‘Unschooling’ Isn’t The Answer To Education Woes—It’s The Problem

With schools closed, the concept of unschooling—allowing kids to direct their own learning—is being touted by some as timely and new. But the idea has been around for centuries, and its influence on education has been mostly pernicious.

It’s an alluring philosophy: Just let kids follow their own interests—with gentle facilitation from an adult—and they’ll learn whatever they need to. A prescribed curriculum delivered by teachers is not only unnecessary, it crushes children’s natural curiosity and creativity.

A recent documentary called Unschooled traces an effort to help three struggling inner-city teenagers by means of this approach. At the same time, commentators are urging parents to adopt it during this era of enforced remote learning and perhaps beyond. And whether or not their parents have consciously embraced the philosophy, many kids are now being effectively “unschooled”—although it may look like they’re just sleeping all day and playing video games (a natural phase on the path to discovering your passions, some advocates say).

When the documentary was screened, virtually, at the SXSW EDU education conference, it was said to showcase “a radical new approach to education.” In fact, the unschooling movement traces its origins to the 1970s and an education activist named John Holt. But its deep roots go all the way back to 18^th-century philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Rousseau’s theories—never scientifically tested—laid the groundwork for the “progressive” orientation of schools of education in the United States and elsewhere. Generations of prospective teachers have been ingrained with the idea that children ideally learn through choice and discovery rather than direct instruction. A teacher, they’re told, should be a “guide on the side,” not a “sage on the stage.”

The subject of Unschooled is a Philadelphia organization called Natural Creativity Center. Unlike most similar efforts, it’s aimed at students from low-income families. The few attempts to bring something like unschooling to poor black kids, during the 1960s and 70s, resulted in disgruntled parents who wanted their children to be taught to read, write, and do math.

The parents of the three black teenagers in Unschooled are also skeptical. “I don’t understand how these kids are going to learn anything,” says one father after being told that the school believes in “play” rather than academics. Others in the black community are also doubtful, seeing National Creativity’s founder, Peter Bergson, as engaging in an experiment that carries far more risk for his subjects than for him.

Each of those subjects has had a troubled experience in public schools. Amani was bullied. Jaya is so withdrawn it’s unclear she can read or do simple math. Miles was suspended after an allegation of sexual assault that he denies.

After an unspecified period of time at Natural Creativity—and long periods of what looks like idleness—each seems to have benefited, at least in the filmmakers’ view. Amani, an animal-lover, has an internship at the zoo. Jaya has come out of her shell a bit—and come out as gay. She also shows she can calculate how much change she should get from a $10 bill and read words like “cleaners” on storefront signs. Miles has pursued an interest in photography, with the help of a professional recruited by Bergson.

But then, an educational consultant arrives to assess Miles’ progress. When she shows him a circle that has one quarter shaded, he’s unable to identify the fraction, guessing it’s a third. When asked to add 75 and 10, he can’t. His mother tells him she’s re-enrolling him in public school. As she speaks, the filmmakers ominously bring up music that drowns out her words, and the camera focuses on Miles’ stony face.

During a discussion following the SXSW EDU screening, there was nary an expression of criticism or doubt, either from the panelists—which included Miles—or the audience. Instead, there was a lot of talk about the failures of traditional schooling and the benefits of enabling children to “own their own learning.” No one asked if Miles, who says he’s now involved in “the creative world,” has learned basic math.

The standard version of school clearly isn’t working for many kids. But that doesn’t mean the answer is unschooling. The real problem is that ideas like those behind unschooling have had so much influence.

Few American schools look like Natural Creativity, but it’s only a more extreme form of what teachers are told they should strive for, especially at lower grade levels. True, elementary and middle schools devote lots of time to reading and math. But much of it consists of brief teacher demonstrations of illusory reading comprehension “skills,” like “making inferences,” followed by having children practice the skills independently on books of their choice. Content-rich subjects like social studies and science—which could provide the knowledge and vocabulary that actually enable reading comprehension—have been sidelined, especially where test scores are low. Reading and math tests have a lot to do with this regime, but its deep roots lie in the assumptions that students should have as much choice as possible and teachers should avoid dispensing information.

When kids get to high school, they may encounter subjects like history and science for the first time. They may not know what Europe is or what the American Revolution was about, because no one has taught them those things. As with at least two of the students in Unschooled, they may not have learned the basics of reading and math. Like other teachers, those at the high school level have been trained to believe that students should ideally be in charge of their learning. But they’re also supposed to be teaching grade-level material. In many cases, they and their students are being asked to do the impossible.

None of this is surprising when you consider that the ideas behind unschooling and progressive education in general conflict with scientific findings. Explicit instruction works far better than discovery learning when students don’t already know much about a topic. Learning necessarily involves effort; many young people may choose not to expend that effort if they don’t have to. And while giving kids choice can help motivate them, they can’t choose to learn about topics they’re unaware of. They need to be introduced to new subjects in an engaging way, preferably when they’re young and eager to learn about the world, so they can discover new interests.

Once students have some knowledge of a topic—along with skills like being able to read words—giving them more choice and autonomy could work. But in our system, we have it backwards: we give students the most choice and the least explicit instruction in the early grades, a time when they’re most likely to become interested in new information and to benefit from it.

The involuntary unschooling that’s going on across the country now could work for a minority of kids, but it will only further disadvantage those who are most vulnerable. It’s past time to let go of an appealing but ultimately dangerous myth that has deprived untold numbers of children of the opportunity to develop to their full potential.