Legendary Learning

One of the most popular books we sold through the John Holt Book and Music Store was by Nancy and Malcolm Plent, “An ‘A’ in Life: Famous Homeschoolers.” Nancy and Mac published various editions of this book during the 15 years or so that we sold it and I know many people found support and inspiration from knowing that people as diverse as Agatha Christie, George S. Patton, and Gloria Steinman were homeschooled. That book has been out of print for some time but Jamie McMilllin has created a successor:
Legendary Learning: The Famous Homeschoolers' Guide to Self-Directed Excellence.

Ms.McMillin does more than describe the biographies of famous people; she also describes the richness of homeschooling, including unschooling, so this book is also an overview of the homeschooling landscape by an eclectic homeschooler. No commitment to any one philosophy or idea about education is fully endorsed or described—openness to experimentation is the focus of McMillmin’s approach—but enough information is provided so if an approach is interesting to you, you will be able to easily get more information about it from the book’s well-done references.

Legendary Learning: The Famous Homeschoolers' Guide to Self-Directed Excellence is an interesting amalgam of biography and opinion. Rather than present each person’s educational biography and life accomplishments as separate entries, McMilllin uses their lives to connect how they learned things in their own ways to how homeschoolers today, and people in general, learn things. Here is an example:

Timing is everything. The famous homeschoolers I studied seemed to learn much more when they were ready and motivated for personal reasons. Naturalist John Muir had been drilled in arithmetic at a young age, but claimed he never really understood it until he taught himself as a teenager. After the age of twelve, Thomas Edison taught himself everything he needed to run his various businesses and experiments. When fifteen-year-old Teddy Roosevelt was preparing for the Harvard Entrance Exams, he was behind in required math skills but soon caught up with the help of his tutor.

There are many more current examples in homeschool books about kids who were able to learn four years worth of elementary mathematics in just a short period of time when they were older and motivated. My son Jesse . . . is one example. He absolutely hated math textbooks, but was happy to play all sorts of math games (including computer games). Finally at the age of twelve, he conceded that he didn’t recognize some of the math concepts his school friends were talking about so he wanted to catch up. He had also decided by then that he wanted to go to college and knew from family discussions that he would probably need to take an SAT test. So we selected a curriculum together and he buckled down—without any harassment on my part. He didn’t like math any better than before, but he learned quickly (and pulled down a respectable score on the SAT too!). Timing is everything.

I think this book is best for people considering homeschooling or who are just getting started with it, particularly the many bits of advice McMillin gives for living and learning with your children. But everyone will enjoy the many insightful quotes from famous people about learning that are peppered throughout the pages, such as these:

“Just as eating against one’s will is injurious to health, so studying without a liking for it spoils the memory, and it retains nothing it takes in.”—Leonardo Da Vinci

“The years teach much that the days never know.”—Ralph Waldo Emerson

“Creativity, not science, lies at the leading edge of the evolution of the human species; that is the delightful and beautiful paradox.”—Robin King

The Benefits of Homeschooling Teenagers

Ken Danford, one of the founders of North Star: Self-Directed Learning for Teens, has written an excellent essay for Huffington Post about taking teens off the college production line and focusing on their passions and interests as a way to nurture self-awareness, expertise, and confidence. He ends his essay with this observation:

When teens experience schooling as more stressful than helpful, we can do better than simply telling them, "Make the best of it until you graduate." We can offer information and support for a different way to grow up. Instead of forcing teens to remain in the "race" to win college admissions, scholarships, and a place for oneself in the world, we might provide teens with a coherent perspective that encourages them to set their own pace toward these same goals. Many families are already doing so. What we need now is a social commitment to make this option widely available.

Slate Magazine Dumps on Homeschooling

Slate published this inflammatory article against homeschooing, entitled "Liberals, Don't Homeschool Your Kids. Why Teaching at Home Violates Progressive Values."

It follows standard critiques of homeschooling without offering any perspectives as to why some of the famous liberal educators of the sixties, such as John Holt and George Dennison, came to support homeschooling after years of trying to make schools better for kids. So much to say, so little time to do so! Here's my brief attempt at a comment to this article.

There are so many assumptions about the value of compulsory school attendance and biases against children’s abilities to learn built into this article that it is difficult to rebut in a comments section. As an unschooling family we always offered our girls the choice of attending school and all three of them moved in and out of public school as they wanted to throughout their years of learning at home and in our community (as does Astra Taylor, though the author neglects to mention this). We, and the many homeschooling families we know, never pretend to be our “child’s everything” nor have we ever thought of unschooling as a go-it-alone ideology. Do-it-Yourself-With-Others is the ethos I see most often in the home- and unschooling communities. Further, studies indicate that many homeschooling families only homeschool for about three years, so homeschooled children are moving in and of school, mixing with others, etc. without causing school or society great distress, and have been doing so for decades.

Schooling is directly correlated to income, and schooling creates economic class differences, as a recent Stanford study about the growing education gap between rich and poor indicates. Ivan Illich and John Holt, in particular, wrote about this in the 1970s and eventually concluded it was better to create a new way to help children learn and grow than to try to reform schools, something they and many others before and since have tried to do.

John Holt saw the culture of testing and the distrust of children prevalent in schools then, feared it would get worse, and decided to help those who wanted to try something different with their children to do so. As Holt wrote, homeschooling provides schools with all sorts of valuable information about how children learn and how parents can be involved in their educations. But, as this author indicates, school must be able to control and predict everyone’s learning or else, somehow, civil society will devolve into the haves and have nots—but isn’t that what has already happened?

Holt and Illich offer many other reasons for people to embrace the idea that learning is natural and schooling is optional. Illich wrote how the school delivery system—whether liberal, conservative, socialist, capitalist, or communist—is essentially the same in all those countries, only the content changes. Indeed, educationists who insist we need compulsory schooling for democracy to work ignore the fact that our country was founded and grew without any form of compulsory education until the mid nineteenth century. In the 1970s the white Rhodesian government prevented black Africans from voting because of their lack of education—schooling is not a neutral force. Americans have more years of schooling and degrees than at any time in our history, but our problems keep growing, and some of them are caused, not erased, by increased schooling.

Must our humanity and our participation in our government be linked to our ability to consume education in state-approved settings? Must only school-approved reforms be allowed? Should children have a say in the matter of where and how they want to learn? Homeschooling is an answer to these questions that any liberal should consider. It isn’t perfect and it isn’t for everyone, but it does show us another way that we can live and learn as individuals and communities, instead of just being graded products of alma mater.

Homeschooling's Past Informs the Present

Peter Bergson founded and operates one of the oldest learning centers for homeschoolers/unschoolers in the US, Open Connections in Newtown Square, PA. Peter also worked as a management and creativity consultant for many years, as well as being the author of books about children, learning, and parenting, so he brings a unique perspective to discussions of how education can change. He was interviewed recently about how and why he and his wife unschooled their kids (who are now adults), the history and context of how Open Connections started, and the influence of John Holt on his work.

Peter Bergson talks about homeschooling on VoiceAmerica.

Peter also wrote about the US education establishment’s current fascination with Finland’s education system and I thought his ideas are worth sharing.

I well remember when, in the early ‘70s, I joined the boatloads of Americans who flocked to the midlands of England to observe firsthand the Leicestershire method in action. The “integrated day school” model featured a basically hands-on pedagogy (learning by doing, including lots of “play”), multiple-aged classrooms (at least three years’ difference in ages), a high student to teacher ratio (often 40 to one) made possible by the high level of engagement of the young people (and thus little need for supervision). A number of American school reformers touted it as the solution to the boredom and lack of initiative in America’s schools, while the British were warning us that it was not directly transferable to the US because our society did not reflect the same level of respect for teachers. The result of our adopting such “open classrooms,” they warned, would be chaos and then backlash—and they were absolutely right.

Then we fell in love with the Japanese model (although we never adopted it).

Then, for some, Reggio Emilia.

Now, the Finnish.

Yawn.

Some other thoughts: International test score comparisons, such as PISA, reflect the selectivity of the test-takers more than anything else. On a similar note, I have read that, if you eliminate the bottom 10% (as I recall) of the US’s test scores, which are almost all from the “disadvantaged” school population, America’s average test scores put us near the top in the world! In other words, the reason that we are around 23 or 24 out of 26 is because, unlike every other country in the pool, we include our “worst” students. Other countries don’t include the bottom of their heaps because that part of their population isn’t even in school, let alone taking the same test.

Now, all of this is merely to debunk the implications drawn from the reported test scores that suggest that America’s schools are getting worse each year.  At the same time, I really couldn’t care less about our test scores, or anyone else’s for that matter. I am much more concerned with the degree of self-direction in the Finnish system, for the teachers as well as students. I don’t see that much value in any system that is dedicated to producing people who are merely better at regurgitation, which is generally what standardized tests measure. As has been said many times by many others, we need to support the growth of logical and creative thinking, the kind that comes so naturally to toddlers. As John Holt wrote, "The true test of intelligence is not how much we know how to do but how we behave when we don’t know what to do."

What I like about the attention being paid to the Finnish model is that there is no real way to ignore the bigger picture component, which is a belief in (financial) equity, or at least a truer sense of equality of opportunity than what we have in the US. They make the same point as the Occupiers of Wall Street—that the school system reinforces the philosophy of the culture at large with regard to economic justice. The US system reinforces the status quo (or worse, is widening the gap), whereas the Finnish seem to be trying to reduce the variation between rich and poor—not by lowering the bar but by giving more people the resources needed to get up and over it. Only when we Americans truly recognize how our system, with or without standardized testing, keeps the poor in their place will we ever be willing to give any type of genuine reform a real chance at succeeding—whether it’s democratic education, integrated day, or anything else.

Young, Smart, Influential at 17 and Homeschooled

Javier Fernandez-Han was recently named by Forbes Magazine as “one of the most influential people in the nation under 30 in the energy industry;” he invented a process that “uses algae to turn sewage into fuel.” A local news feature about him and his award notes:

Javier is home schooled, something his parents decided to do because of their own educational experiences.

"At least for me, I came out of college pretty much useless. You give me a test, I can take it, but who's going to pay me to take a test?" Javier's father, Peter, said.

As more parents reflect on their schooling I hope they, too, will consider homeschooling an option—not because homeschooling is a better type of school, but because it can be a totally different educational experience than school.

If you look through the Forbe’s Energy list there are four people who are 19 or younger, which is pretty inspiring (I wish there were more information about their efforts; you get no feeling about hard it was for them to get their ideas off the ground and be taken seriously). It appears from the text that three of them were in high school when they developed their new ideas, so one can’t claim it is homeschooling that makes a difference for young inventors.

However, one can claim that homeschooling did not diminish the chances of this young man succeeding as an inventor. On the video attached to the local news story the announcer says, “The parents wanted to empower their children to make a difference in the world no matter how old they are.” Javier’s parents reiterate this point eloquently in the video, and I think it is an important point for any adult who works with children. All too often, adults have nothing but the lowest expectations about what children will do other than “have fun and cause trouble” if they are given freedom to learn. But it doesn’t have to be this way; there are other ways of relating to and living with children besides just educating them to do as you say.

 There are many ways to succeed in life, but our culture’s infatuation with human-made systems makes it seem that only by graduating from a school system can you even begin to think about becoming successful. Don’t tell these Forbes winners though—three of them haven’t graduated from high school yet and the fourth has decided to forgo college!

I can’t say that the other three students greatly benefitted from a standard high school laboratory and science curriculum, but I can say those things are not decisive factors for being a successful inventor. Just ask Javier Fernandez-Han.