Structured curriculum vs. child-directed learning

[mommyrex]

After posting this on the skepchick forums, I realized JREF has an Education forum, and I'd probably get a different set of opinions ...

There is a very strong bias in our society toward educating children with a structured curriculum, including specific and distinct subject areas, and careful progression through each in parallel as the child grows from about 5 yeras old to about 17. I'd like to evaluate this bias as a skeptic.

There is a separate bias about the goodness of having a child's education take place in an institution, but this thread is not meant for discussion of public vs. private vs. homeschooling. Child-led learning can take place in an institution (such as a Sudbury School) or in a family-centered learning environment. Ditto structured curriculum learning. If it's possible, I want to ignore the question of "where and by whom should kids be taught?", and focus on "how should the material be presented to children, as a structured curriculum, as it comes in day-to-day living, by some combination of the two, or soem other way?" I want to talk method, not venue.

Here's my attempt at opening questions:

(a) Why do we think it is important for kids to follow a structured curriculum, with expected achievements/mastery tied to their age?

(b) Is it equally valid to approach childhood learning the way we approach adult learning ... as requiring self-motivation and resourcefulness? (Please don't read this to mean "without the help of grown-ups" - primarily resourcefulness is asking questions of someone who is likely to help find answers.)

(c) Have we as parents articulated our goals for our children's education, and if so, do our articulated goals fit the method of education we have chosen for them?

And my attempt at short answers, from my perspective:

(a) Because it's what we're used to, and it's what professional educators promote. The reasons underlying that, I think, get too much into the "why public schools are the way they are" issue. But the comfort of deeply ingrained habit means we're not motivated to question "systems" of learning. And while it's often necessary (and wise) to defer to the experts in any field, I'm not sure that mainstream educational experts have questioned their basic premises in a meaningful way.

(b) I have found no evidence that unschooling is a less valid approach to childhood learning, although I suspect it yields different (not necessarily better/worse) results. Which brings me quite abruptly to

(c) Articulating my goals for my children's education is what really convinced me to try unschooling (organic learning, intellectual independence, whatever other labels are out there -- I'm sure what I do doesn't quite fit everyone's definition of anything).
"To get into college", "To get a good job", and "To be able to perform as well as peers when challenged with academic questions" weren't satisfying me as educational goals. I want my children to be happy, and to have confidence that they can pursue whatever knowledge/lifestyle/career they want, and that they, always, are the ones who will define and create themselves. After articulating these goals, I realized that I had no basis for accepting that a structured currilculum would be the best way of getting there.

So, my family is proceeding with organic learning. And I'm totally okay with hearing challenges to that concept ... I won't conform for conformity's sake, but I am interested in new information. Anyone else want to share your thoughts?

Thanks!
mommyrex

 

[Almo]

I have a little experience with non-traditional learning. I studied physics in college, and got a Master's degree. When I started applying for programming jobs in the game industry, I had been programming for 15 years in my spare time. I had even published 4 shareware games on my own. But company after company wanted to know why I thought I was qualified to be a programmer without a computer science degree.

I found a company willing to hire on ability rather than credentials. One of our programmers there was a bricklayer before getting the job there. We did good work there. Later, when I was looking for another job, I went through 20 interviews, and many of them thought it was strange that I wanted to program even though my degree was in physics. I'm now at Ubisoft in Montréal, where they didn't mind my lack of credentials either.

The simple fact is that many companies won't know how to ascertain a student's accomplishments if they aren't measured in the same was as they are accustomed to. This argument is purely a pragmatic one, and says nothing of the quality of instruction afforded by the two methods.

Having said that, I lean toward structured learning myself. I frankly don't see how "organic" learning can teach drier subjects like grammar and mathematics. When structured teaching is done properly, the students learn basic skills, and how to learn. Then they are able to pursue their own interests rigorously as they grow older.

Having said THAT, I also think there is room for making learning more interesting, and that children have a natural curiosity that should be catered to. I just think it would do them a disservice to leave out some of the basic skill training as well. "Whole Language" teaching is an example of this. <anecdotal evidence> I have yet to meet someone taught with Whole Language who can spell decently. </anecdotal evidence> Apologies in advance to anyone here on the forum taught with WL who CAN spell.

 

[Kiwiwriter]

Standardized testing...I don't like it

I dislike standardized testing because the teaches teach for the test, not for the child. It's all about passing a test and jumping through a hoop, not learning and digesting material or becoming a better person.

And they turn education and evaluation of students into exercises in lazy number-crunching. The teacher glances at a set of numbers, and decrees that the student's only future is auto repair. Why? Because the overall numbers are low, so a kid with a lousy overall high school average has no chance of getting into a college of any sort.

That was my fate according to standardized tests. I had the lowest math grades in the history of my school, Stuyvesant H.S., producer of four Nobel Laureates, for a student who was not on drugs. The head of the Math Department tried to transfer me to Automotive High School. My chemistry teacher said I was the stupidest person in class. None of these teachers thought I was capable of anything, because of my numbers. I was worthless to them, so I became worthless to myself.

None of them saw my ability as a writer and historian, and none of them cared. They just went back to the test scores.

Getting me started on this subject is probably a mistake, because of my visceral feelings, but another thing I learned in school was that I was required to answer ALL questions by "Pencils Down," or marks would be put on my PERMANENT RECORD CARD, and I am still programmed. All questions will be answered by "pencils down." So I did.

 

[mommyrex]

Thanks, Almo, for the relevant experiences and considered opinions.

Having said that, I lean toward structured learning myself. I frankly don't see how "organic" learning can teach drier subjects like grammar and mathematics. When structured teaching is done properly, the students learn basic skills, and how to learn. Then they are able to pursue their own interests rigorously as they grow older.

Yeah, the drier subjects are the ones that give me grief ... although grammar I teach with corrections and explanations in everyday talking (as my parents taught me), and math so far has come up quite often as well. I'm sure we'll use structured math programs later on ... but hopefully it will be because they're interested in having that under their belt, rather than my saying "It must be."

Having said THAT, I also think there is room for making learning more interesting, and that children have a natural curiosity that should be catered to. I just think it would do them a disservice to leave out some of the basic skill training as well. "Whole Language" teaching is an example of this. <anecdotal evidence> I have yet to meet someone taught with Whole Language who can spell decently. </anecdotal evidence> Apologies in advance to anyone here on the forum taught with WL who CAN spell.

AGREED about WL vs. phonics. I do try to teach skills, so I'm not a very pure unschooler. But I can't see directing them to drill and do set lessons if they'd rather be doing something else "educational".

Thanks again for your insights ... the "credentials as prerequisites" is an important thing for self-taught folks to understand and be willing to face.

mommyrex

 

[Almo]

Yeah, standardized testing has some serious problems. I note that the GRE exam insists that setting a minimum score for admission is stupid, but colleges still do it anyway.

 

[roger]

I really think it probably comes down to the student. I'll use Almo's post as an illustration:

Having said that, I lean toward structured learning myself. I frankly don't see how "organic" learning can teach drier subjects like grammar and mathematics. When structured teaching is done properly, the students learn basic skills, and how to learn. Then they are able to pursue their own interests rigorously as they grow older.

See, I'm the opposite. I self taught myself calculus, for example, along with vast swarths of philosophy (kant, hume, etc), electronics and circuit design, boolean algebra, assembly coding, microcode, relativity etc in high school. With the math I had some help with my math teachers, but nobody knew what I was on about with the philosophy and the rest. I adored math. It was anything but dry to me. I petered out intellectually in the QM area, but I think that was because our local (rural) bookstores didn't have any good books on the subject, and I ended up reading and getting confused with dreck like the Dancing WuLi Masters.

I also tried self learning in other areas, such as music. There I'm much more limited. My family had limited funds and couldn't afford lessons for long, and my musicality suffered for it, though I strove on on my own. I play decent classical guitar, which I've had structured lessons for (as an adult) but my self taught piano is a travesty.

However, in general I think I would have done extremely well in an unschooled environment, since that was how I learned anyway. Only a small part of my education was due to my schooling. Probably the most significant was writing - I'd probably not have ever pursued that on my own (though I have later in life), and would have required more structured learning for that.

So I'd urge not trying to make a predefined decision if you have the luxury not to, and just see how the student does. It's useful, and fun to have a wide variety of knowledge and skills, so apply structured learning if some topic is getting ignored.

 

[Almo]

I really think it probably comes down to the student. I'll use Almo's post as an illustration:

See, I'm the opposite. I self taught myself calculus, for example, along with vast swarths of philosophy (kant, hume, etc), electronics and circuit design, boolean algebra, assembly coding, microcode, relativity etc in high school. With the math I had some help with my math teachers, but nobody knew what I was on about with the philosophy and the rest. I adored math. It was anything but dry to me.

Roger makes some good points. The one thing that worries me is that math is something people NEED. So if a student doesn't have Roger's love of math, that doesn't mean they can ignore it; the same goes for grammar.

But, as Roger said, you can monitor a student for what type of learning they will be best with in different subjects.

 

[roger]

Roger makes some good points. The one thing that worries me is that math is something people NEED. So if a student doesn't have Roger's love of math, that doesn't mean they can ignore it; the same goes for grammar.

Yes, that bothered me about mommyrex's response. You really do need to do some stuff in life that doesn't make you happy, and one isn't always able to judge, when you are young, what skills you need to learn when you are an adult.

A friend hired a teenager that was homeschooled to help her in her (retail) business. The teenager was entirely incapable of even making change because she had difficulty with math, as did her mother, and so it was never taught to her. So my friend took the time to drill her in math and after some time the teenager was able to make change, balance a checkbook, etc. But the teen wanted to go to college, I believe for art, but was having trouble getting accepted because her SATs were abysmal in the math. Not bad, terrible. It'd be a shame not to be able to art school, or whatever your teen/adult desire is, because something was skipped during home schooling.

 

[mommyrex]

On the math:

Yes, that bothered me about mommyrex's response. You really do need to do some stuff in life that doesn't make you happy, and one isn't always able to judge, when you are young, what skills you need to learn when you are an adult.

Or, as my brother puts it, "kids, like adults, are very poor predictors of their future selves." I see the point that we may miss the opportunity to get some building blocks or brain-wiring in during the "sweet spot" of learning that is youth (if such think actually exists). I don't want to do that, and I tend to introduce subjects that I think are "necessary" -- I'm not as committed to an ideal of unschooling as I am to having kids that are well-prepared for building their own happiness (which is a big unknown, hence the need for "basics" in education).

To add to the specific concern about math, it seems from my reading that unschoolers are more likely to be behind in math than in other subjects. So that is certainly something for unschoolers to consider. I agree that we need math in everyday life. And that's the kind of math that easily fits into the unschooling ... making purchases, balancing a checkbook, counting, measuring, etc.

So far, my kids seem to have enough interest in math (and we have enough interest in cultivating that), that their skills are at least age-appropriate, by the general standards. And while I've read of many unschoolers having to squelch their concern about late readers, only to find the kids catch up just fine when they're ready, I REALLY want my kids to read as early as possible. Reading was my favorite way of learning new things, and the sense of teaching myself through reading is still empowering.

Good thoughts and concerns ... keep 'em coming!

 

[69dodge]

[...] I want to [...] focus on "how should the material be presented to children, as a structured curriculum, as it comes in day-to-day living, by some combination of the two, or some other way?"

Besides the question of how the material should be presented, there is also the question of what material should be presented.

Almost certainly, kids will learn better if they're learning stuff that they're interested in, when they're interested in it. But there might be some stuff they aren't interested in that's important for them to learn anyway. And there surely will be lots of stuff that they don't even know exists for them to be interested in.

That's pretty general, I guess. But I don't really know anything about what you're currently doing. (Not that I'd necessarily have anything useful to say, even if I did . . . )

 

[EricGu]

I should probably note that I have educators in the family, and that my wife is a science teacher (well, currently back getting her PhD).

I think that there are bad facets of the structured approach. I know I wasted some time in classes, though I will note that the multi-disciplinary approach in my daughter's public school has few problems.

Having said that, I think the biggest problem I have with your post is where you say, "I want my children to be happy". Children are happy when they're doing what they want to do. But not only do they need to know things that they may not enjoy - or be particularly good at - they need to have experience doing things that they don't want to do. No matter what job you end up with, to be successful, you're going to have to do things that you don't want to. That's part of life, and I don't think you do children any favors delaying this lesson.

I also think that kids learn a lot being in a diverse environment. Different kids with different aptitudes, different teachers. Some of them are like you, some of them aren't, some you connect with, some you don't. Dealing with lots of different people is an important skill to have

Finally, how much of an expert are you in different education approaches and how well they work in different situations? Have you read the books that teachers would read to understand the theory that they advocate? What about the educational research done into this area?

To make a informed decision in this area, you'll have to do the homework, and it will probably take a considerable amount of effort.

Or, to put it another way, what makes you think that your opinion is as well informed as that of researchers in education?

 

[fuelair]

1) please do not assume that teachers look at a set of numbers and make decisions about the student - data gives us hints but we aren't idiots (well, many of us anyway).
2)please don't assume either a) we love standardiized tests because they give us useful data (some do, some don't, some make - or, more precisely - the people who produce them make - the assumption they do and in some cases, they do not really care.or b) we hate them because they show we are not successful (not the way they are done and used they don't -I won't bore you with the ,very, long details).

and ,as we are often told in meetings, "the parents are sending us the best child they have and it's our job to take them where they are". (We are saying ,mentally, right - so, you give me a parents best child so I can teach him/her chemistry - he/she is a low level 2 reader (reads ca. 4th grade level and likely cannot read for learning ) and failed Algebra - yeah, sure, I can teach him chemistry - but he WILL fail the state test because he doesn't have the background necessary to learn chemistry beyond kitchen chem level.

That last does NOT make the kid bad or stupid - I can't do anything beyond basic calculus (though, at least, I have the background to do it if I wanted/needed to)- and there are at least eight or nine different ways to be intelligent (Gardner) - but that doesn't change the facts. Anyway.....

Both methods have their place, the intelligent teacher uses the most appropriate for the task at hand.

Edit: added a comma - it's very late.

 

[mommyrex]

... I think the biggest problem I have with your post is where you say, "I want my children to be happy". Children are happy when they're doing what they want to do. But not only do they need to know things that they may not enjoy - or be particularly good at - they need to have experience doing things that they don't want to do. No matter what job you end up with, to be successful, you're going to have to do things that you don't want to. That's part of life, and I don't think you do children any favors delaying this lesson.

To clarify, "I want my children to be happy" in life in general, not in every second of every day at the expense of personal growth. But I still want to address your concern:

"[D]elaying this lesson" implies a normal or natural time to learn it. Do you really think most kids learn that lesson from structured schooling, so beginning at age 5 or so? I would argue that this lesson is not confined to education, so kids will learn it (probably before being school-age), and have years of reinforcement of it outside of their schooling, unless they happen to have a personal slave (or a parent who acts as such).

There are natural and logical rewards beyond current enjoyment that humans, being strategic, can use as motivation in less interesting tasks. School-age kids can recognize the value of work toward a delayed gratification (e.g., gaining the algebra skills in order to start chemistry). The key is identifying those rewards, which the teacher/mentor can help with.

I also think that kids learn a lot being in a diverse environment. Different kids with different aptitudes, different teachers. Some of them are like you, some of them aren't, some you connect with, some you don't. Dealing with lots of different people is an important skill to have

I agree. School is a *single* diverse environment. There are many others. And other qualities of environments matter, too. But we're not supposed to be discussing the venue.

Finally, how much of an expert are you in different education approaches and how well they work in different situations? Have you read the books that teachers would read to understand the theory that they advocate? What about the educational research done into this area?

I have not been able to find much research on unstructured learning, unschooling, not following a curriculum, etc. [1] Which has led me to an opinion (formed, admittedly, by an absence of evidence) that researchers of education focus primarily on variations of curricular learning, and do not tend to question the premise that educating requires and externally-defined curriculum. They have good reason for being so focused -- the vast majority of children are educated in schools, and a curriculum is integral to the functioning of a traditional school -- it informs the authority of the instructors, dsitinguishes the grade levels (which puts the kids in manageable and objectively defined groups), and defines the standard of success.

I would love to find some evidence, beyond conventional wisdom, that showed curricular schooling to be better at educating children than well-supported organic learning, all other major variables being similar, and with various values surveyed for the other major variables (e.g., I'm not interested in !Kung San vs. New York Public Schools, but I'd like to see both aproaches evaluated with various numbers and ages of children, and in various settings). I'm guessing this evidence is not easy to find, and even if we find it, there is the whole question of "Educating" and what that means, what the goal of education is assumed to be in this evaluation. [2]

To make a informed decision in this area, you'll have to do the homework, and it will probably take a considerable amount of effort.

Or, to put it another way, what makes you think that your opinion is as well informed as that of researchers in education?

Ouch. I didn't say my opinion is as well informed as anyone else's. I do think I have a duty to my kids to question conventional wisdom when it bears so immediately on their lives.

Again, I'm attempting to do my homework, but I don't find many sources that consider both sides of the curricular/child-led coin from an academic perspective. What is the equivalent of a peer-reviewed scientific journal for education, and would child-led learning be marginalized as falling outside the definition of education (as ID is rightly marginalized by the scientific community)? Yes, I have more homework to do on this ... my life is homework.

To sum up: The knowledge of the mainstream "experts" that I have encountered seems to be confined within the structured curriculum paradigm I am questioning. I do not believe they have the mandate or the motivation to explore outside of it. I am absolutely willing to be convinced otherwise. There seems to be a lack of data for comparison, and a lack of agreement as to measurements of success.

Thank you *loads* for a thoughtful post, which is giving me so much to think about. Even if it seems like I've "responded to" (or ignored) everyone's ideas, I'm putting them all in the mix. I really appreciate the opportunity to tap your brains.

-mommyrex

[1] Okay, I found ONE. A 2003 Candian homeschooling survey that had ONE finding relevant here, and it was favorable to unschooling:

* for elementary students the unschooling approach gives some indication of resulting in higher reading and math scores than traditional textbook approach to education

Comforting, but not compelling. (I'm not allowed to post working links, but the quote is from kenweb.info/canadian_home_school_study.htm)

[2] What do we intend when we educate? If the primary goal is to meet curricular standards, then that's a bit too circular for me. If the primary goal is to be prepared for the most challenging or lucrative career within a student's potential, and assuming you could measure those outcomes, I could appreciate that goal, but I wouldn't be comfortable imposing it on my kid. If the primary goal is to give a child the tools to grow into a happy, healthy adult who can support herself and any dependents (social concerns), and have the confidence that comes with choosing her own lifestyle (personal concerns), then I'm on board 100%. Can we measure that? Eek.

 

[BPScooter]

While I'm not sure it has anything particularly related to unschooling, try this Informal Education page from the UK: www.infed.org It has a lot of links to articles that seem pretty well-referenced. Even if it doesn't give you exactly what you're looking for, I suspect you will find it interesting.

I was also messing around the other day and found some things about Summerhill, a "free school" type of thing in England and found some interesting stuff about its founder.

 

[mommyrex]

Thanks, BPScooter. You're right that I find it interesting, and I'll have to poke around there a bit. It looks like it addresses a very broad community and society scope -- much broader than what I've been looking at so far.

I've read good and bad about the founder of Summerhill, but I didn't do any real biographical searching. I tend to quickly separate the concept from the personality, and go after the concept. Sudbury in Massachusetts is the U.S. model of this kind of education, complete with Summerhill's emphasis on democracy and responsibility. Actually, a friend's reference to Fairhaven (a Sudbury school in Maryland) is what got me on this kick about traditional curriculum and natural learning.

Thanks again!

 

[Diamond]

My almost 3-year-old girl is about to go to pre-school, where child-centered learning is MANDATORY in the UK for all pre-schools. I'm personally concerned about this. I believe that children are subject to tremendous peer-pressure at that age and if one child with ADHD acts up, the rest will follow and no learning is done.

 

[mommyrex]

My almost 3-year-old girl is about to go to pre-school, where child-centered learning is MANDATORY in the UK for all pre-schools. I'm personally concerned about this. I believe that children are subject to tremendous peer-pressure at that age and if one child with ADHD acts up, the rest will follow and no learning is done.

The reality of being human, and particularly being young humans, is that we copy what we see, trying to learn, trying to conform, trying to convince the others that we are of their tribe. A roomful of 3-year-olds will band together, either buying into the system the teacher-authority sets up, or defying it. Everyone won't always go along with the worst or best behavior, but you can bet they will influence each other, and coalesce toward a group attitude (not in a permanent sense -- at that age, twenty minutes is an age). Why do you think a structured curriculum would improve the problem you anticipate?

 

[Magyar]

a great book on the subject, though I don't know how dated at this point not being in the field, is "summerhill" by A S Neil.

 

[Hindmost]

The idea of a structured curriculum seems limiting, but it does have its benefits. The best evidence in education indicates a structured curriculum from early in education through grade 12 will yield the best results. If national standards (US standards) in all subject areas are reflected in the curriculum that students see on a daily basis, students will receive the education needed to do the best on college entrance exams, Advanced Placement (AP) exams, etc. Without structured curriculum, teaching can become redundant and disordered. Schools that have carefully reviewed their curriculum have found the exact same topics were being taught three years in a row in grade school. Or five out of five teachers have assigned poster projects to their students. A structured curriculum can eliminate these types of problems.

There are always issues with standardized tests, however, success depends on these tests to a certain extent. Although I disagree with the content of many of the tests given from grade school through high school, here in the US, the SATs (used for college entrance) coupled with some AP tests will determine a student’s college career. If you don’t teach to those tests and have a curriculum that focuses on those tests, the students won’t be prepared.

Of course, having teachers that can make the curriculum interesting, that's another story.

glenn

 

[athon]

(a) Why do we think it is important for kids to follow a structured curriculum, with expected achievements/mastery tied to their age?

There are several reasons.

Firstly, education has the primary aim of creating competent future citizens who can contribute to, if not advance, their community's needs. A strucutured program should - ideally - take these needs into account and create as system that reflects this. A range of curricula and teaching methods cover this with the added pressure of doing it within a time frame that provides maximum contribution from the citizen.

It is also structured with funding and resources in mind. In a perfect world, we would have small class sizes with maximum resources (including teachers) who are all enthusiastic educators. For some reason, teaching is the one profession where professionals are expected to be above average with only average incentives to encourage people to select it as a career. Therefore, a structured system is the most efficient way for a society to use limited resources.

(b) Is it equally valid to approach childhood learning the way we approach adult learning ... as requiring self-motivation and resourcefulness? (Please don't read this to mean "without the help of grown-ups" - primarily resourcefulness is asking questions of someone who is likely to help find answers.)

If children are taught the skills early on, then certainly. However, not all adults learn this way either. People will adopt skills they see at the time to be necessary for improving their life. Children are no different. Helping people to associate those skills with a reward is how all people learn. Self-discipline can be translated as a means people have to recognize the nature of a reward themselves and strive to achieve it.

Nobody can learn through somebody else; all knowledge is constructed by the individual. How another demonstrates the knowledge assists how and why somebody should learn.

(c) Have we as parents articulated our goals for our children's education, and if so, do our articulated goals fit the method of education we have chosen for them?

I'm not sure what you mean by this question. Parents are a diverse range of people, and have many opinions between them. Most simply want their children to fit in and be happy in whatever community they live in. Most parents see this as being achieved as they themselves achieved it, simply because that's all they experience of.

(a) Because it's what we're used to, and it's what professional educators promote. The reasons underlying that, I think, get too much into the "why public schools are the way they are" issue. But the comfort of deeply ingrained habit means we're not motivated to question "systems" of learning. And while it's often necessary (and wise) to defer to the experts in any field, I'm not sure that mainstream educational experts have questioned their basic premises in a meaningful way.

Education systems are slow to evolve simply because it is an expensive thing to change, both in financial cost and in potential risk. We've seen failures in the implentation of numerous changes in the past which have had massive impacts on how people learn later in the lives. Getting it right depends on who you ask, and unfortunately pedagogy is a relatively young field of study.

Change does need to take place, yet it cannot be done as trial-and-error. Good schemes often rely on good resources and good teachers, neither of which is a guarentee. It also requires large amounts of training, either through professional development or university training, again making it slow.

Education over the world has changed in the past decades, and typically manages to keep up with social change.

(b) I have found no evidence that unschooling is a less valid approach to childhood learning, although I suspect it yields different (not necessarily better/worse) results. Which brings me quite abruptly to

Sorry. What's unschooling?

(c) Articulating my goals for my children's education is what really convinced me to try unschooling (organic learning, intellectual independence, whatever other labels are out there -- I'm sure what I do doesn't quite fit everyone's definition of anything).
"To get into college", "To get a good job", and "To be able to perform as well as peers when challenged with academic questions" weren't satisfying me as educational goals. I want my children to be happy, and to have confidence that they can pursue whatever knowledge/lifestyle/career they want, and that they, always, are the ones who will define and create themselves. After articulating these goals, I realized that I had no basis for accepting that a structured currilculum would be the best way of getting there.

I'm concerned that you make a distinction between pursuing life choices such as college, job and academia and being happy. Like it or not, your children will need to function in a social setting. Structure schools reflect this in many ways, most of which are not evaluated (called the 'hidden curriculum). I'm the first person to say that there are areas within that need addressing, and have problems with a non-transparent coded grading structure and forms of assessment. However this is not to attack structured education in any means.

So, my family is proceeding with organic learning. And I'm totally okay with hearing challenges to that concept ... I won't conform for conformity's sake, but I am interested in new information. Anyone else want to share your thoughts?

It depends on how you go about it. 'Organic' learning sounds rather vague and, from what I've seen here, seems to imply that structured learning does not reflect the life future citizens are being educated for.

Ideally, education should be resourced to effectively promote self-motivated learning. Good, well funded schools will on average accomplish this. Differentiating structure from effective learning is where I have a problem.

Athon