absorption, before assimilation (digestion) can occur.
You have treated my “learning” comment without thought, in part because your mind compels you to believe you already know how to learn.
No doubt, out of necessity, you will have to deny this fact, if not directly to me, at least to yourself, if only for your peace of mind.
However, if you know how to learn, you also know that the capacity is learned though it can never be taught, more to the point, it is physically impossible to teach … it is learned only by means of rigorous association with those who are themselves fully developed, mature and therefore adept.
I can agree with you, learning how to learn, etc. is a “biological imperative” and every child will absorb the knowledge and skill very rapidly when such a capacity is to be found within their environment. What is made observable within your comments is your lack of experience regarding how such capacities are made available and developed … along with the fact you personally would usefully benefit if you undertook such a development in your own behalf. View the following YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vhE8ScWe7w
Many of my friends and I have filmed such events … birds, fish, even worms … in an effort to observe how it functions. The only comment that needs to be expressed, the birds have never been seen to crash or in any way disturb their remarkable expression. In the formal sense of the terms, take note that the skills cannot be taught, they can only be learned by means of close association with those individuals who are themselves fully proficient. Watch the video again, notice how the signal … the communication … occurs, in the free Unschool’s natural environment most subjects are learned in this fashion … there is much more to say here, perhaps later.
If I am right that you could usefully undertake to learn, etc. perhaps foolishly, I doubt you have enough interest to first discover someone to associate with, second exercise the necessary patience and third observe the process over an extended period of time … boarding upon multiple years … noticing that a substantial portion … my guess is over 90% … of what is learned enters without warning. Almost everything we learn enters our organism independent of a curriculum or any conscious form of intention. For several thousand years or so, this form of acquiring knowledge and skills has been reported. The harmony that is achieved is often styled as ‘breathing together’.
Another factor you have not yet learned, a notion that has been expressed for many centuries, addresses how the way our mind operates when we fail to undertake the necessary correctives. Without applying the counteractive we easily and freely mislead and self-deceive ourselves as I have illustrated in the opening paragraphs of this email.
Take note:
“What our mind proposes, our mind compels us to believe.”
An aside, the idea of ‘unschooling’ or ‘free schooling’ has as its underlining principle the fact that compulsion is never an operative factor, except where safety is involved … a failure to comprehend our mind’s ability to compel only strengthens with every passing day, the most powerful of all compulsions … self produced coercion.
Give the above quote some thought and notice, if I had not brought it to your attention, without exception you believe what your mind is presently proposing … and if you have not integrated the corrective you remain a victim of your mind’s compulsion. The children that look to you for their development will themselves continue to profoundly suffer the condition as they absorb what you have to bring to the relationship.
I am purposely not making available to you the corrective to this disability and of course, I am willing to support what you believe, even if what you believe declares that you have no need for such a corrective.
I was in my middle twenties when I came into contact with this form of knowledge, though I must say that at the time I had no notion whatsoever what I happened to lack. Though it took a number of years of active involvement, all while their impacts happened, I had no idea what I was actually learning and even less about what I needed to learn. Looking back to that period … the early 1960’s … my infant children demonstrated to me that though I had read all the books in the English language regarding development, experience was teaching me I knew nothing, even while my mind proposed ‘I did not need to know more’.
Then one day my family was given the most extraordinary gift when we were permitted to associate with a number of educators who had more than forty years experience raising their own and several hundred other children in a self-determining environment. Their extensive gifts, the free sharing of their knowledge was artistically being delivered without a word being spoken, they taught us ….
Now there is more to say, much more, but for the moment I must assume that you both have found enough excuses you will be able to dismiss most of what I suggest, explaining away what cannot be dismiss … and so it ends.
If however I am wrong, if in fact you are interested in resolving the neglect, then use what I have written here and form a number of questions and ask them if you are of a mind.
Bruce
Bruce,
The video of the starlings is very striking and beautiful, and your point that learning is often unconsciously received and transmitted is well taken. Indeed, I tried to make that point in my earlier reply, when I noted that there is much more to life than learning and teaching and we need to broaden our perspectives about how we involve children in modern society.
You and your family found a community of support for raising children in a self-determining environment, and that is wonderful. How does your community grow and sustain itself?
Pat
Pat,
I am glad you appreciated the Starling video. There is a great deal to be learned from events like these. Perhaps the most significant aspect is that the whole mass is nothing more than a collection of four to fifteen birds who have join with several hundred other four to fifteen bird collections to spend less than hour melting together and then dissolving back into their daily life.
You declare and ask;
“You and your family found a community of support for raising children in a self-determining environment, and that is wonderful. How does your community grow and sustain itself?”
Such a community’s function is to accomplish its purpose and as quickly as possible … to then dissolve. It is correct to say that, “Over a twenty-five year period, we encountered no less than five such communities a year, each emerged within the context of a child’s current developmental needs and their particular impact set the stage for what, when and where the next community will become apparent.”
Such a community grows and sustains itself. Never, not for a single moment is there ever a need for planning. In hindsight, every community we encountered was always the correct size therefore ‘growth’ was never necessary and ‘sustainability’ had no functional purpose.
Contrary, as with any other factors in the area of human development, in harmony with the emerging possibility the student consciously or otherwise seeks to complete (better styled as ‘finish.’) each development. When the dance (so to speak) has fulfilled its functions, rarely noticing, the student soon discovers that everyone has moved on … this has been true in every single case that I am aware of, the community simply dissolves at the earliest practical moment. Perhaps the single worst possible attitude a student might bring to events like these would be the spending of energy towards giving an artificial longevity to a community that has already fulfilled its function and therefore is no longer a useful community in the ‘child development’ sense.
Of course everyone has a need for a healthy social life, however the implementation of a vigorous and beneficial social community is an entirely different milieu, a surrounding wholly unrelated to the absorption we (I) have been addressing. When the growth through close association is completed, the connections … better described as communication … simply melts away. If such a termination fails to occur, for sure we are caught up by and are now supporting a cult … the education, the edification has been transformed into indoctrination and conditioned reflexes, something that happens far too often, a sad loss to everyone.
There are many more factors that need to be address but for now, nothing more needs to be expressed until I receive further feedback from you.
Bruce
Pat,
First:
Over time, as with everything else in this life, my body has now begun to run down and though I still know my subject, my composition skills are beginning to wear thin. Please be patient with me and demand clarification where and whenever needed, request that I restate, thereby describing something that may need further information.
Second:
I am and have always been a slow learner when reading, therefore I read and reread each book until what needs to be learned has been assimilated. When I first began to learn this ‘free school – home school’ stuff I was instructed to read each book, 1st for the facts and absolutely nothing more … ignoring all else, even if it takes ten readings. Once the facts are well in place then 2nd read each book for how the material applies to me and 3rd for what else might be there. Since the early 1960’s I have read every English language book that in one way or another applies to this topic of ours … at last count some 1246 books and papers. The above reading instructions are found in the literature (both in English and English translation) from approximately 800bc.
Third:
For the past couple of months I have reread a number of the outstanding, beautifully written books that brilliantly enlarge upon our stockpile of technical knowledge as it relates to human education. This knowledge must be well understood before “Unschooling” can be comprehended. Without this necessary understanding, a useful education will remain impossible.
The common notion that those who are involved with the education of children need to construct a curriculum for their students is a concept based upon a disastrous error. I have never counted the many facts related to learning and how learning occurs, however … there are far a wide range of facts that must be violated when we attempt to construct a curriculum. Such a syllabus, even for a single student is remains an ill conceived fiction.
To illustrate what I am referring to, give the following two books your attention.
Dr. Robert Ornstein (and friends)
Evolution of Consciousness: The Origins of the way we think
MindReal: How the mind creates its own virtual reality.
I thought to reproduce here in this email one or two interesting paragraphs and I soon realized there are far too many informative paragraphs, so from MindReal I will reproduce pages 35 to 42 and I hope you will be able to see what makes devising a curriculum a near impossibility and significantly damaging undertaking. Dr. Ornstein writes:
“The mind isn't well-designed, it has just been accumulated. The particular collection of talents, abilities and capacities that each person possesses depends upon a lot of things. It depends partly on birth and partly on experience. Our illusion, however, is that somehow we are unified, that all our actions, or at least many of them, do have a common purpose and goal.
“We have a rolling virtual resume of ourselves that we find quite easy to generate. "I'm a successful executive with a home in the hills and enjoy vacations by the water." "I'm a basketball fan and the second son of a drunk." Other people, as well, present a smooth, seemingly consistent and unified surface to us. But that idea we have of ourselves and of other people is construction -- just as much as is seeing a tree outside is constructed on a limited basis. We are hidden from ourselves, and while the skin covers a lot of different organs that are only visible once the covering has been lifted, it is more difficult, of course, to blow the lid off the mind. But the mind is a mixed structure; it has modules and what I call policies within it. In life, these general components act independently of one another .and may very well have vastly different priorities. The mind is not an organized system, but a squadron of simpletons. It is not unified, not rational, not well designed or even designed at all. In fact, although it is difficult for us to face, the mind simply happened. It was propagated through the innovations of countless organisms that lived long before us, and the mind evolved, not through design, but through countless animals and through countless worlds.
“Like the rest of biological evolution, the human mind is a collage of adaptations -- the propensity to do the right thing in a certain situation, to drink, to return home to one's place of birth, to be able to navigate using the stars. Our thought is a set of fixed routines, "simpletons." We need them; it is vital to be able to find the right food at the right time; it is vital to be able to mate well, to generate children, to avoid marauders, to respond quickly to emergencies. And countless mental routines to handle all of this housekeeping work evolved over millions of years and developed in different eras.
“Thus, to characterize the mind as primarily rational, as much scientific analysis has it, is an injustice. It sells us short; it makes us misunderstand ourselves and has perverted our understanding of our intelligence, our schooling, and our physical and mental health. *
“Holding up rationality and remorseless deliberation as the mind's primary function has, more importantly, set us along the wrong road to our future. Instead of being the pinnacle, rationality is just one small peak in a range of enormous possibilities. Because human beings live all over the world, from the Himalayas to the Kalahari to Paris, the human mind evolved great breadth; yet it is shallow, for it creates quick-and-dirty "sketches" of the world. This rough-and-ready sketchy reality enabled our ancestors to survive better, and that's why the mind evolved – not so that we could know ourselves. The mind didn’t evolve for self-knowledge.
“Simply speaking, there has never been, nor will there ever be, enough time to be truly rational. Rationality is used rarely and in a very limited area. It is not practical, anyway. There is no time for the mind to go through the luxurious exercise of examining alternatives.
“Instead of the standard rational analysis of evidence which involves setting up a "truth table" -- a checklist of information about whether propositions are correct or are not to know -- you're aware that you already know a lot of things. You know that Zurich is in Switzerland, you know that New York is in America, etc. But, to know what Moses' phone number was, you would have to go through a "truth table" involving an immense set of calculations and information searches, if you didn't already know that there weren't phones in Moses' time -- shortcuts.
“Think of the number of issues you immediately know accurately -- what England is, whether you would ride a skateboard to a formal dinner, whether the chicken goes on the inside or the outside of the sandwich, what your spouse wore this morning -- and you will see that your own truth table, if entered randomly, would have to contain millions of entries. And how much time would it take to search? Years! When a tiger approached, imagine an animal that deliberated this long and thought, "Is this thing friendly? What is this expansive yellow in my visual field? Look at those neat ears and deep eyes ... Hey, look at those teeth!" We can say, from a technical standpoint, that such an organism would not have been around long enough to contribute its genes to future generations. So, obviously, rationality and remorseless deliberation are too slow in real life, although fine for academic or scientific work.
“The mind is one great shortcut, for better or worse. We don't search out all the alternatives in an attempt for knowledge. Instead, we use very, very few simple strategies. The mind works overwhelmingly in large part to act -- to do or die, as we say in English -- but not to reason or to know why. Most of our little routines are automatic moves; not so automatic, perhaps, as removing one's hand from a hot stove, but stored and fixed routines, like military exercises.
MIND BOGGLING
Consciousness is bounced around helplessly by environmental influences.
We are usually unaware of the turmoil that consciousness is subjected to by the world outside our heads. The irony is that this system was, like all evolved systems, a direct result of natural selection.
Back to the text
“The primary job of the mental system is not self-understanding, self-analysis or reason, but rather running its routines. That is what the mind is organized to do; it runs its routines to adapt to the world, to get nourishment and safety, to reproduce and so to pass on descendants. The human mind evolved thus a fantastic and alluring set of adaptations within which to operate and to mesh with the small world, the local environment in which each of us finds us. The mind works to gain a quick fix on reality and to guide action.
The above is based on a discussion in Ornstein’s The Evolution of Consciousness.
“But the mind isn't anyone thing. Like an army, it has its master builders, its accountants, its dullards, its stooges, its hysterical spirits, and, especially, its dreamers. The mind contains separate and independent streams of thinking, feeling and ideas, and these transfers from one situation into another.
“Sigmund Freud elaborated on an important mental routine in his analysis of what was called "transference," which involves the projection of the patient's own feelings toward significant others onto the psychotherapist. But transference isn't limited to the therapeutic encounter. In fact, minds come into consciousness and transfer reactions all the time. This swapping of reactions leaves our consciousness unaware of how a new and different mind is in place for determining our reactions.
“We can use the concept of "mind in place" to show how we recruit the same routines to handle different situations.
“Picture different "sets of mind" swinging in and out, while one system, then another, then a third takes hold of consciousness. Once recruited for a purpose, the mind in place performs as if it bad been there forever. Then it steps aside, to be replaced with another actor, one with different memories, different priorities and plans; and we, our conscious self, rarely notice what's gone on.
“It's similar to the way programs work in a personal computer. We put a word-processing or database program into working memory and, when we're done with it, we swap it out for another program. And, at least with earlier forms of personal computers, each set of programs has its logic, its own commands and hierarchies, and often the information does not transfer from one to another. This unconscious shift (like having a new program to evaluate the scene) is one reason why we don't always act the way "we" want ourselves to do so.
“And one consequence of this is that we are not the same person from moment to moment. Thus, the idea most people have that they are consistent is an illusion caused by the structure of the mind. It is simply that the "observer" part of the mind also has quite limited access to what is going on. The" self" is itself just another part of the mind, nothing special and with a small job. And that job isn't self-knowledge, rationality or understanding, but rather it is what you might call "minding the store."
“And the situation is even more complicated as an engineering task: the world, this world we're describing, is but one-trillionth of the total energy that strikes us. There is a thicket of information out there that we miss constantly: infrared, ultraviolet, waves that birds hear, and the like. All that we're describing here is already so reduced by what Aldous Huxley called the "reducing valve" of the senses that we hardly experience anything of what's "out there." It's all in our head, much more than we think. How many leaves have you seen this summer?
“And one more bullet before we move on: The mind is, really, not identical with the brain. Surely the mind depends on the brain, and some people (even the writer of this book) have made a career of writing about the functions of the two sides of the brain and the mind. But the mind has a status independent of the brain. To greatly, but not completely, oversimplify: the brain's workings can be visualized better as if it were a corporation's organizational chart where the physical location and appearance of the CEO (the mind) may not matter much. Also, as anybody who works knows, the real influence and intrigue of an organization are not possible to comprehend from its physical arrangement.
“And there are more complications to the simple ("get me through the day") role that the mind has. If you think about it, there's too much information available -- we don't face reality so much as we deface it, taking only small parts and, creating or filling in the gaps to help us through the day. Then, it has to be put together again. First, the world is split into senses, for example, and we make the same (seemingly from this perspective) dumb mistakes over and over, because we never "see" things whole. Ordinarily, no matter how self-reflective we are, we don't know what the mind is doing or how it does it.
“We know what is on our mind, because we see, feel, think, hear and taste objects and events, but we don't know what's in our mind because we can't see it. The structure of our mental system and our consciousness is invisible- and imperceptible to us. Nevertheless, which "DJ" is in place in the mind determines how we decide who to marry, what to spend and to do at any moment, the content of our memories, which strategies we use to think and, in the long run, the future of how humanity handles Earth.
“But it may be easier than we think if the world we see is really something we each construct on our own, because thus we can change it. By the way, after you've read this analysis, you may well think it a miracle that a human being can find anything in the outside world, or get anything to eat, or find shelter or somebody to mate with. And it is a miracle, this life of the mind. And understanding these daily miracles -- that's what this book is about.”
My best wishes,
Bruce
Bruce,
Thanks for the interesting information and the quotes from Ornstein's work.
I'm not sure how this information can impact the public discussion of education, since mind/body discussions are ignored there (as well as in our political, social, and economic spheres), but for individuals, families, and small groups I think it has importance. How can we address this topic in ways that resonate with people, especially those who don't even want to question curricula, schooling, consciousness, etc.?
Pat,
I have since the early 1960’s watched as various approaches to child development and education have passed over the years from a viable, balanced activity into nothing since they have fallen into the trap of becoming a CULT, thereby sending their original notion into oblivion. For example, before my time various fractions of the ‘Homeschooling’ world began to impose ‘faith’ based notions upon their actions and though most of their opinions were not religious in nature, their faith based notions were no less religious in their flights into whimsy, into caprice. This also remains the case for most of the other individual approaches to education so that today even the ‘Free School’ notion has proudly assumed the conventional CULT structure. Perhaps the most significant reason why this phenomenon occurs is because none of the CULT victims have ever questioned their personal definition of what a cult might be or why when a cult takes control their original intentions are reduced to nothing, sheer flights into fancy and no longer able to function as originally intended.
There is more to say here, think it through yourself.
Remember, the dictionaries function is to provide the briefest possible definition, which works most of the time, yet far too often in their attempt to be succinct, what they have to say fails to be useful and is more misleading then informative. The term ‘CULT’ is an excellent demonstration. Defining ‘CULT’ could easily fill a page and must, within its definition refer to other terms that themselves need a far broader definition then is generally supplied (inculcation, indoctrination, ‘ring the bell and salivate’, scientific, belief that ignores or contradicts facts and so on).
From antiquity to the present, the wise have warned that “What the mind proposes, the mind compels us to believe.” This common everyday experience, this fact makes us all vulnerable to all forms of compulsion … though for the most part we all are too lazy to seek and put into place the corrective.
Our function as a parent is to inoculate our offspring. The immunizing process cannot be delivered by means of words and so far as I am aware it is conveyed only by way of faithful association with those who themselves have absorbed the protection.
There is more to say here and you need to fill in the details yourself … think it through and raise whatever questions may come to mind.
Remember we are addressing “Unschooling” and no matter what we might have to say, life presents itself in the most scattered fashion possible and in order to learn by means of life itself, we have to allow life to deliver what we need to know … to learn … in life’s own unevenly scattered, beautiful expressions.
The Definition of a Cult
The first part of a cult’s definition can be described as, “… a belief-system with fixed observances, which practices indoctrination, repetition, carrot and stick inculcation …”.
Under most circumstances, such as within our own society, the “… approved cults are the 'official' belief-systems, for example, the national cult, our patriotism and also the educational institutions which are given a framework of beliefs and practices, along with any other set of beliefs which either supports the local consensus or at the least does not militate against it.”
Speaking scientifically it is impossible to distinguish between the Boy Scout Movement and any other religious or nationalistic training system, though the adherents and their sympathizers would insist that their own organization bore no resemblance to others.
On the other hand the Unschooler Household works against the formation of cults and also provide a means to distinguish the cult from the educational organization. It is for this reason that it is impossible to label the Unschooler as a members of any cult whatever unless we chooses to style the entirely unrepresentative bodies which (for instance) teach a single system and maintain a single set of practices applicable upon all or most of the participants.
My claim, therefore, that unschooling is scientific and also non-cult and anti-cult is acceptable to reasonable people as verifiable in terms of the most modern methods of assessment. What has prevented the understanding of this fact has been that even advanced sociologists often fail to absorb the information of what a cult is. Until this understanding is diffused among the scholarly and professional community of sociology and its associated disciplines, it will not be open to sociological and psychological thinkers to discern the real effect and contribution of the Unschooling Community which dates from several thousand years ago. It is surprising that the members of the sociological professions find it hard (even impossible) to believe that their métier, their art, has already been pioneered by people of whom they have never heard (because their work is found in the literature of another culture) centuries ago.
My best wishes,
Bruce
Pat,
You declare and ask, “I'm not sure how this information can impact the public discussion of education, since mind/body discussions are ignored there (as well as in our political, social, and economic spheres), but for individuals, families, and small groups I think it has importance. How can we address this topic in ways that resonate with people, especially those who don't even want to question curricula, schooling, consciousness, etc.?”
I know little or nothing about how to proselytize the notion of ‘Unschooling’. In fact, throughout history and within the published literature of each era, questions like the one you raise “How can we address this topic in ways that resonate with people, especially those who don't even want to question curricula, schooling, consciousness, etc.?” are treated as irrelevant and too far off the topic (in our case the topic of “Unschooling”) and therefore reflect a useless intention. Proselytizing “Unschooling” beyond sharing information with those who have a question is precisely the opposite, the antitheses of learning.
Assuming you need an answer to your inquiry, ask those individuals who specialize in missionary work and have no active interest in learning. Anyway, I am far too lazy and would never try to persuade or convert others to a particular program; the business of propagandist does not taste right to me.
Today I see what my children, now parents, make of the matter. In truth, the term “Unschooling” entered my world when my daughter identified how she was approaching her son’s development, declaring that most everything they need will enter when such a necessity survives the factors that otherwise interfere with a need fulfilling its own function.
One day … she was in her twenties at the time … she came to us and said, “I am off to Australia and would we drive her to the airport?”
We had been a year sailing the Pacific and had just returned to the continent. As a parent we had a hundred (mostly paranoid) questions. Life had taught that such questions are without merit so we kept our thoughts to our self.
Taking up an Australian life and over a six year period, she completed her university studies with graduate degrees in Asian studies, married and took up Japanese residence in order to learn her sixth language.
Five years later when visiting us, with her first son in her arms and … as a casual after thought … she declared that, “All my time in school (meaning university) was a colossal waste of time. What they taught took far too long to teach far too little.”
Her son today … at 16 … without any prior school experience chose to enter university seeking to satisfy his interest in math. He has heard his mother and father’s opinion but will have to complete his own experience before he will understand what their declaration means.
Pat I extend to you my best wishes and hope your desire to become a missionary works out for you.
Bruce