Are Arbitrary Facts Useless?
Filed Under: Homeschooling, Parenting
My post on unschooling elicited several thoughtful comments that could easily spin off several more blog posts. But one comment was especially thought-provoking for me.
Lance wrote:
One thing I will eventually like to teach my children is that they are likely to be evaluated unfairly based on their knowledge or lack of knowledge on a few arbitrary topics that have happened to been chosen for inclusion in most schools’ standard curricula. I will also teach them that learning arbitrary skills for no other purpose than to impress others is a waste of time in the long run.
Yes. If the sole purpose of learning something is to impress others, then clearly that’s a waste of time and energy. But I want to expand on this and move on a tangent because interestingly, I had been talking with PHAT Daddy about this very same idea a few days ago. Is learning something that seems useless, trivial or arbitrary a waste of time? I’m not so sure.
I believe that learning ANYTHING is valuable. Knowledge is power. And sometimes, learning arbitrary facts can lead to very real benefits. Any information has the potential to prove useful in some situation at some point.
Social circumstance is the first thing that pops into my mind. When a person is unaware of pop culture, it can make social situations more awkward (“What’s the Super Bowl?”). This is especially true for children, who are more susceptible to ridicule. Perhaps I am overly sensitive to this issue because I have been in several situations where my lack of knowledge of arbitrary facts has caused me embarrassment.
Business and career advancement offer a similar example. PHAT Daddy loathes celebrity gossip and most prime time television, yet he regularly flips through an issue of Entertainment Weekly and keeps up with major entertainment news simply because he doesn’t want to look like an idiot at a business meeting when his clients are discussing American Idol or some such drivel. The purpose isn’t to impress but to advance business objectives.
And what about those “markers of education”? There are facts that educated people know. The sun rises in the east and sets in the west. There are 24 hours in a day. Apples grow on trees. But who defines what basic markers of education are necessary and which are arbitrary? Government? School boards? Parents? The child’s own interests? What seems necessary to some could be arbitrary to others, and so, wouldn’t it benefit a person to learn as much as possible to be able to gain as much joy from life as possible?
This is where I diverge from the unschooling philosophy. I think there is very real value in a child being exposed to facts and ideas that he or she has not necessarily expressed an interest in. And it’s my responsibility as a homeschooling parent to ensure this. Not to force the child to learn, but to make him aware, as a marker of education, so that he has the opportunity to learn should he be interested.
Of course, filling ones mind with useless facts in the hopes of permanently fending off all potential for embarrassment or discomfort is unrealistic (although this does seem to be part of the public school’s agenda, heh heh). But as a parent who has taken on the responsibility of helping my child grow into an educated, able adult, I believe it’s as advantageous to have knowledge in a lot of diverse areas as it is to have a lot of knowledge about one’s own passions.
PHAT = Parenting, Homeschooling And Technology. That about sums up my life at the moment. 
Subscribe To This Blog
Doctor Homeschool | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
All knowledge is power, especially if it is intrinsically generated! Great post! It got me thinking… I’ll be linking to you in a future post. If that is okay…
Trixie | Sep 21, 2006 | Reply
Ooh, more to discuss! I disagree with your analysis here, and I think a lot of my disagreement reduces to a similar debate we’ve had before regarding the arbitrary (in our discussion of epistemology).
“I believe that learning ANYTHING is valuable. Knowledge is power. And sometimes, learning arbitrary facts can lead to very real benefits. Any information has the potential to prove useful in some situation at some point.”
Here you are arguing against a position that no unschooler I know is putting forth. Nobody is arguing that learning *nothing* is more valuable than learning *something*. But time, resources, and brain capacity are finite, so the relevant question is: how does one prioritize what to learn? If one needed to build a bridge, for example, one could choose to spend the bulk of his time studying engineering or one could instead concentrate on learning African dance (you know, just in case having that skill proved useful in calculating measurements or meeting or impressing builders who might provide you some help… after all, some builders DO enjoy African dance). We’re surrounded by an enormous number of learning opportunities and we have a finite existence. As agents in the world, it’s our job to look at reality and determine which knowledge and skills are essential to our pursuits (or most likely to aid in our success) and which aren’t.
“But who defines what basic markers of education are necessary and which are arbitrary? Government? School boards? Parents? The child’s own interests?”
Nobody does. Reality determines what’s arbitrary to a certain pursuit and what isn’t. No child, parent, or government mandate can make it possible to build a bridge solely with skill in African dance. And reality will hit hard for those who choose to believe that studying African dance will provide the tools necessary for building that bridge.
“What seems necessary to some could be arbitrary to others, and so, wouldn’t it benefit a person to learn as much as possible to be able to gain as much joy from life as possible?”
No, given that knowing *everything* there is no know is a human impossibility, it behooves us all to look to reality to determine which knowledge and skills are most likely to be relevant to our pursuits and to our happiness. Learning that which is arbitrary to our goals consumes time that could be spent learning what’s essential. Simply learning as much as possible without first judging the value of that learning and prioritizing accordingly is unlikely to maximize success and joy. Yes, what’s necessary to some may be arbitrary to others… depends on what one is trying to accomplish.
“This is where I diverge from the unschooling philosophy. I think there is very real value in a child being exposed to facts and ideas that he or she has not necessarily expressed an interest in.”
I’m not sure you’re diverging as much as you think you are. No unschooler I know advocates locking a child away from reality so they can somehow develop their “true” interests in a vacuum. (And if there are such unschoolers, I’m not one of them.) Exposure to the world at large is essential to developing an education appropriate to the nature of a human being. How else could one ever determine what knowledge and skills are relevant to their goals in the real world? In fact, as an unschooler, I consider the real world (and all the genuine exposure, purpose, pursuit, and consequence it provides) as the ultimate resource for my children’s education. It’s one of the primary reasons I’m keeping them *out* of school, where any and all knowledge is given more or less equal value (after all, it all goes into the final grade and onto the permanent record) and is practiced in an artificial environment, devoid of any real purpose.
“Not to force the child to learn, but to make him aware, as a marker of education, so that he has the opportunity to learn should he be interested.”
I’m curious how exactly you plan on making your child aware of *every* topic there is to know in the world… or even most of them. I suspect, in fact, that there are entire disciplines that you and I have never even heard of. I think you’re placing way too much emphasis on forced exposure, to the detriment of your children’s education. Life itself *is* exposure, and given that flourishing in reality is everyone’s ultimate goal, it’s probably the absolute best filter for exposing children to the knowledge and skills that will most likely be relevant to their success and happiness. I’m not going to stress about my children missing out on learning about paleotempestology (it’s a real discipline; look it up!) when they’re busy learning to read, concentrating on hitting a curve ball, or asking to take piano lessons.
“But as a parent who has taken on the responsibility of helping my child grow into an educated, able adult, I believe it’s as advantageous to have knowledge in a lot of diverse areas as it is to have a lot of knowledge about one’s own passions.”
I can only presume that you have come to this conclusion based on your own experience in this world and a discovery of what knowledge is significant to furthering your life’s goals (I’m betting this knowledge probably doesn’t include much on paleotempestology, though you may find reading a blurb about it interesting). This is precisely what I hope to allow my children to do for themselves. If it is (or becomes) relevant to their goals for them to know something (or a lot of diverse somethings), I trust that they will recognize reality and choose to prioritize their learning time accordingly. I trust this because I will never ask them to look anywhere besides reality to determine what’s important to know. They will never assume (or be asked to behave as if) I or my husband or a teacher or a coach are the ones determining what’s important for them to know (though I will gladly discuss my thoughts and experiences with them if they wish).
Thus I hope they will never find themselves asking the question “who defines what basic markers of education are necessary and which are arbitrary?” I want them to understand that nobody does, that one cannot simply wish something true. I want them to know how to proceed if they desire a bridge, even if they’d *rather* build a bridge by dancing to congo drums. I want them to know that it’s both their right and responsibility to *determine* what education is relevant to their own lives and choose their study accordingly. With this foundation in place, if their goal is to learn to play the piano, I think they will quickly discover that their time is best spent learning to read music, taking lessons, and/or practicing playing the piano. And if/when they determine that knowing pop culture is significant to their ability to make friends, avoid embarrassment, and/or connect with potential clients, they too may choose to peruse Entertainment Weekly. Or as I would probably do, they might choose instead to make other friends with similar interests, not judge an ignorance of pop-culture to be a valid source of embarrassment, or divert clients’ attention away from their pop-culture deficiency by demonstrating a superior expertise in the relevant service or product.
I don’t think it’s my responsibility to expose my children to any and every topic I can think of; those that become relevant to their lives will expose themselves. I think my job is to keep them in the real world where reality will teach the truest and most relevant lessons of all and to be here for them when they have questions, need advice, or ask for help. After all, I consider my life very rich indeed, and they’re in my world nearly 24/7.
sandy | Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
I think sometimes it’s about finding a silver lining. I agree with your example.
I also think, however, that to some degree the success (or security? Not sure of the right word) of even the ‘on the fringe’ examples of unschooling are highly dependent on the child. Honestly, I look at my brother and I wonder that had this particular boy hadn’t had structure to his learning would he be anything at all what he is today. Not that it’s inherently a bad thing, but he is so incredibly passionate about what he does for a living today. When I think of how he started his post-high school like working in a shop making formica furniture, I realize that this is the sort of thing he’d have stuck with had he dictated his earlier ’school’ years. Instead he went and dabbled at a bakery. He decided was in love. He applied, he dug up his school transcripts and he landed in one of the world’s finest culinary schools. He worked hard. He worked very hard. He went back to some of the things he did learn in school that seemed to have no apparent use to him at the time. He graduated. He went back for a BA in Business Management with a culinary specialty. He graduated again and got a job for a company that provides dining facilities for corporate offices. He was there less than a year when they promoted him to Executive Chef/General Manager. He runs his own site. I wonder if he’d be where he is today if he had been left to set his own path back then. I’m not sure. Maybe? Maybe I just don’t understand the concept of ‘unschooling’ fully. But then again, maybe I do.
Shannon - PHAT Mommy | Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Sandy - I’ve always thought that someone who is miserable in life should be able to find a way to make things better. It has always puzzled me when someone professes to be “stuck” in a job or in a bad place in life (and I credit that attitude to the way my parents raised me). But sadly, some people DO seem unwilling to motivate themselves to change or learn. Perhaps this can happen with children, too. And perhaps some do need a push here and there.
Trixie writes, “I’m curious how exactly you plan on making your child aware of *every* topic there is to know in the world… or even most of them. .. I think you’re placing way too much emphasis on forced exposure, to the detriment of your children’s education.”
Wow, really? How can you say that exposure to knowledge could be to the detriment of a child’s education? I certainly can’t make them aware of *every* topic, nor did I claim that. But I disagree with your position that just living in *my* life will afford them all the knowledge they need or may want. Perhaps you have this view because you lead a “very rich life.” Others may not have that experience. If my parents had followed that advice, I’d be a MUCH lesser person than I am today. I’d probably be living in a small town working at McDonalds.
Instead, my parents taught me that there is so much more and that I could do ANYTHING. And they gave me a lot of exposure to what those “anythings” might be. For that I am grateful and I will raise my kids the same way.
Trixie | Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
Hi Shannon. Okay, two new questions for you then. You write: I certainly can’t make them aware of *every* topic, nor did I claim that.” So how exactly *do* you choose and prioritize what to expose your children to? I think your answer may reveal that we’re not so different after all. You probably choose to focus on those knowledge and skills that you’ve determined will be most likely to be of importance to their success and happiness (and these are probably just the sorts of knowledge and skills you find most useful in your own life, those that your child will see modeled daily and will get plenty of natural exposure to). My point is that *this* is the most valid way of determining what’s likely to be important for your children to know, as opposed to a study of school curricula or some list of “what every x-grader should know.”
And yes, forcing unnatural exposure willy-nilly without concern for the relative importance of that which you’re spending your child’s learning time on is detrimental to their education to the extent that it eats up time better spent on other pursuits. As I said before, time is finite and we need to make some choices. We can choose wisely or choose poorly, given our needs, ambitions, and interests. I’d argue, for example, that a successful stock broker with no interest in raising a family would not be well-served by taking a month off to study parenting techniques just in case he someday found the information relevant to his goals. Should his goals change, he can always learn it later. And you won’t find me studying music theory or sculpting these days, though both might prove fun for a short time. I choose instead to spend the bulk of my time reading homeschool blogs and interacting and having fun with my kids. Those choices are consonant with my ambition, and I believe they will maximize my success and happiness.
Likewise, I won’t go hunting for the latest learning fads or some obscure disciplines (or even some very ordinary topics taught regularly in today’s schools) that my children will likely *not* be exposed to naturally (because they are largely irrelevant to the life they’re likely to lead) on the very off chance that one in a million may turn out to become a passion of theirs. That’s as much a waste of precious time as playing the lottery is a waste of precious money. Sometimes learning something arbitrary and obscure is FUN when you happen to come across it (sometimes so is playing the lottery), and that’s fine. But I wouldn’t rest my child’s education on it any more than I’d rest our finances on playing the lottery.
Second question: how exactly did your parents send you the message that you could do anything and that there were lots of “anythings” out there? I suspect you’ll find that the answer is that they mostly lived life with you — engaged in daily activities and outings with you, talked with you about interesting things, answered your questions, encouraged your curiosity, modeled ambition and ways to be successful, and supported your pursuit of your interests. I’m not opposed to any of that; in fact, I think all of these are best accomplished via unschooling. Or are you really saying that your parents did specific research on what authorities in education thought were important topics for you to know and then sat down with you and gave you a list of the top 10 million areas of study so that you would know they all existed? Could you tell me specifically what topics etc. your parents exposed you to that you think you wouldn’t have likely discovered on your own just by living? Knowing that you weren’t locked in a closet during your childhood, I’m pretty sure you would have known there was more to life than a job at McD’s regardless of your parents… and DON’T you live in a small, rural town now?
No, living in my life won’t provide my children all the knowledge they may need or may want. Perhaps one of my children will strive to be a hairdresser — it probably wouldn’t surprise you to hear that I know *absolutely nothing* about styling hair. But my kids *will* go to haircutting places from time to time, they will see different styles as we’re out and about and on TV, and they’ll be exposed to basic economics and business practices through living in our community. From there it would be a very small leap for them to find out how to go about starting a hairstyling business (or learning to style just for fun). I don’t currently happen to know where or how to learn myself (and I consider my life none the poorer for it), but I do know how I’d go about finding out should I find the need or interest. By “rich life” I don’t mean that I have a particulalry rich amount of knowledge, skill, or resources. I mean only that I know how to live a full and happy life in which I own my conclusions and my own ambitions and know how to find success and happiness. And I know how to pass this know-how onto my kids.
Laurel | Sep 22, 2006 | Reply
My child is only five, so I may know less about homeschooling than some others. But what I have learned from my child is that the reality of who she is supercedes parenting and schooling philosophies. We operate by a mostly unschooling method simply because that is what my daughter seems to need right now. I mostly do attachment parenting because that’s what she seems to need. With a different child, I would probably parent and homeschool very differently.
If I have a philosophy, I think it is to pay close attention to my child. She is MY major subject of study. If I think she might need something, based on my observations, I offer it to her. If what I am offering is based on a possible need, it is probably not, within the context, arbitrary. I might misread her needs sometimes, as every imperfect mother does. But the occasional misstep is well worth it for the other times, when I offer her a piece to the puzzle of life and she takes it and studies it and puts other pieces together with it and builds a whole new skill or a whole new category of knowledge for herself.
Shannon - PHAT Mommy | Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Trixie asked “So how exactly *do* you choose and prioritize what to expose your children to?”
That’s a good question. True, I do *focus* on skills that I feel will be important to my children’s success, but I also choose topics that I think might be fun for my child, topics that are ancillary to his interests, and topics that I simply think are important for him to be aware of in terms of social issues, history, and current events/pop culture.
Since I know you personally, I know that we are not so far off in our philosophies. As typically happens with our written correspondence, I would accuse you of taking my words to a literal extreme and you would accuse me of not being precise enough with my words.
Reading back over my comments, I did not say I go hunting down obscure facts to force on my children willy-nilly. I have been very clear that I don’t force my child to sit down and learn about geography because “that’s what you learn in 3rd grade.” It was my understanding that what you, and many other unschoolers, seem to be saying is that you go about living your daily life and don’t suggest topics of study unless your child happens to bump into them and ask about them. I know you don’t really do that because you’ve enrolled your 2 yo in gymnastics and I’d be surprised if she had come up to you and said, “Mommy, I want to do gymnastics.” You enrolled her because you thought it would be fun for her, not because she requested it, correct?
My point is that it’s important to me to expose my children to as much as possible. Some of it they may embrace, some of it they may toss aside - and that’s fine.
Exactly how do I choose what I will “force-expose” them to? By educating myself (”Hey, I just read about XYZ - this is neat, listen to this!). By staying aware of “what every x-grader should know” (as a source of ideas and not a list of required learning). And most of all by watching for signs from my children themselves. As Laurel eloquently put it, they are my major course of study.
Todd | Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Why? Why are you all home schooling?
Why have you taken them out of “life” and then sit here and talk about how to teach them about “life”.
I hear how you get learning or teaching aides to teach subjects for homeschooling, but could these not be the same types the school systems use, or why is it better for you as the parent to use them?
You give the child undivided attention, while teaching, but what is this really teaching them? How can you let them grow when you are sheltering them?
I really don’t understand why home schooling is better, and how long do you home school for?
and how many of you people that are home schooling were home schooled yourselfs?
Trixie | Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Yes, Shannon, I know too that we’re not so far off in approach. It’s why I was willing to challenge your words as much as I did. I know that Lance wanted to respond to your comment about learning pop culture “to advance business objectives”, so I’ll leave that to him.
And yes, my 2-year-old did not ask to enroll in gymnastics. But neither did I enroll her so that she’d know what it was, not be embarrassed if a friend mentioned it, or because most other kids get a week-long exposure in P.E class (and I saw this on some list). I did it just for the reason you stated — I thought it would be FUN. And this is what I mean — I think simply living life (which naturally includes seeking out new experiences and new adventures) provides enough exposure, especially if we are tuned into our children in the way Laurel suggested.
My argument here has been based primarily on my disagreement with your original statement that “learning ANYTHING is valuable” (I hope you’ll agree that given our finite existence, this simply isn’t true) and your implication (when you asked who gets to define the arbitrary) that people get to define for themselves what information is necessary and which arbitrary (or if they can’t decide, should simply try to learn as much as possible about anything and everything). I know that you didn’t say you would force exposure willy-nilly, but if one truly accepts the principle that learning ANYTHING is valuable and that they can choose to believe whatever they like regarding what’s useful and what’s arbitrary, then it seems that one would approach learning rather willy-nilly. I don’t happen to think you *do* this, so I wanted to challenge your assertions here and ask you to think a bit more about your underlying assumptions.
Todd: I can only speak for myself regarding my reasons for homeschooling. I am not taking my kids out of “life”. I’m keeping them in! Whatever school is, it is not even an approximation of “real life”. It is an artificially structured environment that divides learning into disconnected segments devoid of real-life purpose and requires children to learn things at pre-determined times in pre-determined ways for the sole purpose of pleasing teacher and getting good grades. When bells ring, whether they’re done or not, it is time to move on. There is no democracy, no interaction with people of different ages, and children are encouraged to conform and are rewarded to the extent that they do.
Whatever facts and information my kids miss out on learning by staying out of school, they will know more about real life and will understand the true virtue of learning. They will see and participate in real-world adult activities every day. And most importantly, they will learn things in an integrated, meaningful way, for they will learn them within the context in which humans use them and consider them important. Whatever the value of math, reading, geography, etc., it is NOT to do well on math, reading, and geography tests. I consider my children apprentices of adulthood, and I think locking them *away* from adults all day and placing them in a community that looks and acts *nothing* like the communities in which they’ll someday live as adults is a very poor strategy for apprenticing them.
I hope to homeschool my kids all the way through, but am open to other possibilities as my children grow. And no, I wasn’t homeschooled myself.
Shannon | Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Todd, I can’t adequately address your questions in one comment, so if you are truly interested, I would encourage you to read some of the homeschooling blogs in my blogroll (in the right column of this page).
We all have different reasons for homeschooling. I homeschool because (1) I believe I can do a better job than the public school system, (2) because I want my children to learn to think for themselves, (3) because I don’t want my children to sit in a classroom for 6 hours a day - much of which is wasted time - being either held back or left behind because they are not getting individualized attention, and (4) because a HUGE amount of what is taught in school is irrelevant to life, a waste of time, and/or indoctrinating children into some agenda that I don’t agree with. Those are just some of my reasons.
And I just have to laugh when you say we are taking our children “out of life” and “sheltering” them. If you truly consider it, how is public school like “life?” When will you ever be forced to sit in a room with only people your own age and forced to learn what someone else has decided you should learn - instead of what you are interested in? Public schools shelter. Homeschoolers live in the real world.
Todd | Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Shannon, You are focusing on the classroom experience. You learn so much more in school. How to interact with other childern both younger and older. How to deal with different situations that arise during the day, ie fights (weather in or watching), arguements, crushes, embarrasment, resentment, envey….
You decied what you are going to eat, not what your parents say your going to eat. You learn to fall in love, be crushed. You learn to have friends and make enemies. You learn how to trust and how to be trusted. You learn about other familys and how they do things differently and why. You learn about that if you don’t like a subject you can not pay attention (because you don’t have to) and you will pay the price. Your whole personality grows so much with interaction with other people your own age. It’s not JUST about the math, english, computers, mythology…classes. But then again I hated english with a passion untill the 8th grade where a teacher of mine showed me different ways to write and put my thoughts onto paper and since then I love to write, if I wasn’t forced into learning english I would have never found my love to write.
My youngest child is in the first grade, and he doesn’t sit in a class room for 6 hours a day. He goes to gym class, the library, Swimming class, field trips, Art class, music class….all are different teachers all in different parts of the school. And he learns how to behave in the hall, and how to respect others, and what to do if there is a fire. And when he comes home with his paper Clifford the big red dog he made in class, that he made all by himself with out me there. He is So excited to show me and tell me about his day, his day without me. His life outside of his home life. His life where I let him grow on his own.
COD | Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
I spent last week camping at Gettysburg and Harpers Ferry with my 12 year old son. No crowds, lower rates, and the undivided attention of the bored park service rangers because everybody else is in school.
We learned more US History in two days than the kids will learn in school all year.
That’s why we homeschool.
Stephanie | Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Hi Todd. I have a couple of blog posts that you might want to read that address many of your concerns. The thing to keep in mind is that there is more then one way to get the experiences that you talk about.
Our kids will have opportunities to decide what to eat, to fall in love, to learn to deal with issues with other kids, to have various adults in their lives. Why would they not? My kids are not locked up in my house all day…they are taking classes, playing with friends, going lots of fun places. It honestly is not possible to “shelter kids” that much. And that is not why most us do what we do. I do it to expand my child’s world.
I do enjoy being with my kids and do feel that homeschooling allows us to spend more time and be closer as a family. That should not be seen as a bad thing! I also like the freedom that homeschooling brings….I don’t think that most people realize how much control school has over what you do and how you live.
I am glad that school is working so well for you and your child. That is what it really is all about. Homeschooling works wonderfully for my children and myself. There is no “one right way” to handle the education of our children. Each child and family is different. There are pros and cons to each.
http://lifewithoutschool.typepad.com/lifewithoutschool/2006/06/the_isolated_ho.html
http://lifewithoutschool.typepad.com/lifewithoutschool/2006/08/answers_to_all_.html
http://lifewithoutschool.typepad.com/lifewithoutschool/2006/07/i_dont_know_how.html
http://throwingmarshmallows.homeschooljournal.net/2005/12/05/sheltering-kids/
lance | Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Tasha | Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
I don’t homeschool because I just can’t do it. Kudos to anyone that does. I like that my kids will go to public schools. I think there are alot of problems that will occur but I want for him to make friends and learn what it is like. I don’t agree with some people’s reasons for homeschooling but yours are good reasons.
Trixie | Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Todd, I too am astounded by some of your comments. You write: “You learn so much more in school. How to interact with other children both younger and older. How to deal with different situations that arise during the day, ie fights… arguements, crushes, embarrasment, resentment, envey…” Are you suggesting that one can only be exposed to such things by being in school? Because if so, that would be the best argument I’ve heard yet *for* homeschooling… all the experiences you list are rather unpleasant. Of course, the truth is that these situations occur everywhere that human interaction exists; homeschoolers will experience them just as everybody does. So the relevant question is: where and from whom would you rather your child be exposed to such life events and learn how to deal with them — Within and from a same-age group of similarly ignorant and unexperienced children? Or within and from his own family and chosen group of friends who can provide him a wealth of individualized attention, advice, and support?
And I also want to point out that I’ve observed schools to be a horrendous place for kids to learn appropriate ways of interacting with children of different ages. First of all, in most schools kids rarely interact with children of different ages in any meaningful way whatsoever. And I remember exactly how I felt about kids of different ages when I was in school: terrified and envious of the older kids who teased and bullied me and contemptuous of the younger ones who had not yet achieved my status (because feeling scared of and inferior to the bigger kids increased my desire to feel superior to somebody else.) Outside of school, kids are free to interact in a non-competitive environment with people of all ages, from infants to the elderly. They don’t internalize the age-hierarchy that a school imposes and tend to see everyone as human beings, not as members of a grade.
And I too was wondering if you knew any homeschoolers since you seem to have an inaccurate idea of what homeschoolers do. You imply that the homeschooling experience is very sheltered and parent-driven, but this is not usually the case. I find it more than a bit odd that your comments about how schools provide children choice and a way to “let [them] grow on their own” seem to be intended as an argument *against* homeschooling (!). If you truly believe letting kids grow on their own is a good strategy, I’d suggest you consider unschooling. In our “homeschool”, my kids not only choose what they’re going to eat, but also when and with whom (no school I know does that… actually, I don’t think most grade schools let kids choose *what* to eat either. They can eat what their parents pack or eat the one meal on the menu). And if my kids don’t like a particular subject, their choice isn’t limited to tuning out while being nonetheless forced to sit in a class on that subject. They can choose instead to do something more interesting, purposeful, and meaningful to them, in their own time, in their own way, and to the extent that they desire. And the motivations they’ll feel when choosing what to do or learn and the consequences they’ll experience for their choices won’t be arbitrary ones like grades, stickers, or a gain or loss of privileges from an authority. They’ll see instead, for example, that if they choose not to learn to read, they will be unable to follow a recipe, have a penpal, send an email, or play certain games.
And I’m also curious as to why you’d conclude that your love of writing was discovered only by being forced to study English throughout grade school (while hating it “with a passion” for 7 years!). Isn’t it more likely that your ability to enjoy it was stifled and nearly destroyed during grades 1-7 as you were forced to study writing according to somebody else’s methods, schedules, and purposes (perhaps at a time when you were not ready for it and experienced failure, embarrassment, and/or ridicule)? Your 8th grade English teacher may have simply saved you from the damage done in earlier grades by (as chance would have it) presenting writing in a way that resonated with you (probably also at a time when you were ready, more interested, and/or more able to see its value)… though some of your classmates may not have been as fortunate. My guess is that had you been left on your own to discover the value, purpose, and joy of writing in your own time and in your own way for your own purposes and goals, you would have developed your skill faster, more easily, and without 7 years of distress. And who knows? Maybe without 7 years of hatred coloring your view of writing, your writing skill and enjoyment would be even greater than it is today.
lance | Sep 23, 2006 | Reply
Okay, there was one other part of this post that I wanted to respond to, specifically the idea of learning stuff to avoid embarrassment and/or for “business and career advancement”.
Shannon, I’ve got to revisit your example and comment directly. You wrote: “PHAT Daddy loathes celebrity gossip and most prime time television, yet he regularly flips through an issue of Entertainment Weekly and keeps up with major entertainment news simply because he doesn’t want to look like an idiot at a business meeting when his clients are discussing American Idol or some such drivel. The purpose isn’t to impress but to advance business objectives.”
Okay, obviously your opinion (and PhD’s) of most prime time TV is low. Or given the word choices of “loathes” and “drivel”, _very_ low. And yet it’s something PhD feels the need to study to avoid “look[ing] like an idiot”. But surely if he didn’t know that stuff, _you_ wouldn’t think he was an idiot, right? And I’m sure he wouldn’t think he was an idiot either. I certainly don’t. But yet he thinks it likely that the people he deals with in a business context _would_ think he was an idiot?
If you were to hire someone to get a job done, would _you_ evaluate prospective candidates based on their knowledge and experience in the relevant fields, or would you base your choice on all sorts of irrelevant water cooler trivia? I think it betrays a real low opinion of your fellow humans to think that most other people just prefer to indulge their prejudices rather than use their brains, and that they need to be tricked into making the correct decision.
I strongly suspect, and I apologize if I am wrong, that it is not looking like an idiot that PhD wants to avoid, but rather looking _different_. Of course, he _is_ different (they put those shows in prime time for a reason), but he prefers to lie about it, because he fears that his difference will color his business associates’ opinion of him. By actively denying his own opinion of those shows, he is first of all setting himself up to need to continue this pattern of lying and self-betrayal indefinitely. But much worse, he is now telling himself that he doesn’t feel that he can succeed in the world without hiding who he is. That’s not a worldview I’d like to model for my children.
And even more fundamentally, I don’t think it’s accurate. Especially in the USA, people from all walks of life cooperate in a million different endeavors daily, paying little attention to bloodline or tribal affiliation, much less television viewing habits.
How much career advancement does he honestly think he gained through self-betrayal? That gain was paid for by trading the ability to say “I am me” for the need to say “Please don’t look at me too closely”. I hope it was worth it. Okay, maybe that’s a little harsh, especially given that most everyone is taught to devalue pride, which in turn undercuts their respect for integrity. But I also think it’s a big problem. It’s a choice that undermines independence (other people set the agenda for what is important to know) and self-respect (your self is to be hidden), while also diminishing your opinion of others (fools whose values are not worthy of respect).
Back in a homeschooling context, what would it do to a kid to say “Hey, I strongly suggest you put in some time to study X. Yeah, I think it’s stupid too, but some influential people might judge you based on your familiarity with X. No, I’m not sure why they care.” You’re telling the child that knowledge is not a tool to understand reality, but rather to deal with the arbitrary whims of others with more power. Again, it all comes downs to what lessons we wish to teach, and ultimately what we believe is true, and whether it is or isn’t.
Shannon - PHAT Mommy | Sep 24, 2006 | Reply
“You’re telling the child that knowledge is not a tool to understand reality, but rather to deal with the arbitrary whims of others with more power.”
No, you’re telling the child that sometimes knowledge is useful in dealing with people with more power. I don’t see it as an either/or. You can teach a child to be true to himself, yet also help him to understand the nuances of personal relationships and emotions.
In a previous comment, you admitted that your first inclination was to laugh when a certain person confessed to not understanding the orbits of the sun, moon, and earth. Then you thought it through. Unfortunately, not everyone takes the time to truly think these things through and first impressions _DO_ matter. Sometimes in business you don’t have the chance to really get to know someone (and it’s often not necessary that you do) and what shows “on the surface” is important. People will judge you immediately on appearance, conversation skills, general knowledge, etc. These attributes are critical in a business that involves marketing and selling (where “first impressions” and “appealing to the masses” rule).
How would I evaluate a prospective candidate? Obviously I would hire the person with the greatest skills. But I’ve been in a hiring position and I can tell you that, all things being relatively equal in regards to professional skills, I’d hire someone who I liked, someone I felt a camraderie with, someone I could communicate comfortably with and had things in common with.
Things like nice clothing, proper personal hygiene and good speaking skills make others feel comfortable around you and more confident in your abilities.
Using terms like “lying,” “tricking” and “self-betrayal” is harsh and inaccurate. PHAT Daddy is not going around saying, “Hey, that guy who got voted off American Idol was so talented - I LOVE that show!” What he IS doing is demonstrating that he is a part of society and doesn’t live in a bubble. “Oh, yes, I did hear something about Dee Schneider singing on Celebrity Duets. I don’t watch the show, but I use to love Twisted Sister.” See the difference? It’s the difference between being able to engage in small talk and being the only one in a group of people that has absolutely no idea what anyone else is talking about.