7 ms·

> At the time, my father—who earned his undergraduate degree at Cornell and his master’s at Johns Hopkins Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advant

> At the time, my father—who earned his undergraduate degree at Cornell and his master’s at Johns Hopkins Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages they were given and use them to live like paupers with zero concern for the the world around them. > I can report that Fin and Rye both learned to read and write with essentially zero instruction, albeit when they were about eight years old, a year or so later than is expected. I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree. > I want them to remain free of social pressures to look, act, or think any way but that which feels most natural to them. Awesome how the author takes his past issues of "social pressures" and maps them onto his kids. Wonder if he ever realized that "social pressures" are one of the most natural things a child learns. This thing is full of gems. I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse, but I just can't help it. I've met far too many of these clowns in my life.

learc83 12y ago
>I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree There's a lot of evidence that learning to read early can be detrimental in the long run. More and more of the educated parents I know are no longer focusing on teaching their preschoolers to read. Edit: see my comment further down this reply chain for links to evidence.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  > There's a lot of evidence that learning to read early can be detrimental in the long run. More and more of the educated parents I know are no longer focusing on teaching their preschoolers to read. That's horrifying. Can't wait for the rest of us to have to clean up their experiment.
  - learc83 12y ago
    What are you basing that on? There is evidence that not teaching children to read until age 6 or 7 has an overall net benefit. Many countries ranked very well for education, don't start formal education until age 7 (Finland and Sweden for instance). The children in these countries are taught to read later than in the US, but they do just as well or better on reading tests later in life. Children in the US weren't taught to read until first grade a few generations ago. Hell, when I was in kindergarten, 25 years ago, we spent the whole year learning the alphabet--now kids are expected to know the alphabet by the time they enter kindergarten. There is no evidence that this is beneficial and plenty that it is harmful.
    - crucifiction 12y ago
      Care to cite some of this evidence? I was just reading about this and found zero evidence its somehow harmful and only anecdotal evidence that it is not beneficial and "evens out" later.
      - pyre 12y ago
        Do you have evidence that teaching a child to read at 7 years of age is a significant detriment to their overall learning? Do you feel like the parent post that not teaching them to read at 4 years old is 'child abuse?'
      - quizzas 12y ago
        some references to start you off re the benefits of the Finnish system where formal education starts at age 7: http://www.npr.org/2014/03/08/287255411/what-the-u-s-can-learn-from-finland-where-school-starts-at-age-7 http://www.npr.org/2014/03/08/287255411/what-the-u-s-can-lea... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland
      - learc83 12y ago
        Children in New Zealand who began learning to read at age 7 had better reading comprehension than those that started at age 5 by the time they were 10. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200612000397 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200612... Children in Germany who started school at age 7 performed better on standardized tests than those who started at age 6. http://ftp.iza.org/dp1827.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp1827.pdf
        hueving 12y ago
        That's because the children that learned at age 7 weren't educated enough to understand that cramming for a standardized test was a waste of their lives.
        fred_durst 12y ago
        Even if that were true, I would have learned much less as there were many things I and many children learned via reading far before the age of 11. So while they supposedly caught up on reading, they had missed out on several years of learning when the brain is most capable of doing so. And honestly, that study is so loose. It reminds of the good ol' days of Whole Word learning and how many kids lives they screwed up with that experiment gone bad. http://www.readinghorizons.com/research/whole-language-vs-phonics-instruction http://www.readinghorizons.com/research/whole-language-vs-ph... EDIT: Apparently, I need to clarify loose. Sample size: 267
  - fsloth 12y ago
    My strong opinion is that educationally, THE most important thing you must do with your child is TALK to them. From the beginning. From year 0. Discuss things with them. Let them soak as much understandable speech as they can between years 0 and 2. This will have a far more profound effect in their life rather than did they learn to read at 4 or 8 years of age. Could you specify what is horrifying about the previous post? Why would it be more important for a 5 year old to learn to read rather than, say, spend their time building Legos, practice crafts or climbing into trees? Like another poster stated, most kids in Finland do not start to formally learn to read until they are 6 (preschool, if the parents want so) and at the latest when they enter primary school (7). I would claim Finland has a pretty good public primary education system. Pushing kids to do too much too soon has no advantages, imho. There are skills that are best started acquiring at a youngish age but you will have to convince me pretty hard that reading is one of them. Kids have this natural curiosity to an amazing variety of things. But what those things are can be quite random. The best way to have them learn something is to apply this natural curiosity - i.e. find what they are interested in - and the support them in this activity. This does not mean allowing them play videogames or watch cartoons whole the whole day. I would say if the kids like it and want to then sure, teach them to read. But before 7, I would claim it is more valuable to find those things that they are really keen into and let them practice those. This creates a positive association to knowledge acquisition (the love of learning). And at that age they soak information and skills like sponges if they are motivated and have the mental capacity to grasp the concepts.
    - NotOscarWilde 12y ago
      > Why would it be more important for a 5 year old to learn to read rather than, say, spend their time building Legos, practice crafts or climbing into trees? The hypothesis that I think should be tested is whether there is correlation between being a child prodigy in a technical field (in math, physics, computer science or engineering) and getting to read early. It makes sense theoretically -- if you learn to read by age 8, is there enough time for you to grasp all of high school math and computer science by age 14, like Manjul Bhargava? While I can imagine my hypothesis being true, that doesn't make it into an argument against later reading age. It just means that for a group of kids this might not the best decision. (And since most of us think of themselves as the "smart kids", maybe that's why a lot of us here are opposed to it.)
droithomme 12y ago
> Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages The author's father worked for the state department of education and his mother was a substitute teacher. What evidence do you have that they are rich as you claim? > I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse Child abuse is a serious accusation. Please state the evidence you have that there is child abuse and the steps you have taken to report your personal knowledge of the situation to the state authorities.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  I absolutely disagree that this type of "home schooling" should be legal. I do believe it is child abuse. These people should be treated just any parent that does not enroll their child in school. And I think they should have their kids placed in state custody and not even considered letting their children back in their care until they have had a full psychiatric evaluation. It's true that these parents are likely sick and need mental health treatment. Maybe I should have more sympathy for them, but I think about the poor kids and about how lucky I was to have parents who cared more about their children than some crazy ideology.
  - learc83 12y ago
    >I think they should have their kids placed in state custody and not even considered letting their children back in their care until they have had a full psychiatric evaluation. I can almost guarantee that these kids will turn out better with their parents than if they are raised in state custody. Outcomes are far far worse for foster kids than for unschooled kids. Where do you draw the line. What about parents who don't pay attention to their kids, sit them in front of the tv and provide no education or emotional support other than putting them on the bus in the morning? These kids can read and write, there are many kids in public school who can't. There are way more kids living in bad school districts with uninvolved parents who spend less than the 2 hours a month studying that these kids do.
  - konstruktor 12y ago
    I find absolutely no reason to believe those people have any sort of psychological problems. The guy writes eloquently and coherently. The arguments he makes are rational, albeit, in my opinion, not compelling. The question is: How much freedom do parents have to influence their children's upbringing. This is clearly a political issue, and seems to have been settled in the US in a way that gives parents a lot of choice. To label somebody who actually uses these liberties as mentally ill is absolutely disgusting.
barry-cotter 12y ago
>This thing is full of gems. I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse, but I just can't help it. I've met far too many of these clowns in my life. If you actually believe these children are being abused I'm sure that you can call CPS on their parents. If not, the only way you could make a "joke" in worse taste would be to imply paedophilia. >Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages they were given and use them to live like paupers with zero concern for the the world around them. "Everyone we know who unschools, in fact, has chosen autonomy over affluence. Hell, some years we’re barely above the poverty line." Doesn't sound like they're living like rich kids. Nor are they living like paupers. They own their farm and they're not even using as many public services as a normal family with two children would.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  > They own their farm > barely above the poverty line. Doesn't really add up. Any guesses on how much a farm in Vermont costs? It's not cheap. Big hunch the money for that farm came from someone else. Most likely an inheritance.
  - seanmcdirmid 12y ago
    An asset is not necessarily liquid; also plenty have people have negative net worthy.
pyre 12y ago
> I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse What does it say about you if you feel that this is child abuse, but do nothing? Also, by claiming that this is child abuse, you are grouping it with things like sexual and physical abuse. Are you sure that you are attempting to make such a strong statement?
- hueving 12y ago
  No, a fairer grouping would be with refusing to let your child attend a school, read books, or use the Internet.
- fred_durst 12y ago
  The other reply to this talking about depriving your child of an education etc, is exactly what I would say. And absolutely, yes I feel that this is definitely child abuse.
  - pyre 12y ago
    Then, are the Amish 'abusing' their children? What about the Inuit[1]? [1] http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/sixties-scoop.html http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-pol...
pdonis 12y ago
> with zero concern for the the world around them How do you figure that?
pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
Just fair warning, most of the people who are responding to you in disagreement have never actually met a un/homeschooled person / person's parents in real life. The reason why unschooling is so bad is entirely social. Homeschooled kids are crippled socially. It sounds good, feels good, etc. but once you actually see it with your own eyes it makes sense why this hasn't caught on.
- TeMPOraL 12y ago
  > It sounds good, feels good, etc. but once you actually see it with your own eyes it makes sense why this hasn't caught on. I doubt that. To me a more plausible and equally good explanation is that schools are primarily places where parents can drop their kids off for half of the day to be able to go to work. Homeschooling requires someone to stay at home and do the schooling, which is becoming less and less affordable for most of the people.
  - pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
    Yeah.... no. I know people who were more than financially able to do this, and the kids still ended up messed up. To reiterate, if you actually haven't seen this first-hand, it's best to keep your mouth shut. Confirmation bias only makes this whole thing worse.
- nekopa 12y ago
  I've met plenty of homeschooled people/parents. What on earth do you mean by socially crippled? If anything, these people have been the most socially apt people I've met. Maybe that is because I value different social traits than you do.
- JoeAltmaier 12y ago
  If by 'socially crippled' you mean unscarred by bullies, unbored by mass indoctrination lectures, and untutored in vandalism and cheating, then sure.
Lalakh 12y ago
> I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree. If you met two 10 year olds, one learnt to read at age 4 the other at age 8- do you think you could tell the difference? Would it really matter? Actually more than likely it would- the one who learnt at age 8 is more likely to read for pleasure. An overly formal approach in the early years can be counter productive, and often damaging. Not to mention the fact that all the time spent at age 3-4 learning to read, is time missed doing the stuff they should be: learning social skills, problem solving, independence... See some of the vast amount of research on this by reading the section on reading for pleasure pages 16-19 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeduski/121/121.pdf http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/c...
- ejstronge 12y ago
  Thanks for linking to an article that at least mentions research - it's easy to go off of general feelings in conversations like this. I just want to point out, however, that pages 16-19 do not conclude that children who learn at 8 years old have a greater pleasure than children who learn at 4. The conclusion, which isn't a hard one to agree with, is that teachers should find ways to make reading more exciting.
  - Lalakh 12y ago
    Agreed- just think it is worth pointing out that there is no proven advantage in teaching children to read early,that there can actually be some concerns with teaching reading at an early age, and that there are also no disadvantages to learning to read later. These are worth a read to: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029435.000-too-much-too-young-should-schooling-start-at-age-7.html#.U_C5H7w7Ybg http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029435.000-too-much-... http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago006408.html http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago006408.html
joelhooks 12y ago
I've got 4 kids, 16-7, none of which have ever been to school. The only thing we require them to do is read and learn. The subjects don't matter. The oldest likes philosophy and science. My 12 year old enjoys video production and 3d animation. My 9 year old really loves comic books and cooking. My 7 year old loves crafts and writing adventure stories. We unschooled when I was making $10/h. They all have big groups of friends, with an incredible level of diversity. They spend a lot of time with them, and enjoy unstructured, uninterrupted play. Beyond that, they all love organized sports, field trips, traveling when we want. The older children always have the option of going to school, and choose not to. With regards to learning to read. Our oldest was reading at 4, one read at 9, and the other two around 5/6. It doesn't matter. Your fear and ignorance is understandable. It's "radical", and certainly not for everybody. The suggestion of "child abuse" is silly, and totally unfounded. I've actually met many of these "clowns", and can attest from experience that you're not only wrong, but out of line. Experiencing life with our children is wonderful.

learc83 12y ago

>I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree There's a lot of evidence that learning to read early can be detrimental in the long run. More and more of the educated parents I know are no longer focusing on teaching their preschoolers to read. Edit: see my comment further down this reply chain for links to evidence.

fred_durst 12y ago
> There's a lot of evidence that learning to read early can be detrimental in the long run. More and more of the educated parents I know are no longer focusing on teaching their preschoolers to read. That's horrifying. Can't wait for the rest of us to have to clean up their experiment.
- learc83 12y ago
  What are you basing that on? There is evidence that not teaching children to read until age 6 or 7 has an overall net benefit. Many countries ranked very well for education, don't start formal education until age 7 (Finland and Sweden for instance). The children in these countries are taught to read later than in the US, but they do just as well or better on reading tests later in life. Children in the US weren't taught to read until first grade a few generations ago. Hell, when I was in kindergarten, 25 years ago, we spent the whole year learning the alphabet--now kids are expected to know the alphabet by the time they enter kindergarten. There is no evidence that this is beneficial and plenty that it is harmful.
  - crucifiction 12y ago
    Care to cite some of this evidence? I was just reading about this and found zero evidence its somehow harmful and only anecdotal evidence that it is not beneficial and "evens out" later.
    - pyre 12y ago
      Do you have evidence that teaching a child to read at 7 years of age is a significant detriment to their overall learning? Do you feel like the parent post that not teaching them to read at 4 years old is 'child abuse?'
    - quizzas 12y ago
      some references to start you off re the benefits of the Finnish system where formal education starts at age 7: http://www.npr.org/2014/03/08/287255411/what-the-u-s-can-learn-from-finland-where-school-starts-at-age-7 http://www.npr.org/2014/03/08/287255411/what-the-u-s-can-lea... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Finland
    - learc83 12y ago
      Children in New Zealand who began learning to read at age 7 had better reading comprehension than those that started at age 5 by the time they were 10. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200612000397 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885200612... Children in Germany who started school at age 7 performed better on standardized tests than those who started at age 6. http://ftp.iza.org/dp1827.pdf http://ftp.iza.org/dp1827.pdf
      - hueving 12y ago
        That's because the children that learned at age 7 weren't educated enough to understand that cramming for a standardized test was a waste of their lives.
      - fred_durst 12y ago
        Even if that were true, I would have learned much less as there were many things I and many children learned via reading far before the age of 11. So while they supposedly caught up on reading, they had missed out on several years of learning when the brain is most capable of doing so. And honestly, that study is so loose. It reminds of the good ol' days of Whole Word learning and how many kids lives they screwed up with that experiment gone bad. http://www.readinghorizons.com/research/whole-language-vs-phonics-instruction http://www.readinghorizons.com/research/whole-language-vs-ph... EDIT: Apparently, I need to clarify loose. Sample size: 267
- fsloth 12y ago
  My strong opinion is that educationally, THE most important thing you must do with your child is TALK to them. From the beginning. From year 0. Discuss things with them. Let them soak as much understandable speech as they can between years 0 and 2. This will have a far more profound effect in their life rather than did they learn to read at 4 or 8 years of age. Could you specify what is horrifying about the previous post? Why would it be more important for a 5 year old to learn to read rather than, say, spend their time building Legos, practice crafts or climbing into trees? Like another poster stated, most kids in Finland do not start to formally learn to read until they are 6 (preschool, if the parents want so) and at the latest when they enter primary school (7). I would claim Finland has a pretty good public primary education system. Pushing kids to do too much too soon has no advantages, imho. There are skills that are best started acquiring at a youngish age but you will have to convince me pretty hard that reading is one of them. Kids have this natural curiosity to an amazing variety of things. But what those things are can be quite random. The best way to have them learn something is to apply this natural curiosity - i.e. find what they are interested in - and the support them in this activity. This does not mean allowing them play videogames or watch cartoons whole the whole day. I would say if the kids like it and want to then sure, teach them to read. But before 7, I would claim it is more valuable to find those things that they are really keen into and let them practice those. This creates a positive association to knowledge acquisition (the love of learning). And at that age they soak information and skills like sponges if they are motivated and have the mental capacity to grasp the concepts.
  - NotOscarWilde 12y ago
    > Why would it be more important for a 5 year old to learn to read rather than, say, spend their time building Legos, practice crafts or climbing into trees? The hypothesis that I think should be tested is whether there is correlation between being a child prodigy in a technical field (in math, physics, computer science or engineering) and getting to read early. It makes sense theoretically -- if you learn to read by age 8, is there enough time for you to grasp all of high school math and computer science by age 14, like Manjul Bhargava? While I can imagine my hypothesis being true, that doesn't make it into an argument against later reading age. It just means that for a group of kids this might not the best decision. (And since most of us think of themselves as the "smart kids", maybe that's why a lot of us here are opposed to it.)

droithomme 12y ago

> Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages The author's father worked for the state department of education and his mother was a substitute teacher. What evidence do you have that they are rich as you claim? > I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse Child abuse is a serious accusation. Please state the evidence you have that there is child abuse and the steps you have taken to report your personal knowledge of the situation to the state authorities.

fred_durst 12y ago
I absolutely disagree that this type of "home schooling" should be legal. I do believe it is child abuse. These people should be treated just any parent that does not enroll their child in school. And I think they should have their kids placed in state custody and not even considered letting their children back in their care until they have had a full psychiatric evaluation. It's true that these parents are likely sick and need mental health treatment. Maybe I should have more sympathy for them, but I think about the poor kids and about how lucky I was to have parents who cared more about their children than some crazy ideology.
- learc83 12y ago
  >I think they should have their kids placed in state custody and not even considered letting their children back in their care until they have had a full psychiatric evaluation. I can almost guarantee that these kids will turn out better with their parents than if they are raised in state custody. Outcomes are far far worse for foster kids than for unschooled kids. Where do you draw the line. What about parents who don't pay attention to their kids, sit them in front of the tv and provide no education or emotional support other than putting them on the bus in the morning? These kids can read and write, there are many kids in public school who can't. There are way more kids living in bad school districts with uninvolved parents who spend less than the 2 hours a month studying that these kids do.
- konstruktor 12y ago
  I find absolutely no reason to believe those people have any sort of psychological problems. The guy writes eloquently and coherently. The arguments he makes are rational, albeit, in my opinion, not compelling. The question is: How much freedom do parents have to influence their children's upbringing. This is clearly a political issue, and seems to have been settled in the US in a way that gives parents a lot of choice. To label somebody who actually uses these liberties as mentally ill is absolutely disgusting.

barry-cotter 12y ago

>This thing is full of gems. I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse, but I just can't help it. I've met far too many of these clowns in my life. If you actually believe these children are being abused I'm sure that you can call CPS on their parents. If not, the only way you could make a "joke" in worse taste would be to imply paedophilia. >Nothing cooler than rich kids taking all their advantages they were given and use them to live like paupers with zero concern for the the world around them. "Everyone we know who unschools, in fact, has chosen autonomy over affluence. Hell, some years we’re barely above the poverty line." Doesn't sound like they're living like rich kids. Nor are they living like paupers. They own their farm and they're not even using as many public services as a normal family with two children would.

fred_durst 12y ago
> They own their farm > barely above the poverty line. Doesn't really add up. Any guesses on how much a farm in Vermont costs? It's not cheap. Big hunch the money for that farm came from someone else. Most likely an inheritance.
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  An asset is not necessarily liquid; also plenty have people have negative net worthy.

pyre 12y ago

> I shouldn't be so sarcastic about child abuse What does it say about you if you feel that this is child abuse, but do nothing? Also, by claiming that this is child abuse, you are grouping it with things like sexual and physical abuse. Are you sure that you are attempting to make such a strong statement?

hueving 12y ago
No, a fairer grouping would be with refusing to let your child attend a school, read books, or use the Internet.
fred_durst 12y ago
The other reply to this talking about depriving your child of an education etc, is exactly what I would say. And absolutely, yes I feel that this is definitely child abuse.
- pyre 12y ago
  Then, are the Amish 'abusing' their children? What about the Inuit[1]? [1] http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-policy/sixties-scoop.html http://indigenousfoundations.arts.ubc.ca/home/government-pol...

pdonis 12y ago

> with zero concern for the the world around them How do you figure that?

pikachu_is_cool 12y ago

Just fair warning, most of the people who are responding to you in disagreement have never actually met a un/homeschooled person / person's parents in real life. The reason why unschooling is so bad is entirely social. Homeschooled kids are crippled socially. It sounds good, feels good, etc. but once you actually see it with your own eyes it makes sense why this hasn't caught on.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
> It sounds good, feels good, etc. but once you actually see it with your own eyes it makes sense why this hasn't caught on. I doubt that. To me a more plausible and equally good explanation is that schools are primarily places where parents can drop their kids off for half of the day to be able to go to work. Homeschooling requires someone to stay at home and do the schooling, which is becoming less and less affordable for most of the people.
- pikachu_is_cool 12y ago
  Yeah.... no. I know people who were more than financially able to do this, and the kids still ended up messed up. To reiterate, if you actually haven't seen this first-hand, it's best to keep your mouth shut. Confirmation bias only makes this whole thing worse.
nekopa 12y ago
I've met plenty of homeschooled people/parents. What on earth do you mean by socially crippled? If anything, these people have been the most socially apt people I've met. Maybe that is because I value different social traits than you do.
JoeAltmaier 12y ago
If by 'socially crippled' you mean unscarred by bullies, unbored by mass indoctrination lectures, and untutored in vandalism and cheating, then sure.

Lalakh 12y ago

> I'm pretty sure that's closer to 4 or 5 for most kids who grow up in families from the Cornell / John Hopkins pedigree. If you met two 10 year olds, one learnt to read at age 4 the other at age 8- do you think you could tell the difference? Would it really matter? Actually more than likely it would- the one who learnt at age 8 is more likely to read for pleasure. An overly formal approach in the early years can be counter productive, and often damaging. Not to mention the fact that all the time spent at age 3-4 learning to read, is time missed doing the stuff they should be: learning social skills, problem solving, independence... See some of the vast amount of research on this by reading the section on reading for pleasure pages 16-19 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeduski/121/121.pdf http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/c...

ejstronge 12y ago
Thanks for linking to an article that at least mentions research - it's easy to go off of general feelings in conversations like this. I just want to point out, however, that pages 16-19 do not conclude that children who learn at 8 years old have a greater pleasure than children who learn at 4. The conclusion, which isn't a hard one to agree with, is that teachers should find ways to make reading more exciting.
- Lalakh 12y ago
  Agreed- just think it is worth pointing out that there is no proven advantage in teaching children to read early,that there can actually be some concerns with teaching reading at an early age, and that there are also no disadvantages to learning to read later. These are worth a read to: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029435.000-too-much-too-young-should-schooling-start-at-age-7.html#.U_C5H7w7Ybg http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029435.000-too-much-... http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago006408.html http://www.otago.ac.nz/news/news/otago006408.html

joelhooks 12y ago

I've got 4 kids, 16-7, none of which have ever been to school. The only thing we require them to do is read and learn. The subjects don't matter. The oldest likes philosophy and science. My 12 year old enjoys video production and 3d animation. My 9 year old really loves comic books and cooking. My 7 year old loves crafts and writing adventure stories. We unschooled when I was making $10/h. They all have big groups of friends, with an incredible level of diversity. They spend a lot of time with them, and enjoy unstructured, uninterrupted play. Beyond that, they all love organized sports, field trips, traveling when we want. The older children always have the option of going to school, and choose not to. With regards to learning to read. Our oldest was reading at 4, one read at 9, and the other two around 5/6. It doesn't matter. Your fear and ignorance is understandable. It's "radical", and certainly not for everybody. The suggestion of "child abuse" is silly, and totally unfounded. I've actually met many of these "clowns", and can attest from experience that you're not only wrong, but out of line. Experiencing life with our children is wonderful.