Jump to content

Talk:Unschooling/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Proposed Merger of Radical Unschooling into Unschooling

I was looking at the Radical Unschooling article. Not much there that isn't already here and it seems that Radical Unschooling could be easily handled under Unschooling. I support a Merger of the two articles and have put up proposed merger templates. Safiel (talk) 01:43, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Unschooling is a marginal movement, the article shouldn't be diluted across multiple pages for different unschooling sects.Ethan Mitchell (talk) 21:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and merged the pages. Safiel (talk) 04:51, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Essay-like and citations needed

The article tends to makes generalisations (including about unschoolers) so citations are needed, as well as a bit more qualification.Autarch (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody cite Assange as an unschooler?

All I see is that his mom was in hiding while he was a kid, stayed on the move, and periodically homeschooled him. If we're calling him an unschooler, we should have a citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.52.121 (talk) 13:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Two notes

I've removed "Andrew Seaton, PhD" from the list of prominent unschoolers. If he's prominent, he probably should have his own wikipedia page.

Also, if there's no objection, I'm going to remove the "personal essay" flag, which no longer seems relevant. This article has lots of problems, but it doesn't really sound like a personal essay. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Did that. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Book suggestion

Please consider adding The Unschooling Unmanual (ISBN 0968575455) to the Further Reading section. I am one of the co-editors, and the book was published by our organization The Natural Child Project, so I can't add it myself.

Thank you,

Jan Hunt Janhunt (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janhunt (talk • contribs) 16:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Since this is basically self published (as you say it is published by an organization associated with the author) I do not believe it should be listed here. - MrOllie (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Respectfully I do not concur with MrOllie. The "Unschooling Unmanual" is on Amazon and is rated highly in the reader reviews area. The unschooling process/movement being something mostly outside of institutionalized education has presumably has access to the academic publishing system. I think the publishing world is changing fast and see a diverse collection of experiences as a useful resource. I think it would point editors to further information that might help improve the article. In 30 days I will look here for additional comments on the appropriateness of this book and then use the feedback to guide my action on Jan Hunt's request.Susten.biz (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The book has two problems - it fails WP:SPS, being self-published, and it fails WP:SOURCES as it isn't published by a third party.Autarch (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Learning Styles Paragraph

Learning styles, in fact, do not exist and their existence certainly isn't indicated by any kind of "recent research". The idea of learning styles stems from a misinterpretation of the Gardner's Multiple Intelligences. For more information on this, I would check out this video: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.238.252.137 (talk) 13:58, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Whether learning styles exist or not, teachers today are educated to teach for different learning styles, e.g. visual learners, auditory learners and kinetic learners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markewilliams (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Article protected

This article has been protected from editing for three days to try to generate talk page discussion of the disputed content. Please follow the WP:BRD guideline. You may also wish to consider dispute resolution (WP:DR). Mark Arsten (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Dayna Martin

Some editors don't seem to like Dayna Martin's name appearing in this article — let's start a discussion here. Having founded a non-profit that advocates unschooling, published a book on the subject, and having appeared in numerous media sources (including Dr. Phil and the one where her kid couldn't read), Martin is a prominent and notable unschooling advocate. I'm not saying she is a good advocate, nor that she reflects positively upon unschooling as a philosophy; however, that is irrelevant – this is an encyclopedia article, not an advertisement for unschooling, and Dayna Martin, for good or for bad, is as notable an advocate as others on the list, and thus her name should remain. Brycehughes (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Dayna Martin has gotten media attention several times (here's another). Wikipedia notability guidelines say that this is not necessarily enough: "significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." This quote is about deserving an article, not about belonging on a "persons of interest" list, but the reasoning is the same.
Note that her book is self-published (using CreateSpace), and therefore doesn't in itself imply notability. The strongest case for listing her is the media coverage.
Comparing her to other people on the list doesn't settle the matter, but rather opens up the question: Who should be on the list?
As a fan of unschooling, I'll stay out of this one. Thanks for stopping the edit war to bring this to discussion (and next time, do it after the first revert). Throughme (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Of course, the notability guideline does not apply to article content, as I'm sure you know, so quoting the guideline is irrelevant to this discussion. "Persons of interest" is a broad label. So far as I can tell, Dayna Martin is one of the more prominent unschooling advocates (at least in the United States). Given that notability does not apply to article content, and given that she has been deemed notable enough to warrant her own article, she belongs on this list.
Your notability and self-published points would apply quite well to a notability discussion at Dayna Martin's own article – maybe you could start one there. Brycehughes (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


I am trying to follow the guidelines, forgive me if I do something out of correct order. This person created her own wiki page and inserted herself into the unschooling community using made-up credentials. There are far more people who have actual experience and documented history without deceit and manipulations who belong here. A fraud does not. Yes, at this point there is WifeSwap and other media attention, so if she is to be under "persons of interest" then so should a "the controversy" section. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starsuncloud (talk • contribs) 00:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not trying to edit the Dayna Martin Wiki page in any way, though I believe it violates Wiki rules. I am only asking that she be removed as a "person of interest" on the "Unschooling" Wiki as her fame seeking has little to do with unschooling in any way.


Also, there is no non-profit that I am aware of, perhaps that is in the works. There is not a non-profit status for her group that I can find anywhere. If there is a source, please provide that proof. The book has many issues as well, with some claiming plagiarism. I think that should be resolved before a "person if interest" is listed here.

@Starsuncloud: Hi Starsuncloud, thanks for joining the discussion. As far as guidelines go, please stop removing Dayna Martin's name from the page until we come to a consensus here. You may want to read this (WP:AVOIDEDITWAR) for a guide on how to handle these sorts of disputes.
As far as your argument goes, just because someone is a fraud doesn't prevent them from appearing on Wikipedia. There are articles about politicians, after all.
Regarding the link you provided, the negative information regarding Martin may very well be true–I have no idea whether it is or not. However, why does this information prevent Martin from being a "Person of interest"? Doesn't this in fact make her more interesting to readers studying the unschooling movement, assuming that one of its most prominent advocates is indeed a fraud? She is certainly presented in a lot of media (Dr. Phil, Wife Swap, etc.) as an advocate for the unschooling movement, and so she is a person of interest to readers of this article regardless of whether she is a fraud or not.
I think your efforts are focused on the wrong article. You should bring this up on the talk page for Dayna Martin's own article, and, assuming you can provide reliable sources, this information about Martin could be added into Martin's article. Then, readers of the Unschooling article would click on her as a person of interest, and see that she is, as you claim, a fraud. We could even add a note in the Unschooling article saying that she is "controversial" or similar. (But you would need to provide more than just the source you gave above.) Would this work for you? Brycehughes (talk) 01:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is Dayna Martin listed as "person of interest"? Perhaps notoriety is more fitting? If not, then there should at least be a controversy section to give readers a more accurate description of her involvement in unschooling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopeWiki (talk • contribs) 09:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

She is listed as a person of interest because she is one of the most prominent and well-known unschooling advocates, especially to the general public, owing to her relatively frequent appearances in news and other media. For whatever reason, media often turn to her as a resource for unschooling information and advocacy. Perhaps she is notorious and controversial, but you need to provide at least one reliable source to support your claim. Once you've located a reliable source, you could add that information to Dayna Martin's article. We probably wouldn't want a controversy section in the Unschooling article that just focused on Dayna Martin; however, as I suggested above, you could potentially add the word "controversial" or something similar to her description under Persons of Interest. But first things first – can you provide a reliable source that gives evidence that Dayna Martin is controversial or notorious, etc.? I searched for one, but had no luck. Brycehughes (talk) 11:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting correction for ana error

The phrase: "The term "unschooling" was coined in the 1970s and used by educator John Holt, widely regarded as the "father" of unschooling.[1]" is wrong, as Ivan Ilich is the father of Unscholling, since is book "Unscholling Society was published in 1971 (see the Wikipedia page on "Ivan Illich") and John Holt, only began to talk about that subject in the mid 70's (see the page on "John Holt in this same Wikipedia) 15:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC) Artur Silva 08/17/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.3.123 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ethan Mitchell here, I can't seem to log in. I believe you will find that the Illich book in 1971 is "Deschooling Society" not "Unschooling Society", and it has a somewhat different focus, although certainly is related. If we want to trace the intellectual genealogy of unschooling, we could easily go back to Rousseau, at least, but the term "unschooling" seems to have originated with Holt.209.99.200.197 (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

African advocacy of unschooling

I stumbled accross a relevant quote advocating for what sounds like unschooling, although without invoking that tradition or term. Perhaps it can find a place in this article.

Sondra.kinsey (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

a user changed "unschooling" into "daydreaming"

Hello,

A user changed "unschooling" into "daydreaming".

English is not my first langage.

But as the only contributions of this user seem to be those changes, I changed it back.

Regards

--Claire Dodé (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Peer Unschooling Network

I am biased on this topic, so I am mostly writing this to leave it up to the editors of this page as to whether they'd like to include information about the Peer Unschooling Network (PUN). I am the one who created the Peer Unschooling Network, a digital community for teen unschoolers from around the world. We launched a beta last winter and just deployed the full site in September of 2017. We also just released a beta of our mobile application. We're a young community, so far we've got about 500 registered users, but are working to grow quickly. Have a look and let me know if you would reference the site on this page. I'd be happy to provide a quote myself. (Jim Flannery) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.230.229 (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section

The list item "Children who direct their own educations generally grow up to be leaders, not followers, and find it more difficult to take direction from others." implies that the creation of leaders is a bad thing. Humanity needs both leaders and followers to function, whereas traditional education leans towards training followers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hessiess (talk • contribs) 20:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be included in criticism at all. It is not in the article originally cited, so at best this is original research. It also looks like a strawman form of an argument about socialization of children in unschooling environments, and as such is original research, POV, and misleading info. Simonus (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel like the entire criticism section should be rewritten or deleted. The arguments are biased and one-sided at best. They do seem to point towards original research. --Tranquilpaths (talk) 17:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

deleted parts without sources --Lothrien (talk) 04:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Truancy

I wonder if something could be added about it. I thought that if you wanted to homeschool your child (nevermind UNschool them) the government would check in at certain times, and there would be certain things they'd have to learn. If schooling is totally non-existent (let's say they just want to watch tv or play games all day) couldn't they be arrested (possibly the parents as well) for truancy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.38.183 (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

probably. schools have been closed for practicing this philosophy ('never push children to learn'), on the grounds that it resulted in those children not learning much about anything and just hanging around playing videogames (geez, big surprise there). so i assume that home-schooling according to this philosophy can also get you in trouble with the law, for truancy and child-neglect. Selena1981 (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a section in Homeschooling that discusses which states have what regulations. Some states require a lot from homeschooler, other states require very little.Markewilliams (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Personal knowledge from a U.S. unschooler: as long as a child isn't being abused or exploited, the most dramatic consequence for disregard of state requirements (which is fairly common) is that the child will be compelled to attend his or her local public school. However, I have never known even this to happen to any acquaintance.
If hypothetical parents continued to resist after some kind of intervention from the Dept. of Education or of Family Services, their child(ren) might be removed to foster care and public school. However, if a child's welfare is well provided for, no agency or school has the time, staff, resources or, in most cases, even the desire to start a messy legal fight over his or her education. Family Services usually has a backlog of egregious child abuse/labor cases to deal with, and doesn't want to tangle with activist parents who can cite portfolios full of their child's successes and rally a community of devoted partisans from the local homeschool co-op.
A more common bureaucratic consequence is the obligation, before the child ever enrolls full- or part-time in conventional primary or secondary school, to produce state-regulation-compliant documentation of several years of satisfactory homeschooling. This can be a headache. Also, many colleges require incoming students to have a high school diploma, for reasons of federal funding; some states offer a "homeschool diploma" through the Dept. of Ed., but homeschoolers in other states or who haven't kept up with all the requirements throughout their educational career must obtain a equivalency diploma such as a GED.
The Homeschooling article no longer has much legal information. Legality of homeschooling has some, and links to Homeschooling in the United States, Homeschooling and alternative education in India, Homeschooling in New Zealand, and a few other in-depth articles which treat legal issues well. Most of the above info is in the "US" page. It's not a bad idea to add a link to legality; I'll put it under #Criticisms, a natural place for controversy and debates. FourViolas (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Homeschooled kids need neither a homeschool diploma, nor a GED. Parents have the authority to issue real high school diplomas. 112.198.79.248 (talk) 14:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Erhm, this depends on the country/territory... WhisperToMe (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

This article is awful.

This article is awful. It has a lot of claims but no sources. I also see a lot of sentences that begin with the word some or many. Some say,Many say,etc. I am going to work on this article and I may remove the statements that have no sources.--99.177.248.92 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree. This article is little more than weasel words, which wp generally frowns upon. --Ulthar (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Much of unschooling is anecdotal in nature. I agree that there need to be more sources linked. Where might one find more sources if little is written and published about it? It doesn't change the existence or the nature of unschooling. I've read the entire history of unschooling edits. There has been a lot of work done on it. People have added sources when they are found and will continue to do so as more and more is known and published about unschooling. What do you propose be done in the mean time?Linkfairy (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)linkfairy

This article is great! It clearly reflects a movement that I have been a part of. My two children are gainfully employed and make more money than I do, and I homeschooled them for all except one year that my son was in public school (where he learned the social skills of smoking and dealing marijuana). Since then he started, owned and sold his own computer repair business with five employees, my daughter graduated college and works as a photo stylist. The problem with unschooling is that there haven't been any scholarly surveys that I know of. It is hard to find students who were unschooled who you can round up and give a survey to, and its also hard to find the parents who are unschooling, and give them a survey. We have to rely on the thinkers and movers in the field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markewilliams (talk • contribs) 01:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I added several references where they were asked for and re-worded several paragraphs. Since all of the references are now provided, I removed the multiple issues notice at the top of the article. If it is still not neutral then others need to provide more neutrality. The article just says, "This is what unschoolers believe." That's all. And what it reports in the article, they do believe. A list of objections to their beliefs is included. How more neutral can you get? You could expand the objections section if you want.Markewilliams (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I know that **you claim** this is simply a list of what unschoolers believe. What's missing is clear evidence that **all** unschoolers (or most of them) agree with you about everything you've said. Evidence isn't the same thing as neutrality; without the needed evidence that these are the beliefs of all unschoolers everywhere, the "Objections" and "Criticisms" necessarily win by default. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Citation cleanup needed

Some of the citations on this article are not reliable sources, most notably #13, "8 powerful reasons why I unschool my kids," which is a listicle on a mommy blog and is heavily referenced here. This article should be rewritten to not rely on sources such as these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rara623 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

To ´External links´ perhaps

(Ideology against ideology. (Freedom against tradition(s).))
This link is a source and informations about unschooling world-wide:

--Visionhelp (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Aaron Swartz

I notice that although he’s mentioned as an unschooled adult of note, this fact is contradicted by his own Wikipedia article which reads:

“He attended North Shore Country Day School, a small private school near Chicago, until 9th grade, when he left high school and enrolled in courses at Lake Forest College.“ Volivaceus (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Attending school at some point--or even for a majority of one's school-age years--and being an unschooler are not contradictions.Widjit (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unschooling/Archive_2&oldid=1206561821"