I totally agree that self-direction cannot co-exist with compulsion, and therefore there is no such thing as a self-directed school if attendance is compulsory - it’s contradictory. There’s a massive difference between giving kids a range of adult-approved choices, and giving them actual freedom to direct their own learning. On the other hand, when it comes to self-direction of unschooled kids, I think their freedom has to take into account everyone else’s too - and so in a way there are organic boundaries that we all come up against. We just aren’t always able to do what we want - I think that’s why I care about consent so much, it’s almost like a counterbalance to self-direction because it emphasises collaboration and mutuality. I appreciate you writing about this’
These are great questions to ask and reflect on. I see young parents who seem to think we just let children do anything at all and pretend not to be upset! I've seen kids walking on the dining room table and not doing age-appropriate self-help tasks (even a five-year-old can carry their dirty dishes to the sink). It's unschooling, not checking out of life. Learning choices should be made by the child - including attendance. But parents still need to teach their children how to help around the house, how to bathe without causing a flood, and things like that. As Fran said, every member of the house has needs and should be allowed to set reasonable boundaries. There does not need to be punishment, just teaching. Most children will understand when you start by respecting their boundaries.
I want to change education. I passionately believe that systemic education is not only broken but actively harms a society's ability to think critically: to judge evidence, evaluate and value knowledge sources, to appreciate and respect how we impact the world around us. And at the same time, I often wrestle with the thought: who am I to tell others what's best? Who am I to claim to be some authority and try to direct the how and why behind what people think?
I feel caught in a paradox. To enact change, someone must make decisions and set constraints, but the change you want is to give people the freedom and autonomy to make those decisions for themselves.
Can you truly be "self directed" in a coercive environment? Can you exist in an environment that isn't coercive at all? How do we balance and negotiate our spaces to build *with* each other rather than *on* each other and in spite of each other?
For me, a lot of this gets caught up in the difference between individual vs communal focuses; in equity; in need and support vs excess and hoarding. But I still can't see the boundaries closely, or reconcile the realities vs ideal.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one grappling with these things.
I have two different ways I want to respond to this, so I'm going to do it in two different comments. This first comment is focused on the words you're saying, and the second will be about the heart of your post- which deeply resonates with me no matter what words are used.
So- semantics:
There is a common distinction in the sciences among the "hard sciences" (biology, chemistry, physics, so on) and the "soft sciences" (generally the humanities). This distinction is often mistakenly interpreted as one is more rigorous or more valid than the other, which is simply untrue. The distinction really comes down to the "messiness" of sciences. The "hard sciences" can generally be conducted in isolated, highly controlled abstractions of reality; the "soft sciences" can't. To separate these sciences from lived experiences would invalidate them completely; they are the sciences of lived experiences.
A major part of lived experiences is language; languages that grow and change as much as the people using them. In the "hard sciences" you can set a precise definition and, generally, stick to it so that everyone using a word shared an exact common meaning. An inch is an inch, a gram a gram, etc. But the "soft sciences" don't have this luxury. We have words we use with some sense of shared understanding, but like the overlapping portion of a venn diagram that only represents a portion of all the context and meaning each person is bringing to each and every conversation. And this creates the tension you're calling out among the various meanings and uses of "self -directed."
This is where/why I'm dividing my comments. I can see, and argue, what you are saying but I can also see and argue how "self-directed" learning is an applicable term for its contemporary use. "Self -directed" does not inherently mean boundless; it simply implies a degree of learner autonomy within whatever systems and constraints may be in place.
The philosophical underpinnings here, are another mater (which I'll address in comment two soon as I can).
Self-Directed Education cannot co-exist with compulsion. I would say that compulsory schooling (or worse school attendance) is also not compatible with the right to education and that there needs to be a broad discussion in society to course correct. Most state imposed curricula are full of contradictions in my opinion that mostly revolving around exactly the issue you are pointing out in your article. #mylifemyeducation #fhree
I totally agree that self-direction cannot co-exist with compulsion, and therefore there is no such thing as a self-directed school if attendance is compulsory - it’s contradictory. There’s a massive difference between giving kids a range of adult-approved choices, and giving them actual freedom to direct their own learning. On the other hand, when it comes to self-direction of unschooled kids, I think their freedom has to take into account everyone else’s too - and so in a way there are organic boundaries that we all come up against. We just aren’t always able to do what we want - I think that’s why I care about consent so much, it’s almost like a counterbalance to self-direction because it emphasises collaboration and mutuality. I appreciate you writing about this’
Always appreciate your insights! And certainly agree--compulsion and self-direction are at odds. "benign jailers are still jailers."
These are great questions to ask and reflect on. I see young parents who seem to think we just let children do anything at all and pretend not to be upset! I've seen kids walking on the dining room table and not doing age-appropriate self-help tasks (even a five-year-old can carry their dirty dishes to the sink). It's unschooling, not checking out of life. Learning choices should be made by the child - including attendance. But parents still need to teach their children how to help around the house, how to bathe without causing a flood, and things like that. As Fran said, every member of the house has needs and should be allowed to set reasonable boundaries. There does not need to be punishment, just teaching. Most children will understand when you start by respecting their boundaries.
Good questions, Wendy.
Comment two: the philosophical heart of it.
I want to change education. I passionately believe that systemic education is not only broken but actively harms a society's ability to think critically: to judge evidence, evaluate and value knowledge sources, to appreciate and respect how we impact the world around us. And at the same time, I often wrestle with the thought: who am I to tell others what's best? Who am I to claim to be some authority and try to direct the how and why behind what people think?
I feel caught in a paradox. To enact change, someone must make decisions and set constraints, but the change you want is to give people the freedom and autonomy to make those decisions for themselves.
Can you truly be "self directed" in a coercive environment? Can you exist in an environment that isn't coercive at all? How do we balance and negotiate our spaces to build *with* each other rather than *on* each other and in spite of each other?
For me, a lot of this gets caught up in the difference between individual vs communal focuses; in equity; in need and support vs excess and hoarding. But I still can't see the boundaries closely, or reconcile the realities vs ideal.
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one grappling with these things.
I have two different ways I want to respond to this, so I'm going to do it in two different comments. This first comment is focused on the words you're saying, and the second will be about the heart of your post- which deeply resonates with me no matter what words are used.
So- semantics:
There is a common distinction in the sciences among the "hard sciences" (biology, chemistry, physics, so on) and the "soft sciences" (generally the humanities). This distinction is often mistakenly interpreted as one is more rigorous or more valid than the other, which is simply untrue. The distinction really comes down to the "messiness" of sciences. The "hard sciences" can generally be conducted in isolated, highly controlled abstractions of reality; the "soft sciences" can't. To separate these sciences from lived experiences would invalidate them completely; they are the sciences of lived experiences.
A major part of lived experiences is language; languages that grow and change as much as the people using them. In the "hard sciences" you can set a precise definition and, generally, stick to it so that everyone using a word shared an exact common meaning. An inch is an inch, a gram a gram, etc. But the "soft sciences" don't have this luxury. We have words we use with some sense of shared understanding, but like the overlapping portion of a venn diagram that only represents a portion of all the context and meaning each person is bringing to each and every conversation. And this creates the tension you're calling out among the various meanings and uses of "self -directed."
This is where/why I'm dividing my comments. I can see, and argue, what you are saying but I can also see and argue how "self-directed" learning is an applicable term for its contemporary use. "Self -directed" does not inherently mean boundless; it simply implies a degree of learner autonomy within whatever systems and constraints may be in place.
The philosophical underpinnings here, are another mater (which I'll address in comment two soon as I can).
Self-Directed Education cannot co-exist with compulsion. I would say that compulsory schooling (or worse school attendance) is also not compatible with the right to education and that there needs to be a broad discussion in society to course correct. Most state imposed curricula are full of contradictions in my opinion that mostly revolving around exactly the issue you are pointing out in your article. #mylifemyeducation #fhree