
An Unschooling Manifesto - jlhamilton
http://blogs.salon.com/0002007/2009/04/25.html#a2369
======
3pt14159
I was home schooled for grade 2 and 3 and private schooled the rest.
Throughout that whole period my best years of learning were grades 11 and 12.

The reason for this was that during all other private school years I was
forced to sit and trod through material that was far too easy. I never did the
homework because I could still pull of 70s and didn't see the value in having
a higher grade. I was invited to province wide math contests, but was only
scoring 72% in math. Finally my math teacher in grade 11 asked me how this
could be. (He also happened to be the vice principal) I told him clearly: I
hate class and I hate homework. They are not challenging, so I refuse to put
effort into them.

He suggested the exact same thing that article advocated. The change was
immediate. By grade 12 I was scoring 97 in calculus, 95 in linear algebra and
92 in finite math. All because I could move at my own pace. When I had
exhausted the course material my teacher gave me books like Aristotle's
mathematical proofs. These changed my life.

Imagine if this type of freedom had been available my whole life. My parents
tried when I was young (via homeschooling) but my social development suffered
too much and I wasn't getting the passion for the subjects that teachers can
impart.

If I were to raise children now I would insist on a school that used the
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montessori> style. It might not be the best for
everyone, but for even slightly gifted children I think it will drastically
improve their mental growth.

~~~
stanleydrew
I think Montessori is unbelievable. I went to a Montessori school through
third grade and loved it. But I don't think it works for everyone. My brother
didn't enjoy it or do as well in the unstructured environment as I did.

So I think multiple kinds of education are necessary. The problem is that
there's a lack of information about education options for most people. And
perhaps an issue of affordability. You might say that the public school system
ought to offer alternatives to the structured model. And maybe it should. I
don't know how much that would cost. But I'm sure a lot of people would take
advantage of it.

~~~
jacoblyles
One of the great things about the market model is decentralized choice. Nobody
has to decide what choices are offered for everybody. That decision is between
the consumers and the producers.

And private school voucher programs that currently exist cost as little as 25%
of the cost of educating that same child in public school.

------
jgilliam
My parents tried to home school me in the late 80's, early 90's (they were
very religious). It turned into unschooling, because I was able to plow
through the "curriculum" in very little time, and then spent all the rest of
my time online. My dad worked for IBM so we had computers around, but when I
found out that computers could _talk_ to each other, I fell in love.

This drove my parents nuts, they kept telling me I was throwing my life away,
blah blah.

Well, it's obvious how that all turned out.

Let kids follow their passions, and they will LOVE learning, which is the most
important life skill anyone can learn.

~~~
rkts
Typical nerd. I love learning, so everyone else must too! Fact: the majority
of kids don't give two toots about learning and never will. Most kids need
order and discipline. The _follow your passions_ message is great for those
with good judgment and disastrous for those without.
<http://www.vdare.com/sailer/iq.htm>

~~~
derefr
You'll never find a four-year-old who doesn't love learning. Our culture does
something to screw most of them up sometime soon after.

~~~
rkts
_Our culture does something to screw most of them up_

If that's true, there ought to be some culture that doesn't have this problem.
Can you name one?

~~~
eru
Just a guess: Western civilization? Perhaps not today, but before schooling
was made compulsory.

------
jnorthrop
The whole idea of unschooling is a little too utopian for me. Teaching is a
skilled craft. A good teacher will work a classroom to keep all manner of kids
involved and engaged. We've all had teachers like that. I had a 7th grade
social studies teacher who was fantastic and an accounting professor in
college who made accounting exciting. Accounting!

The problem in this country is well known. We have too many poorly trained and
poorly paid teachers. And unfortunately with No Child Left Behind, we've
stiffled the good teachers as well.

You can't just remove the teacher. Even the author's experience of independent
study still relies on teachers to create the curriculum, produce learning
materials and monitor progress through tests. That's a far cry to "go learn on
your own."

~~~
derefr
> Teaching is a skilled craft.

In the 1800s they used to enlist _prisoners_ to teach the newly-minted public
schools, as their community service. These people had absolutely no
qualifications to teach; however, the children produced from these schools
were more equipped for the world of the time than any child today. (This is
something from Gatto, so I have no idea if it's true, but it's a good argument
_if_ it is.)

~~~
scott_s
Then perhaps you should present it as an unsubstantiated claim, and not a
fact.

~~~
derefr
Didn't I? Don't decide on the veracity of something before reading the whole
of it. The postscript is just as much a part of my statement as the rest of
it, and it's much clearer than injecting numerous "maybe"s any "perhaps"es
into the text itself.

~~~
DougBTX
Yes, it was presented as a fact. Prefixing it with, "this sounds cool but I
have no idea if it is true," would have made it honest but reduce its
directness.

Also, "postscript", something which comes after the main statement. That it
changes the basis of the statement itself, could be called a linguistic hack.

------
tokenadult
"The Grade 12 final examinations in those days were set and marked by a
province-wide board, so universities could judge who the best students were
without having to consider differences between schools."

United States college admission does not work in the same way, and that is one
of the reasons that few schools in the United States would try quite the same
experiment. The experiment I've been trying, after years of advocating a
"learn in freedom"

<http://learninfreedom.org/>

approach to education, is negotiating with my oldest son about which distance
learning courses and local brick-and-mortar courses make a coherent, college-
preparatory program to fit HIS personal goals, and then letting him take on
challenges that no other high school in town would let him take on. It will be
interesting to see what a college admission committee will make of the
experiment. In the United States, the college admission process is enough of a
black box that applicants have to cast a wide net to make sure they have a
decent, affordable college choice. High test scores alone

[http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-
forum/377882-how...](http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-
forum/377882-how-do-top-scorers-tests-fail-gain-admission-top-schools.html)

don't do the whole job of guaranteeing admission to a strong college program
at an affordable price.

------
radu_floricica
There are so many examples of how a ridiculously small change can make
education so much better. And yet so few, really almost none of them are
widely applied. This is also very much country-independent. Among HN readers,
is there a country whose educational system would accept a non-conservative
idea like this?

~~~
tomjen
You might be able to try it out in Denmark. Granted it would never fly in the
public schools, but we have something called "free"* schools that are largely
subsidised by the public, but with very wide rules for what they can do, so
you might be able to use that.

* Free as in speech, but I don't think there is anything like that in the US.

------
miles
Sudbury Valley

<http://www.sudval.org/>

"At Sudbury Valley School, students from preschool through high school age
explore the world freely, at their own pace and in their own unique ways. They
learn to think for themselves, and learn to use Information Age tools to
unearth the knowledge they need from multiple sources. They develop the
ability to make clear logical arguments, and deal with complex ethical issues.
Through self-initiated activities, they pick up the basics; as they direct
their lives, they take responsibility for outcomes, set priorities, allocate
resources, and work with others in a vibrant community.

Trust and respect are the keys to the school’s success. Students enjoy total
intellectual freedom, and unfettered interaction with other students and
adults. Through being responsible for themselves and for the school’s
operation, they gain the internal resources needed to lead effective lives.

Sudbury Valley School was founded in 1968. Located in an old stone mansion and
a converted barn on the mid-nineteenth century Bowditch estate, the ten acre
campus adjoins extensive conservation lands."

------
aristus
I finally engineered this for myself at age 14 or 15. I discovered that I
could get into _both_ the advanced courses and a dropout prevention program
that let me out of school at noon to go work a job doing programming and
animation.

------
tokenadult
I'm surprised no one has yet mentioned pg's essay on very similar issues from
2005, submitted a while ago to HN:

<http://paulgraham.com/hs.html>

~~~
tomjen
We all read it.

------
bmj
Could someone briefly explain how unschooling works for kids under ten? Do you
just leave your five year old on her own, since her life is her own?

I'm not trying to be snarky--we home school our kids (although in a more
classical way) and I agree with the assessment that the school system in the
U.S. has failed (and I've read Illich and agree with much of what he says).

~~~
tokenadult
I'm homeschooling four children, and describe myself as an eclectic
homeschooler with strong unschooling tendencies. My youngest is now six years
old, and she spends a lot of each day drawing, building Lego constructions,
doing kitchen chores with her mom, playing with her brothers, talking walks
outdoors (with various members of the family keeping her company), or
occasionally watching videos, some educational, and some not. She is close to
being an independent reader. I give her a reading lesson each school weekday,
and a math lesson. (My favored materials are Bloomfield and Barnhart's Let's
Read: A Linguistic Approach

[http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Linguistic-Approach-Leonard-
Bloom...](http://www.amazon.com/Lets-Linguistic-Approach-Leonard-
Bloomfield/dp/0814311156)

and the Miquon Math

<http://www.keypress.com/x6252.xml>

series.)

So I guide my children's activities, but they have a lot of free time and a
lot of control over how they spend their time. I like promoting QUIET
activities like drawing and reading, because much of my work is done at home.

~~~
aeroevan
As someone who was homeschooled all the way through high school and am now
working on my PhD in aerospace engineering, keep up the good work.

My bit of advice would be to join an active homeschooling group (if you're not
part of one already). Not only will your kids have a (relatively) healthy
social life, but they'll meet some really interesting people. I had (and still
have) friends whose interests ranged from writing operas to fellow hackers.
Most of my public school friends seemed boring in comparison.

~~~
eru
Thanks for talking about homeschooling groups.

I am from Germany, where homeschooling is more or less verboten. Homeschooling
seems like a good idea. But I always wondered where children would get their
social life from, when most of their peers are locked away for at least half
of the day.

~~~
bmj
There is an assumption that all home schoolers keep their kids locked up all
day away from other kids, or that home schooling requires this. Hardly. Many
of the stereotypical home school kids (socially awkward) are that way because
their parents purposefully shelter them. For them, home schooling is as much
opting out of the culture as it is opting out of the school system. There's
also an assumption that typical schooling is, in part, socialization, which
seems odd since most of us don't spend our days exclusively around our own
peer group.

We've investigated several local home schooling groups, and we're also finding
that many unofficial co-ops exists too, once you get plugged into the local
learning web.

~~~
tokenadult
_There is an assumption that all home schoolers keep their kids locked up all
day away from other kids, or that home schooling requires this._

Yes, that is the assumption, but that is not at all the reality. We have a
very strong local group here specializing in homeschooling "gifted" children
(standard term, not meant to be a brag) that is helpful for all the parents
and for most of the children. I'm also part of several national online
networks related to various aspects of homeschooling, and have been an officer
of statewide homeschooling organizations.

~~~
eru
I would not assume that home schoolers lock their kids up. Rather that the
other kids are locked up in school.

So homeschooled kids may have less opportunity to socializing with "school-
aged" peers --- unless there are other homeschoolers around.

------
dkberktas
I remember the years I spent in high school and college just to pass the
courses. It was boring and useless. All the time I waited for the course to
finish to that I can go to home and do whatever I wanted to do. What a waste
of time.

~~~
PieSquared
Nah, I disagree. It's not that bad. I'm in 10th grade right now, and here's
the way I see it: I spend a few hours in school every day, where most of the
time is wasted, come home, and spend the remaining 6-8 hours of free time I
have learning whatever I want.

I used to be pretty annoyed about school in general, but once I realised how
much free time I really have, it's amazing how much I started getting done in
that same time.

(As for the actually interesting or difficult classes, which sometimes do
exist, you can do the same thing; for instance, in the first few months of my
calculus class, I bought a textbook and finished learning the material until
the end of the year. Now that class is just as relaxing and as much of a
breeze as any other.)

~~~
frossie
Good for you PieSquared. May I ask how many hours you spend in school and what
country you are in? One of the things that I have noticed is that in many
countries school hours are getting longer and longer, so there is less time
available to get kids to learn independently and grow in their own direction.
No matter how good the schooling you receive is, or what its philosophy, it
will never cater to you 100% as an individual.

(Upthread: I _have_ read Jean Piaget so I am hoping that ahoyhere will allow
me to post)

~~~
PieSquared
I'm in the United States, Maryland specifically. My school hours are from 7:25
to 3:00, or, if you include when I get on the bus and get off, from 6:20 to
4:00.

School hours are long, and it doesn't leave that much time, it's true. I
compensate by going to sleep around 2:30 regularly, sometimes later, and
catching up on sleep on the bus or through smaller naps during the day (and
no, not during class :P).

------
amalcon
There's an idea I've been rolling around in my head for a while, wherein some
portion of the day (say an hour) for each class would be dedicated to each
student of one grade teaching one of the next younger grade (so two hours per
day total per student, one teaching, one being taught). The idea has a lot of
potential, both because it helps the educational system scale and provides
much-needed individual attention. Individual attention is useful even if it
comes from poor teachers. It's much too radical to be implemented in a modern
public education system (too much politics there).

The reason I found this interesting is that it gives something to do with
class size disparity: have the "best" students in the oversized class work in
an independent study format for that hour. It's so simple.

~~~
gruseom
I would do something like this if I were running a school as well. There are
many obvious benefits to having older kids help younger kids. Besides,
partitioning large groups of children by age is a weird idea if you think
about it from a human point of view (as opposed to an industrial one).

~~~
dangrover
I think the real test of learning something is being able to teach it to
others.

I used to volunteer teaching after-school middle school classes with an
organization called Citizen Schools and one big part of their methodology was
trying to get kids to demonstrate their knowledge and pass it on to others in
the end of whatever lesson they were doing.

~~~
gruseom
Absolutely, to teach something doesn't only test your mastery of a subject, it
helps reinforce it.

I've noticed that in the case of the older child, it reinforces their identity
as "someone who knows about X", which feeds back into their own further study
of X. It also subtly evokes responsible behavior from the older child simply
by putting them in a responsible position, and harnesses the younger child's
tendency to look up to older kids in service of their learning. Seems like the
kind of thing we ought to do more of.

------
MaysonL
Check out _The Day I Became an Autodidact_ <http://www.amazon.com/Day-I-
Became-Autodidact/dp/0440550130>

------
thesethings
I found this post pretty passionate and moving. I'm biased in that any writing
about rethinking education is something I'm going to be pretty rah-rah about
:D, but it's still a good read in that it's based both on his personal
experience, and rigorous theory.

The book he's reviewing kind of suggests that schools deliberately have the
effect of making students "small," which I don't necessarily agree with (I
think many people in traditional formal education have pretty decent
intentions, and at worst mostly get apathetic about their model). But still, I
think it could only help the dialogue to have a book go "too far," in terms of
describing the effects of the current state of education.

------
snprbob86
I know that this is highly tangential to the discussion, but I think it's
worth sharing...

The author mentions Acquire, which is a brilliant board game of particular
interest to this startup crowd. Sure, it is a gross oversimplification of the
equity markets, but it is still oddly relevant and a whole lot of fun. It is
very easy to learn and games have a bounded duration. Highly recommended for
expert gamers and complete non-gamers alike.

<http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/5>

~~~
eru
Board gaming in general strikes me as a good tool for education. It usually
requires quick thinking, basic arithmetic, strategy, negotiation. In my
experiences fondness for gaming also correlates well with mathematical
ability.

------
russell
One of the things I did with my kids was to push them to take courses at the
local community colleges while they were still in high school. They got better
quality instruction, more advanced topics, and college level credit. My son
had credit for all but two math classes in EECS at UC Berkeley. My daughter
was able to graduate in four years at UCLA, rather than drag on to 5 years
because of schedule conflicts and oversubscribed classes.

------
paulitex
Great post. I agree that you often need a radical to create enough noise
around a real issue that deserves attention. Richard Stallman is a perfect
example. A little extreme, but brings the conversation to a needed place.

The tough part here is the 'how'. Maybe we could start at the top and work
down: University undergrad programs in North America could become a lot more
like grad school, encouraging original thought from the get go.

~~~
thesethings
Here's my theory on the "How."

Similar to yours, but starting even a bit more removed:

Innovation will happen (and is happening) first in non-accredited adult (and
maybe even non-accredited child) learning environments. Crazy theatrical
lectures, Spanish classes disguised as video games, etc. People will have
really positive experiences with this stuff, and it will trickle down.

It's probably too scary for some people to just hand over the keys to their
kids' "real" education at first. Once people see how comfortable and
successful changing stuff up is outside of schools, and it will feel less
risky inside of schools.

I see the edge of this already happening on the Internet, with sites like
edufire, for example.

------
davidmathers
I dropped out of school in 8th grade. Shortly after that I got my first modem.
My education came mostly from learning what I needed to learn to be able to
participate in adult discussions and debates that I found online.

Ideally I would have preferred a (very) small amount of structure, guidance
and discipline. But I have no regrets. The actual other option was California
public school.

------
flipbrad
Part of the problem is an obsession with diplomas and enforced curricula. Jobs
will not hire unless you have the necessary diplomas - until that changes,
forced, regimented, rote and curriculum-based learning is the only real option
on a massive scale. Consider the alternative: employers become agnostic about
your educational background (or even totally blind to it) and instead test
each applicant on the relevant skillset for the position - a society that only
tests on entry, not on exit. If singular test panels aren't good enough, bring
back apprenticeships, internships, etc.

As IT progresses arguments bringing up signal to noise ratios and using school
leaver's certificates, a-level grades and university diplomas as first-pass
filters become less relevant.

It's win-win for everyone except those who were provided with a prestigious
education through the funds and connections of their parents. Employers are
exposed to a maximally broad base of candidates - who may have followed an
educational path that's totally unique and has made them much better suited to
the job than one that distracted, bored, diffused and brainwashed them;
candidates get in on merit not so much on the paid-for (private) resources
made available to them (though your dad's library or mum's financial freedom
to stay at home and teach you will always be one source of inequality).

------
flipbrad
Brings to mind an amazing book - Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society. Essential
reading if you're interested in this topic (and who wouldn't be?
[http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.h...](http://www.preservenet.com/theory/Illich/Deschooling/intro.html))

------
sown
I wanted to do this in high school so badly. I had friends whom I had met
outside of school who had done this and it always seemed like they were a head
in life. My co-worker has done this with his children and they are all
starting college 2 years earlier or so.

------
octane
Yeah, I hated school too. It's not ever going to change because it's _for the
masses_. That's its _sole and express purpose_. Why is anyone trying to
redesign the system or otherwise shoehorn exceptional people into a system
designed for the masses? Either drop out or shut up, in my opinion. Massive
social structures don't have time for unique butterflies. That's the Reality
of the situation with a capital R.

The optimum solution is to just get it done at an 75-90% level until you
graduate HS or college and get on with your god damn life instead of fighting
it for years and years and years and pulling yourself and others down in the
process. Just give them the bare minimum of what they want while pursuing your
own interests. It's politics 101.

This is why many, many successful people say "I dropped out", or "Oh, I was
only a B and C student" instead of "I spent every waking moment of my life
trying to rebel against the system in which I had no place in, attempting to
reforming it form the inside to suit my specific needs to a tee."

~~~
bokonist
The education system at this point is not a designed entity. It has evolved
through the interplay of various political forces. It has no purpose. No one
would design anything like our system if they were doing it from scratch. It's
just no one has a plan to fix it ( or the authority to implement such a plan).

~~~
andylei
>> No one would design anything like our system if they were doing it from
scratch.

Why not? If I implemented a system, it would probably involve certain things
that I wanted students of different age groups to learn (a curriculum). There
would probably be people who were in charge of teaching them (teachers). Along
the way, we'd measure how well they learned, or how we taught them (tests).

Why is this so preposterous?

~~~
bokonist
Well, personally, I'm an abolitionist. But even if I believed in public
schools, there are many aspects of our school system that do not even make
sense on their own terms:

1) Kids are mandated by law to attend school, but then when in school,
teachers cannot even adequately punish unruly kids because that would violate
their civil rights (thanks to a bunch of court decisions in the 70's). That
means the worst kids get little discipline, and the good kids get locked in a
building for six hours with juvenile tormentors.

2) Schools make less intelligent kids feel like they are inadequate because
they are not as good at a narrow range of academic skills. And for what? There
are many productive ways to earn a living that require neither algebra,
physics, or history.

3) The worst delinquents do not want to be at school. The teachers do not want
them at school. They do not get anything out of school because the teachers
have no ability to control them. The system is benefiting no one.

4) Teacher pay has absolutely no relation to the quality of their teaching.

5) Districts pay a ton of money for the tools required to equip a vocational
school. But those tools already exist in the workplace, and these craft
businesses all used to except teenagers at entry level positions where they
could learn the ropes for free ( or even get paid).

6) The smart kids who actually do want to learn are usually not allowed to.
They are usually beyond the curriculum, yet are forced to go follow the exact
curriculum set out by bureaucrats hundreds of miles away.

7) We live in an era where there is far more information in the world than
anyone can ever learn, and where most economic value comes from
specialization. There is simply no reason to have a centralized curriculum,
outside of reading, writing and arithmetic.

8) There is no clear reason to have specialist teachers. Schools could be
designed as parental coops. Or as a series of workplace internships. Or as
apprenticeships. There are many, many models to use.

9) Why not use older students to teach younger students? It saves money and
breeds responsibility.

10) Why segregate by age? Why cut off children from the rest of society in a
big box building? Kids always act better when they are trying to impress
someone older. Older kids act better when they know younger kids are looking
up to them.

11) Despite a tremendous increase in the hours spent in school over the past
90 years, tests of numeracy and vocab among the general public have been flat.

12) Why assume that we need high school. We got through the 19th century just
fine without it. What changed?

13) We send kids to college to supposedly educate them, but where the real
result is spending 4 years of partying and no responsibilities.

14) The left puts up huge fights against voucher funding for private schools,
because they fear that will lead to more class segregation. So instead, many
posh suburbs have essentially become expensive private boarding schools where
the parents live too. Instead of the different classes living in the same town
but going to different schools, they live in entirely different towns
altogether.

15) A student has his school paid for for 18 years. But after that he is
entirely cut off. Why can't a student take a few years off when he's young and
does not appreciate school, and then have the money available when he's older,
and realizes he needs to a community college degree to achieve his chosen
profession?

16) The school system pretends that it is supposed to raised up the lower
classes and increase their earning potential. But in reality, the reason for
much of the earning differential between drop outs and graduates is that there
are needles barrier to entry laws for many professions. Take away those laws,
and lower class students could simply self study and test into the jobs,
rather than spending a huge amount on college.

~~~
alain94040
There is only one fallacy that invalides your arguments #1, #5, #6, #7, #8,
#9, #10, #11, #12, #15 and #16: if you offer the freedom of not going to
school that you seem to advocate, and if the parents don't care about their
kids' education, you have a major problem.

In order for your plan to work, it assumes that either the kid is bright or
the parents place a high value on education. Think about this scenario and
tell me how you take care of it.

In the meantime, the current system does a good job of providing a _baseline_
education for all.

~~~
bokonist
_if you offer the freedom of not going to school that you seem to advocate,
and if the parents don't care about their kids' education, you have a major
problem._

If parents cannot raise their kids properly, well, you have a major problem.
Fortunately, parents evolved to care about their kids more than anyone else,
and they are also much closer to the problem than any government. The parents
that are so incompetent that they cannot ensure their children have basic
economic survival skills are very rare.

 _In order for your plan to work, it assumes that either the kid is bright or
the parents place a high value on education._

What percent of jobs in the economy need more than reading, writing,
arithmetic, and apprenticeship? 10%? 15%? In my observations its much lower
than people think. And learning the basics was never a problem in the United
States. The U.S. had near universal literacy since 1800(1), long before the
modern educational complex was created. The baseline requires two or three
years to teach max. So how does that justify a compulsory 12-16 year
educational track?

In fact, part of the reason that so many parents do not care about their kids
_academic_ education, is that the kids _academic_ education does not matter.
Neither the kids nor the parent is part of the cognitive elite, so they are
never going the game in striving for cognitive elite jobs. The parents are
right, the government is wrong. The idea that 100% of the population needs to
stars in the academic fields is a lie ( or more politely, marketing).

(1) outside of slaves, who were actively barred from reading

~~~
jimbokun
"What percent of jobs in the economy need more than reading, writing,
arithmetic, and apprenticeship?"

My Dad lost his welding job around when I was starting high school. He took a
few different jobs, one of which was cutting brush with a machete for a local
private surveyor. He found the surveying work interesting, so he checked out
books from the library to re-learn his Trigonometry (and probably a few other
things). This allowed him to get a job with the Pennsylvania Dept. of
Transportation surveying group, from which he took early retirement a couple
of years ago. I think having an initial exposure to Trig in high school
allowed him to realize this career change was possible.

So, it is hard to say what knowledge will be useful, or not, over the course
of a lifetime.

------
ahoyhere
OK guys, since this conversation comes up _every single time_...

Yes, public school systems can be very good, and tailored to individual
students. Look at Scandinavia, especially Finland and Sweden.

Yes, lots of people do extremely well without structure and authority figures
breathing down their backs.

Yes, teachers are underpaid, and yes, paying them more will not solve the
fundamental issue.

Yes, unschooling kicks ass, and no, your excuses don't really make sense.

No, you don't need to keep rehashing _your_ story to defend your choices or
whatever, will you please take the chip off your shoulder already. It's the
internet, nobody knows (or cares) that you dropped out, or that you stuck with
it and graduated.

Yawn.

And if you're going to debate - on the Internet - you might want, in the
spirit of hacking, to brush up on the material on the topics that already
exists by eminent people who've spent much longer thinking about it than you.
E.g. if you haven't read John Holt & John Taylor Gatto & Jean Piaget[1], why
are you bothering to write?

[1] On the other hand, I will accept novel theories about why all these men
are named John.

~~~
eru
> [1] On the other hand, I will accept novel theories about why all these men
> are named John.

Selection bias?

