There is no doubt about it. Unschooling is staking out territory in the homeschooling landscape. Homeschool magazines feature articles on unschooling, and a Google search will yield plenty of reading material on the subject. In light of this development, it is worth asking, “Where does unschooling fit in the future of Christian home education?”

A colleague recently drew my attention to the current unschooling buzz when he showed me Nancy Carter’s article, “Unschooling—Education Outside the Box” in the Spring 2006 issue of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine (p. 80). I had long been aware that most homeschoolers are independent, i.e., not enrolled in structured programs, but I was unaware of the growth of unschooling as a distinct style. As an education major 30 years ago I had read about John Holt, who is credited with coining the term unschooling, but I hadn’t noticed that his influence was re-emerging in the current unschooling movement.

For those unfamiliar with unschooling, I refer you to Mrs. Carter’s article (noted above) for an introduction, but I will attempt to define it briefly here as well. Unschooling encompasses several approaches to educating a child that abandon, to varying degrees, the structures, schedules, and methods of traditional schools. Unschoolers regard the trappings of traditional schools as unnatural and unnecessary—virtual roadblocks to successful learning. From this perspective, unschooling is defined by what it is not rather than by what it is.

Positively defined, unschooling sees the home and the normal activities of the family—social, economic, religious, or whatever—as the proper environment for learning. No schoolroom need be added.

Unschooling strategies cover the spectrum from models that are barely distinguishable from traditional homeschooling to radically progressive models. You could call it unschooling when parents permit older and more independent students a fair amount of latitude in their schedule, study environment, and even in their pursuits. A moderate form, called relaxed homeschooling, simply eases up on the accelerator with regard to pace and style rather than dumping traditional methods entirely. The flow of subjects and schedule is fairly fluid, and assessment is not always a paper- and-pencil affair. The teacher, however, continues to guide and shape the educational endeavor. Another moderate form of unschooling called natural learning draws daily lessons organically from normal family and business life, not from a school re-created in the home. The most radical models of unschooling incorporate the related concepts of child-centered and delight-directed learning. Traditional teacher-directed methods give way, to varying degrees, to the pupil determining the pedagogy. Children, even younger ones, are virtually given charge of envisioning, directing, and pursuing their own academic career, moving from one topic or activity to another while the parent tries to keep up—or just keep out of the way.

My purpose in writing this article is to briefly look at what is behind unschooling, particularly the educational philosophies underlying it. Unschooling does not exist in a spiritual or philosophical vacuum, and Christians should be aware of the implications for their children lest they unwittingly base their unschooling on non-Christian or even anti-Christian principles.

At this point, some of you unschoolers may have just put up your guard. Let me assure you that I do not intend to attack unschooling as a broad concept. Unschooling is too diverse to deserve either unreserved endorsement or blanket condemnation. Readers of The Old Schoolhouse would agree that homeschooling is generally a good thing, and unschooling, broadly defined, shares several principles with homeschooling.

Christian families are doing the vast majority of homeschooling in this country, and many of them will tell you they are doing so in order to comply with what they understand to be a biblical mandate concerning the education of children. No doubt some of those Christian families would describe themselves as unschoolers. Hopefully they understand the term unschooling simply to describe a more organic, natural approach to learning that has trimmed away the harmful, restrictive, and unproductive features of traditional schools. This type of unschooling can be very effective and consistent with the goals of Christian homeschoolers. There is another kind of unschooling, however, that is based on a humanistic educational philosophy. Parents abdicate their Scriptural mandate, and the whims of children rule. This type of unschooling is dangerous precisely because its adherents are looking to humanists for insights into child psychology and educational theory.

It might be helpful at this point to identify the founding fathers of unschooling and to peek into their educational philosophies. In researching this topic, I came across the following information at www.unschooling.com. An advocate of unschooling states,

The voices of several educational theorists have become like trusted friends, and the result is a little like the chorus to Lou Bega’s “Mambo NO. 5”:

A little bit of Dewey for a start
A little bit of John Holt adds some heart
A little bit of Elkind helps us wait
A little bit of Eda’s not too late
A little bit of Mihaly, we’re in flow
A little bit of Roeper helps us grow
A little bit of Maslow shows the way
A whole lot of love and we’re okay!

from www.unschooling.com/library/index.shtml

The first educational theorist mentioned, John Dewey, was a humanist—indeed, a signer of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto, a document that defined man as an evolutionary product of an eternally existent (uncreated) universe and advocated doing away with all traditional religion. The last theorist mentioned, Abraham Maslow, was also a humanist. One of his life goals was to promote a humanistic psychology. The greatest achievement of man, according to Maslow, was to fully self-actualize—not exactly a goal for Christians, for whom life is to be Christcentered. (Did I mention that I earned a degree in psychology before switching to education?)

I find nary a Christian in the group. Dewey and Maslow bracket what turns out to be a list of humanists. John Holt, though we might agree with some of his criticisms of public education, was also a humanist.

The philosophy of unschooling asserts that children are naturally curious and energetic—little learning dynamos. Upon that premise, some educational theorists have determined that education will be most effective when it is child-centered and delight-driven. The idea is that children, if given their own heads, will make good choices and can be trusted to educate themselves. Inherent in that idea is the essential goodness of a child. John Holt was a proponent of this idea. He said,

Of two ways of looking at children now growing in fashion—seeing them as monsters of evil who must be beaten into submission, or as little two-legged walking computers whom we can program into geniuses, it is hard to know which is worse, and will do more harm.
Holt, John. How Children Learn. Pitman, 1967. Revised edition: Delacorte, 1983; Perseus, 1995.

I suspect few Christians view their children as “monsters of evil,” but what is the origin of the idea that the nature of a child is essentially good? The answer is humanism. In its denial of God and the fallen nature of man, humanism posits instead the essential goodness of man. Even humanists can’t do without a god! Since they deny the true God, they must substitute the next best thing—man. Since man is god and the hope of the future, he must be essentially good.

Of course, an essentially good man, or, in the present case, an essentially good child, will be wonderfully curious, energetic, and capable of self-direction. He will achieve, as a natural part of growing up, a well-rounded character and academic excellence. We parents need only watch to see what a marvelous creature he will become. If this view of the essentially good child were true, unschooling would be a logical choice. Choice? More than that, it would be The Way!

The problem is that it ain’t so.

The Bible has a good deal to say about the nature of man, including children, and what it says has implications for a Christian philosophy of education.

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not one. —Romans 3:10–12

This passage from Romans, not to mention an honest look at human history, should put to rest any lingering notion of innate goodness. The tabula rasa (clean slate) theories of human nature fall to the ground before this biblical declaration. Man is conceived in sin, a child of fallen Adam, corrupt in his very nature from conception. Although no man is as bad as he could be, all men are corrupted in their entire nature. Nothing is left unaffected, including the intellect, the will—and even our delights.

Will a child then, guided by his own lights, make good choices? The passage from Romans would not so predict, and we learn in Proverbs a natural corollary: “Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; But the rod of correction shall drive it far from him” (Prov. 22:15). The child, corrupt in his nature from conception, has foolishness bound up in his heart. Only the rod of correction—spiritual, academic, and physical, will remove the foolishness. It will not be removed by the unfettered curiosity of the most energetic child.

Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” This proverb is clearly directed to parents. It places on the parents the responsibility to train up a child, and it proclaims the blessing that will attend the parents’ diligent effort. It assumes the authority of the parents, that the parents know the way the child should go, and that the child is to submit to instruction. This verse has served for millennia as the philosophical starting point for teacher-directed instruction. The abuses of the public schools notwithstanding, it would be difficult to convincingly argue that this method has somehow failed to educate the billions of students who grew up under it. Many of them were and are the salt of the earth.

There is nothing in a traditional teacher-directed approach that precludes reasonable consideration of the desires and delights of the child. Psalm 127:4 says, “As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man, so are children of the youth.” In ancient times, arrows were made by hand, and were not uniform or perfectly straight. A warrior knew each arrow and its flight characteristics and used it accordingly. The obvious implication is that the parent should know his child and should instruct the child in such a manner that, when he is “sent into the world” as an arrow, he is effective. A child’s natural desires and delights can and should be employed to enhance learning, but this principle should not be construed to make the child the captain of his own fate.

In the same issue of TOS in which “Unschooling— Education Outside the Box” appeared, David Carl wrote an article on theological educati“Bad Theology Is Spreading Among Kids Like Wildfire” (p. 28). He urged that, while we may allow our younger children to choose from harmless options in small and unimportant matters, we as their parents choose for them in the important matters precisely because they are important. Some of life’s issues are too important to be left to the “wisdom” of a child.

Christian parents, if you are going to “unschool,” make sure you aren’t basing your decision on humanistic principles. Your view of your child and of educational philosophy should square with Scriptural admonitions. Make sure your unschooling isn’t a cover for disorganization or unwillingness to be a directive parent.

Is a homeschooling method based on humanism an option for Christian home educators? Clearly it is not. The Christian educator can, and must, look to the Scriptures for guidance in educational practice. As the statement of faith of The Old Schoolhouse Magazine so clearly states, “Each and every one of these books are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.”

Mark L. Beuligmann is the director of Christian Liberty Academy School System (CLASS) at www.homeschools.org. He has worked in the field of education for most of the last 30 years, having taught in Illinois public schools and in private schools, both secular and Christian. Mr. Beuligmann is married and has three children, all of whom have been homeschooled.