Bio not provided
You posit this theory, based on what data? Many unschooled students have degrees in literature. I can't speak for these young men in particular, but can say generally that unschooling allows time for voracious reading and writing, if the child desires. I have read writing samples by preteens, which would withstand scrutiny at the high-school level.
7 months, 2 weeks ago on Conversation @ http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/nature/Unschooling-The-Case-for-Setting-Your-Kids-Into-the-Wild.html
Jason, anyone can tell you that "full of shit" is not a rational argument. I am beginning to doubt if your socialization rises to the level of kindergarten.
Some things require books, but unschooling does not preclude books. You assume too much, probably because your mind is focused on one unfortunate word. May I suggest borrowing a phrase from Connor Boyack: passion-directed learning. Or call it "natural learning." I too love math, and spent many hours in classrooms and curled up with math texts. When did I learn best? When my passion was engaged. Passion is a turbocharger for learning.
I have a grandson, 2nd generation home/unschooler. At the age of 6, a time when he had very little "formal" instruction, but lots of informal conversations, he already knew about binary arithmetic, powers, roots, and pretty much all of K-12 arithmetic.
He - aged 6 - and I had a brief conversation about adding the numbers 1-100 by arranging them as 50 pairs which summed to 101. He intuited the idea with only a few hints. I then asked him for the sum of the even numbers, 2-100. He gave me the correct answer in seconds, relying solely on mental computation.
Most graduates of schools are not even close to this level of breadth and proficiency in math. He'll be starting college shortly, in his early teens, and will probably have little trouble adapting, because he'll be following his passions.
Ben, you may be interested in a recent four-article series by Peter Gray, specifically about unschoolers.
To those who believe that math requires hundreds of hours of tedious instruction and practice: you're doing it wrong. Brief, fun conversations can convey the important ideas in much less time than most people can even imagine.
@thelucklessgoat @StephenKahn That's a nice theory, but it collides with the reality of Sudbury students actually learning the building blocks and actually going on to college and university and actually doing quite well, as well as doing well at their jobs. It also collides with the reality of many kids going to the "traditional" rote-based schools and graduating with all the mathematical dexterity of a turnip.
1 year, 2 months ago on Conversation @ http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116015/sudbury-valley-school-alternative-education-right-my-kids
Studies show that many students from existing schools do not know much about Martin Luther King, or anything else which we consider to be the "standard" set of political, economic, or historical knowledge. It seems unfair to select a sample of one and ask him to represent the entire student body. It may be that other folks at Sudbury are passionate about civil rights, history, and so forth.
You may find this relevant: partisanship selectively switches off one's math abilities whenever they would contradict one's political beliefs. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/new-study-politics-makes-you-innumerate
1 year, 6 months ago on Partisanship Makes You Stupid
This is good news re: nullification, and it also strongly suggests that people are no longer turning to the "mainstream" for their news and views.
1 year, 10 months ago on Rasmussen Poll: Nullification Goes Mainstream
I would turn this argument around. If Adam and Barry next door are married, odds are that they'll be more protective of their relationship, and your husband won't be sneaking next door.
2 years ago on Steve King: To understand why govt is involved in marriage is to understand why it cannot validate SSM
Suppose Ron Paul won the nomination and were elected; this would not be the only change, by a long shot. There are already many fans of Dr. Ron Paul and his ideas who are seeking nominations for Congress; it is reasonable to believe that they also would be elected. The composition of Congress would be changed somewhat. In 4 or 8 years of office, President Paul would demand from Congress some of the "big ideas" which he has been promoting for years - bringing our soldiers home (which he can do unilaterally), reducing the budget by $1 trillion immediately, shuttering several departments, competitive currencies, and so forth. He'd get pushback from Congress, but Congress would get pushback from those who elected Dr. Ron Paul; surely some of these ideas would be implemented. Contrast this with a Paul Ryan or Mitt Romney, candidates who propose nothing more radical than slight reductions in the rate of growth of the federal budget. You can see why supporters of Dr. Ron Paul are not getting excited by the dismal alternatives.
2 years, 11 months ago on Libertarian Button Pushers and Political Compromise