This is an interesting article and there are some interesting connections with education theory (not practice) based on my masters program.
1. Engagement. Learning is hard unless you are engaged.
2. Self-directed. Mastery education--independent mastery of the learning objectives-- was tried in the 1930's (Winnetka System) and it was very successful where it was tried. But it didn't match the goals of the education unions...
3. Montessori. The Montessori program emphasizes "self-directed activity, hands-on learning and collaborative play." This is a popular approach to learning.
4. Vygotsky. Social engagement is important in learning. Homeschooling as described in the article without peers goes against this theory.
5. Scaffolding. A theory of learning by constructing with prior knowledge. The article notes "going down rabbit holes" and that would agree with this theory.
6. Gardner. Theory of using "multiple intelligences" (kinetic, visual, logical, etc.) to learn. The described approach in the article would seem to agree with this theory.
7. Project-based. Using projects as a way to discover and learn. Again, the article seems to agree with this theory/approach
...and more
In short, "unschooling" as described in the article seems to have support in major theories of education. However, the social aspect is not well supported. A curriculum is not a bad thing, it's a set of learning objectives which is necessary.
What is not necessary for learning is the institutional aspect of school--which is what the author is trying to avoid and has discovered is not necessary.
I believe that we are moving as a society to two norms: the "haves" will educate their children using various homeschooling approaches augmented by AI, and the "have nots" will be forced to attend institutions where the emphasis is discipline and not learning.
Thanks for writing this up. I studied education in college and was a middle school teacher at a public school before growing so jaded I had to become a software engineer (that and I couldn't afford to pay my student loans).
So many people have no idea about education theory and incorrectly assume public schools are the most efficient because they are taught by trained educators. Unfortunately, trained educators were all taught NOT to teach this way and are prevented from doing what is most effective by the administration and the state.
Our schools are designed to stamp out creativity, critical thinking, strong collective bargaining and solidarity, democracy, and the love of learning.
If by "haves" you mean anyone who can work from home, then yes. But that is a large percentage of the population already and it seems to be increasing.
I think you mean those that can "kinda work from home", and that set of people is small. Teaching is a full time job. So is a job. Doing at a half-decent job as a teacher means taking a step back from the main job, and not every employer will tolerate this.
1. Engagement. Learning is hard unless you are engaged.
2. Self-directed. Mastery education--independent mastery of the learning objectives-- was tried in the 1930's (Winnetka System) and it was very successful where it was tried. But it didn't match the goals of the education unions...
3. Montessori. The Montessori program emphasizes "self-directed activity, hands-on learning and collaborative play." This is a popular approach to learning.
4. Vygotsky. Social engagement is important in learning. Homeschooling as described in the article without peers goes against this theory.
5. Scaffolding. A theory of learning by constructing with prior knowledge. The article notes "going down rabbit holes" and that would agree with this theory.
6. Gardner. Theory of using "multiple intelligences" (kinetic, visual, logical, etc.) to learn. The described approach in the article would seem to agree with this theory.
7. Project-based. Using projects as a way to discover and learn. Again, the article seems to agree with this theory/approach
...and more
In short, "unschooling" as described in the article seems to have support in major theories of education. However, the social aspect is not well supported. A curriculum is not a bad thing, it's a set of learning objectives which is necessary.
What is not necessary for learning is the institutional aspect of school--which is what the author is trying to avoid and has discovered is not necessary.
I believe that we are moving as a society to two norms: the "haves" will educate their children using various homeschooling approaches augmented by AI, and the "have nots" will be forced to attend institutions where the emphasis is discipline and not learning.