vespertine_nsw

Hi all, I'm in Australia and I've noticed some families here who identify as unscooling/natural learning, saying they disagree with the ideas of delight-driven or child-led learning. But to me, it seems natural to want to feel happy doing something, and vice versa, when you're happy learning happens best. Are these terms frowned apon in the USA too? I don't think the delight-driven or child-led means EXCLUSIVELY this. Eg I often suggest things for our family to do, I guide, and sometimes I want/have to do something that involves the kids coming along to that they're not so keen on! But I would still say their learning is child-led and delight-driven.

I think that sadness, grief etc are all important emotions that can teach us alot, and I don't think that either those terms mean shielding children from those challenging feelings or experiences. I'm there for my kids to comfort them if they need me, but I don't try to ''spare'' them anything. Do others agree?

Some who disagree with these terms, insist that they're ''family-centred''and that some degree of parent-led learning is necessary, because there is alot children wouldn't learn if they had the option eg. to just hang out in bed all day. But truly, are there any kids out there who are happy in their lives and aware of what's on offer to them, happy to stay in bed all day? (and I don't mean now and then to recharge the batteries, I mean regularly.) I think it's ok for parents to lead the way sometimes, but I don't see why it has to happen forcefully? It's not us against them.

Something Sandra said once when she visited a forum I'm on, struck with me, why do we have to ''centred'' on anything or anyone at all? Using the word centred, sounds so formal and rigid, when our unscooling life is far from that. It's flexible and changes all the time.

I am starting to realise that I used to share my fellow unschoolers determination not to be child-centred, but that seems now to be presumptuous and somewhat hostile. I don't think my children ever expected to be the centre of anything. I think my children know they're part of a wonderful, wide world, and why oh why was I ever defensive and concerned about ensuring they didn't become ''spoilt'' or ''doted apon.''

I have parented fairly instinctively and naturally from the start, but suddenly as the children turn school-age, there seems to be pressure from society to detach and push independence, and maybe that's where the defensive attitude comes from? Suddenly there's a feeling that we have to prove something to the world?

The irony in this whole thing, though, is that the proof is in the pudding! It seems to me, in order for our kids to have the secure, free lives we want for them, we need to let go of the agendas and trying to prove things to others (or ourselves) and just relaaax. And have fun, and just live!

Or because my children are young, am I naive?

Pam Sorooshian

On 9/14/2009 3:23 PM, vespertine_nsw wrote:
> Hi all, I'm in Australia and I've noticed some families here who identify as unscooling/natural learning, saying they disagree with the ideas of delight-driven or child-led learning. But to me, it seems natural to want to feel happy doing something, and vice versa, when you're happy learning happens best. Are these terms frowned apon in the USA too? I don't think the delight-driven or child-led means EXCLUSIVELY this. Eg I often suggest things for our family to do, I guide, and sometimes I want/have to do something that involves the kids coming along to that they're not so keen on! But I would still say their learning is child-led and delight-driven.
>

Delight-driven is a Christian homeschooler approach. Great that they are
approaching it through that paradigm, but it isn't what we do and not to
be confused with unschooling.

Child-led is problematic because people often think that unschoolers
just hang back and do nothing except wait for their kids to take the
initiative - to say, "Mom, I want to learn about X." That isn't really
the picture of unschooling that I hope people will have in their minds,
so I object when people call it "child-led" because I think it is
misleading.

-pam

Jenny Cyphers

>>>Hi all, I'm in Australia and I've noticed some families here who identify as unscooling/natural learning, saying they disagree with the ideas of delight-driven or child-led learning. But to me, it seems natural to want to feel happy doing something, and vice versa, when you're happy learning happens best. Are these terms frowned apon in the USA too?>>>
Lots of people in the US use these terms too. My problem with them, is that they don't accurately portray in easy words, what we do. Unschooling is pretty accurate, when you come right to it. We don't do school, we live as if school didn't exist, or try to at least.
Child led, implies something that doesn't actually happen in my house. While lots of things happen because a child has interest or initiates something, almost all things at my house happen through a large effort on my part. My children don't lead in that. I do. I find outlets and resource for them. Chamille, at the age of 15, is just starting to navigate this realm on her own, in little baby steps.
Delight driven doesn's appeal to me either. While it's great to delight in things, it isn't always what drives people to do things, even things they love to do. Kids out of school, unschooling, learn naturally and the delight doesn't disappear, they continue to be delighted by all kinds of things as they grow up. Since, I'm often the driver, both literally and figuratively, sometimes I delight in it and sometimes I don't.

>>>I don't think the delight-driven or child-led means EXCLUSIVELY this. Eg I often suggest things for our family to do, I guide, and sometimes I want/have to do something that involves the kids coming along to that they're not so keen on! But I would still say their learning is child-led and delight-driven.>>>
I think it's easy to describe what small children do as "delight driven". Once they are teens, it doesn't seem to apply well. What drives a teen is varied and different, and sometimes not delightful at all! "Child led" feels similar. Even though my children seem to pull me along in many directions, it's me that makes it happen for them.

>>>I think that sadness, grief etc are all important emotions that can teach us alot, and I don't think that either those terms mean shielding children from those challenging feelings or experiences. I'm there for my kids to comfort them if they need me, but I don't try to ''spare'' them anything. Do others agree?>>>
Perhaps I'm misreading or misunderstanding, but I DO try very hard to spare my kids and shield them from unpleasantness. There is enough of that stuff naturally in the world that they should have me or their dad protecting them from that as much as possible!

>>>Some who disagree with these terms, insist that they're ''family-centred' 'and that some degree of parent-led learning is necessary, because there is alot children wouldn't learn if they had the option eg. to just hang out in bed all day. But truly, are there any kids out there who are happy in their lives and aware of what's on offer to them, happy to stay in bed all day? (and I don't mean now and then to recharge the batteries, I mean regularly.) I think it's ok for parents to lead the way sometimes, but I don't see why it has to happen forcefully? It's not us against them.>>>
I think you might be confusing the issues here. We most definitely live a family centered life, led by the parents, who choose to give our children many many choices and then help them with those choices. I don't think this is a case that you can define by what ignorant people choose to say in contrast to what unschooling is all about. People make a lot of ignorant assumptions about unschooling that just aren't the reality of what actually happens in unschooling households.

>>>I am starting to realise that I used to share my fellow unschoolers determination not to be child-centred, but that seems now to be presumptuous and somewhat hostile. I don't think my children ever expected to be the centre of anything. I think my children know they're part of a wonderful, wide world, and why oh why was I ever defensive and concerned about ensuring they didn't become ''spoilt'' or ''doted apon.'' >>>
Both of my kids have expected to be the center of attention at various, and many variety of ways in their lives. Babies require it. We work towards natural cohesiveness. Children who are treated with kindness don't behave in ways in which others will say "spoiled". And just for the record, I DO dote on my kids, it's something that I enjoy doing.

>>>...as the children turn school-age, there seems to be pressure from society to detach and push independence, and maybe that's where the defensive attitude comes from? Suddenly there's a feeling that we have to prove something to the world?

The irony in this whole thing, though, is that the proof is in the pudding! It seems to me, in order for our kids to have the secure, free lives we want for them, we need to let go of the agendas and trying to prove things to others (or ourselves) and just relaaax. And have fun, and just live!>>>
This is why it's so much better to focus on what you love to do. If you are living in a way in which you are still reacting to why schools suck, your focus will be on that big negative, rather than on the big wide world in which you do wonderful things. Don't prove anything to anyone. Others will see how wonderful your kids are, or they won't. Some people will choose to focus on what all your kids are lacking in, or why you are completely insane or wrong or whatever.... but you can be confident in knowing the truth!




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jenny Cyphers

>>>Delight-driven is a Christian homeschooler approach. Great that they are
approaching it through that paradigm, but it isn't what we do and not to
be confused with unschooling.>>>
See now, I didn't even know that! It's just one more reason to not use it! It's an actual brand... I just looked it up. You can purchase Delight Driven curriculum programs. I learn something new everyday!

>>>Child-led is problematic because people often think that unschoolers
just hang back and do nothing except wait for their kids to take the
initiative - to say, "Mom, I want to learn about X." That isn't really
the picture of unschooling that I hope people will have in their minds,
so I object when people call it "child-led" because I think it is
misleading.>>>
Naysayers also like to believe that some kids just aren't that motivated to ask to learn about X. Child-led and all the assumptions that go with it make understanding Unschooling, very difficult. It's already difficult for most people to get it anyway.
The various new articles about unschooling prove that over and over again, that even smart educated journalists can't even wrap their minds around what unschooling is. Child-led, just adds another layer of confusion!




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-Are these terms frowned apon in the USA too? I don't think the
delight-driven or child-led means EXCLUSIVELY this. -=-

I've seen some Australian defensiveness insisting on "family
centered" life.

I personally don't love "child led" as a term. I'm not speaking for
the USA, but just think that use of that description can throw people
onto a bad track where they wait for the child to lead. Learning
doesn't have to be led by anyone.

-=-I'm there for my kids to comfort them if they need me, but I don't
try to ''spare'' them anything. Do others agree?-=-

It doesn't matter whether others agree. If this list unanimously
declares one thing or another, it would still be a subset of the
readership because many read and never post, and there are other lists
than this one.

Were there people saying unschoolers shouldn't be sheltered from the
harsh realities of life or something? I think ALL children should be
spared the gory details of the worst parts of life when they're young.

-=-because there is alot children wouldn't learn if they had the
option eg. to just hang out in bed all day. But truly, are there any
kids out there who are happy in their lives and aware of what's on
offer to them, happy to stay in bed all day? -=-

I've never seen anyone want to stay in bed who wasn't sick or depressed.

-=-I think it's ok for parents to lead the way sometimes, but I don't
see why it has to happen forcefully? It's not us against them.-=-

When I come up with an idea for my husband and me to do something, I
might be leading, but I couldn't possibly force him, nor even coerce
him. I make the plan seem fun and justifiable, and I've already
thought of the details and all... That's being persuasive or
inviting. That's still partnership and teamwork.

-=-Suddenly there's a feeling that we have to prove something to the
world?-=-

That will always come in spurts and waves.

-=- It seems to me, in order for our kids to have the secure, free
lives we want for them, we need to let go of the agendas and trying to
prove things to others (or ourselves) and just relaaax. And have fun,
and just live!
Or because my children are young, am I naive?-=-

I think you're not naive, but I would like to apply to have the "just"
examined. Not "just relax" or "just live" but to relax with an open
heart, and to live richly.

Sandra




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-I think it's easy to describe what small children do as "delight
driven". Once they are teens, it doesn't seem to apply well. What
drives a teen is varied and different, and sometimes not delightful at
all! -=-

Like what, Jenny?
I think my kids are still "delight driven" (though it's not a term
we've ever used) even as young adults.

Sandra




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

claire.horsley08

>>>Hi all, I'm in Australia and I've noticed some families here who >>>identify as unscooling/natural learning, saying they disagree with >>>the ideas of delight-driven or child-led learning.


This is interesting to me because although I'm Australian, virtually everything I know about unschooling I learned here on this list and on Sandra's site. So to me it's almost like there is no other form of unschooling except the principles promoted by Sandra, Pam, Joyce and some of the other experienced posters on this list. And one of these key unschooling principles is the concept of strewing, where a parent actively brings a rich variety of things and experiences into their child's life, and then allows the child to choose and pursue any of these for as long as they wish.

To me, strewing encourages an organically evolving form of learning, highly responsive to immediate circumstances, and based on the love and trust shared between parent and child. So terms like 'child-led', 'parent-led', 'family-centred' etc seem to me to putting into concrete something which should be fluid, something which will flow so easily and naturally if we let it.

vespertine_nsw

Thanks for clearing that up Pam, that's really surprising to me! I thought it was just another expression for unschooling, as I have read/heard it used in unschooling groups (eg people debating about which words best fit what their families do at home).

Whilst I'm on the topic, over here in Australia ''natural learning'' seems to be used more often, in place of unschooling. Is natural learning used interchangably with unschooling in the states, or does it mean something different?

Kerrie from Australia.


--- In [email protected], Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 9/14/2009 3:23 PM, vespertine_nsw wrote:
> > Hi all, I'm in Australia and I've noticed some families here who identify as unscooling/natural learning, saying they disagree with the ideas of delight-driven or child-led learning. But to me, it seems natural to want to feel happy doing something, and vice versa, when you're happy learning happens best. Are these terms frowned apon in the USA too? I don't think the delight-driven or child-led means EXCLUSIVELY this. Eg I often suggest things for our family to do, I guide, and sometimes I want/have to do something that involves the kids coming along to that they're not so keen on! But I would still say their learning is child-led and delight-driven.
> >
>
> Delight-driven is a Christian homeschooler approach. Great that they are
> approaching it through that paradigm, but it isn't what we do and not to
> be confused with unschooling.
>
> Child-led is problematic because people often think that unschoolers
> just hang back and do nothing except wait for their kids to take the
> initiative - to say, "Mom, I want to learn about X." That isn't really
> the picture of unschooling that I hope people will have in their minds,
> so I object when people call it "child-led" because I think it is
> misleading.
>
> -pam
>

vespertine_nsw

Thanks Jenny, your post was interesting. I am going to try to quote you now...

<<<< Perhaps I'm misreading or misunderstanding, but I DO try very hard to spare my kids and shield them from unpleasantness. There is enough of that stuff naturally in the world that they should have me or their dad protecting them from that as much as possible!>>>>

When I talked about not trying to shield my kids, I meant from things that impact our family directly, such as a death. When I was growing up, unfortunately death was a bit of a taboo subject. I remember having a lot of questions and things I wanted to get out about death (when it happened) but it wasn't encouraged and I was brushed off. Eg an extended family member dying of cancer, I wasn't told they even had cancer until after they actually died. In hindsight, I think that was because they were trying to protect me. I hope to do things differently with my children, and be open with them about these kinds of things, welcome their questions etc. I think that some things, although they hurt and are unpleasant, we can also learn from. Hope that clarifies.

Kerrie in Australia

Sandra Dodd

-=- Is natural learning used interchangably with unschooling in the
states, or does it mean something different?-=-

It's not a separate, different thing. I use "natural learning" lots of
times, but for discussing how learning can happen in the absence of
teaching and lessons. "Unschooling" is more about an over-arching
commitment to living in such a way that natural learning can happen in
the home, and getting the children out so natural learning can happen
wherever and however--because all the learning takes place inside the
learner.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=- In hindsight, I think that was because they were trying to protect
me. I hope to do things differently with my children, and be open with
them about these kinds of things, welcome their questions etc. I think
that some things, although they hurt and are unpleasant, we can also
learn from. Hope that clarifies.-=-

Try not to be reactionary, though. Doing the opposite of what my
parents did would be as wrong as doing exactly what my parents did
without thinking.

Neither hiding death nor bringing it all out and cataloging it is
"best." It depends on the kid, on the necessity to know, on his
ability to handle it. There are times in people's lives to share and
times to shelter them. If my dog had died during the conference I
wouldn't have wanted to know. (One family got a call on Sunday and
the kids knew on the way home that their dog had been hit by a car; I
wouldn't have shared that info in advance, had i been the house-
sitter, or whatever. I wouldn't have shared it with the kids if I'd
been the parent and had gotten that call.)

I'm all laid up and drugged up today. It wouldn't be a good time for
me to get really bad news. When I'm home, later, then...

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jenny Cyphers

>>>It's not a separate, different thing. I use "natural learning" lots of
times, but for discussing how learning can happen in the absence of
teaching and lessons. "Unschooling" is more about an over-arching
commitment to living in such a way that natural learning can happen in
the home, and getting the children out so natural learning can happen
wherever and however-->>>

I use natural learning a lot too, because it IS how people learn. Unschooling is more than that too. To me, it's natural learning, but it's also hugely about trust and relationships.

>>>because all the learning takes place inside the
learner.>>>

Yes! This is true for all people, including those that go to school! I guess, it applies better to unschooling than to schooling, since the basic premise behind school, is that learning must be forced and inserted, and taught, and that kids learn because of this.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jenny Cyphers

-=-I think it's easy to describe what small children do as "delight
driven". Once they are teens, it doesn't seem to apply well. What
drives a teen is varied and different, and sometimes not delightful at
all! -=-

>>>Like what, Jenny?
I think my kids are still "delight driven" (though it's not a term
we've ever used) even as young adults.>>>

I was thinking that what motivates Chamille, at least, many times is helping others. It's something she is compelled to do, but it isn't always delightful, sometimes it's very upsetting and painful. Although, she does delight in someone else's happiness that she helped create.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

catherine fox

Hi im catherine and my youngest son(12) goes to A.S.Neills Summer
hill school (its the original Democratic school in Suffolk England where kids go to
lessons if and when they choose to..they make the school laws and run
on self regulation...its a joy to behold.. with a community of 80 or so
kids from 5 to 18 years). I also have 2 dd 27 and 32.

I really love and embrace Radical unschooling and as i have deschooled myself
over the years I have seen our whole familys life turn around in the
most sane and joyful way.

This is my first post (i think!!). Just
wanted to say Hi and a big thankyou to all who brought the Unschooling
conference to London this year it was a much needed breath of Sanity blowing into this country which is really insane in its ideas, policies and history
of class and education!!

I think its been hard for me to post because my son goes to Summerhill for half of the year and therefore is not with me all year round.
But over the years as i have let go of feeling the need to be some sort of police woman in my kids life our relationships have become so much more loving,authentic, trusting and respectful.I was dragged up believing that as a kid i was a wild animal who had to be controlled and tamed, school further confirmed this...its been a long haul into recovering from this for me.

With my son at home for the past 2 months i decided to stop suggesting when bed time should happen and let him find his own rythym, which of course he has...his now taken to going to bed when we do...that of course may change again as he does.
But no more policing from me!! what a relief for us all!! and as people have shared i also didnt bring children into the world to be some sort of authoritarian dictator...the buck can and has stopped here. And your posts and Sandra,s invaluable writings and path blazing has supported as all along the way.

My names Catherine and i wanted to say Hi!!x


To: [email protected]
From: Sandra@...
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 09:54:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: why are terms delight-driven and child-led frowned apon by some unschoolers?





















-=- Is natural learning used interchangably with unschooling in the

states, or does it mean something different?-=-



It's not a separate, different thing. I use "natural learning" lots of

times, but for discussing how learning can happen in the absence of

teaching and lessons. "Unschooling" is more about an over-arching

commitment to living in such a way that natural learning can happen in

the home, and getting the children out so natural learning can happen

wherever and however--because all the learning takes place inside the

learner.



Sandra



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






















_________________________________________________________________
Save time by using Hotmail to access your other email accounts.
http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/167688463/direct/01/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

vespertine_nsw

Sandra...

>>>> It doesn't matter whether others agree. If this list unanimously declares one thing or another, it would still be a subset of the readership because many read and never post, and there are other lists than this one.<<<<<

Good point. I wonder why I want to know that others, at least some people, agree with me. Perhaps because have been met with some negativity regarding our decision to home educate, let alone not use any curriculum at all, and am a little weary of justifying. It feels nice to have people agree for a change. Hopefully in time I will stop seeking validation from others so much.


-=- It seems to me, in order for our kids to have the secure, free lives we want for them, we need to let go of the agendas and trying to prove things to others (or ourselves) and just relaaax. And have fun, and just live! Or because my children are young, am I naive?-=-

>>>>>>>I think you're not naive, but I would like to apply to have the "just" examined. Not "just relax" or "just live" but to relax with an open heart, and to live richly.<<<<<<<

This part of your post especially is so helpful, thank you!

Kerrie from Australia.

vespertine_nsw

Sandra and Jenny,

-=- Is natural learning used interchangably with unschooling in the states, or does it mean something different?-=-

>>> It's not a separate, different thing. I use "natural learning" lots of times, for discussing how learning can happen in the absence of teaching and lessons. "Unschooling" is more about an over-arching commitment to living in such a way that natural learning can happen in the home, and getting the children out so natural learning can happen wherever and however--because all the learning takes place inside the learner. <<<<

Ah ha! Got it, thanks. That reminds me, it's unfortunate there's a misconception that all ''home education'' happens at home (stemming from the idea that learning only happens from structured lessons.) We are busy outside the home most days of the week. I try to be open to discussing unschooling with anyone who asks, even when I'm a bit nervous about being challenged by a strong personality. Hopefully it will open some doors in people's minds, but if not, I've spoken my own truth and that can't be a bad thing.

thetiemensfamily

I think strewing is important. Our children need exposure to all sorts of topics. Then we let their own interests determine whether they explore it.

I don't understand why people frown on delight-driven or child-led learning either. The idea is that they are the ones choosing what they want to learn. Isn't that foundational to unschooling?

Laurie
www.Anotherblessing.com - Pregnancy and Ovulation Predictor Tests for only 50-85 CENTS each with free next day shipping to the USA!

--- In [email protected], "claire.horsley08" <claire.horsley08@...> wrote:
>
> >>>Hi all, I'm in Australia and I've noticed some families here who >>>identify as unscooling/natural learning, saying they disagree with >>>the ideas of delight-driven or child-led learning.
>
>
> This is interesting to me because although I'm Australian, virtually everything I know about unschooling I learned here on this list and on Sandra's site. So to me it's almost like there is no other form of unschooling except the principles promoted by Sandra, Pam, Joyce and some of the other experienced posters on this list. And one of these key unschooling principles is the concept of strewing, where a parent actively brings a rich variety of things and experiences into their child's life, and then allows the child to choose and pursue any of these for as long as they wish.
>
> To me, strewing encourages an organically evolving form of learning, highly responsive to immediate circumstances, and based on the love and trust shared between parent and child. So terms like 'child-led', 'parent-led', 'family-centred' etc seem to me to putting into concrete something which should be fluid, something which will flow so easily and naturally if we let it.
>

Sandra Dodd

-=-I don't understand why people frown on delight-driven or child-led
learning either. The idea is that they are the ones choosing what they
want to learn. Isn't that foundational to unschooling?-=-

It's not as useful and direct as it is to say "Create a rich
environment within which kids can't help but learn, and give your
children choices."

My children are 23, 20, and 17. They didn't go to school. They
didn't "choose what they wanted to learn." Neither did I. We did
things, I provided things for them to play with and explore and they
learned. I was sure they would. They didn't always learn the thing I
had thought they might, but they always learned. I learned too, more
and more, about how kids learn in the absence of school. And I've
learned how other parents see learning and how that will help or hurt
their family's unschooling.

I didn't "choose to learn" those things. They were a natural part of
what I was doing.

Our learning wasn't "driven" by anything except people's natural
instinct to learn. We had a delightful life, but that wasn't so that
we could drive learning around with it.

Any terms that require explanations and definitions and arguments
might be better replaced with ideas like "learning all the time."

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jenny Cyphers

>>>I think strewing is important. Our children need exposure to all sorts of topics. Then we let their own interests determine whether they explore it.

I don't understand why people frown on delight-driven or child-led learning either. The idea is that they are the ones choosing what they want to learn. Isn't that foundational to unschooling?>>>


Well, since Pam has enlightened me with the fact that Delight Driven is actually a religious curriculum name brand, I can totally see a good reason not to use it to describe unschooling.
A child choosing what they want to do during the day isn't the same thing as a child leading daily activities. That is why "child led" doesn't appeal to me. Plus, I seriously do a lot of the leading. I find things of interest, like strewing a bit, but I search out things that I know without a doubt they want to do or be involved in, and I find ways to make it happen.
I like doing that for my kids, finding ways to make things happen. I figure, by watching and being involved in that process, they'll eventually do it themselves. I guess one could say that my children led me to find them activities. And in some ways that is the case, but I don't wait around for them to choose something to learn about and let them tell me. It's more organic than that.
Since we live together and we know each other pretty well, and we talk and explore the world together, I'm pretty in tune with what they are about and want to do, so I bring things to them. Sometimes it looks like a buffet and sometimes it looks like a simple meal. They are free to decline anything that I've put before them, but mostly they take it up because I find things that I know they'll like.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-With my son at home for the past 2 months i decided to stop
suggesting when bed time should happen and let him find his own
rythym, which of course he has...his now taken to going to bed when we
do...that of course may change again as he does.
But no more policing from me!! what a relief for us all!! =-

This is cool. I think it's a common thought that kids' choices will
always be the wildest and craziest, but wild and crazy seem to be
reactions to limitations, not to rational assistance!

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

KarriL

--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:

> Neither hiding death nor bringing it all out and cataloging it is
> "best." It depends on the kid, on the necessity to know, on his
> ability to handle it. There are times in people's lives to share and
> times to shelter them. If my dog had died during the conference I
> wouldn't have wanted to know. (One family got a call on Sunday and
> the kids knew on the way home that their dog had been hit by a car; I
> wouldn't have shared that info in advance, had i been the house-
> sitter, or whatever. I wouldn't have shared it with the kids if I'd
> been the parent and had gotten that call.)
>
> I'm all laid up and drugged up today. It wouldn't be a good time for
> me to get really bad news. When I'm home, later, then...
>
> Sandra>>>

I'm having trouble with this in a different context in my life in where I've made a decision to hold off telling my little kids, 5 and 7, certain traumatic life facts like putting animals to sleep, shocking events in the news, etc. Basically, I don't think they need to know every gory detail in life right now. I don't think it helps them live a happy or better life.

It seems to me that we seem to be surrounded by insensitive people that have no problem telling my kids about these things and sometimes its been other same age kids within our own homeschooling circle. Even when I've told the person that my kids don't know that information, they seem to keep going or ignore it. Yikes! Besides going and living under a rock, how can I protect my kids from these unnecessary traumas brought upon them by other people. And I really do mean trauma because the stuff that has been said to them by another child has been horrible. I feel bad for that child, but I know that I can't protect them. I do, however, want to protect mine.

Thanks for the input.
-Karri
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Cara Barlow

Hi Sandra: this quote from your response would be great on the randomized
quotes:

<<<it's a common thought that kids' choices will
always be the wildest and craziest, but wild and crazy seem to be
reactions to limitations, not to rational assistance!>>>

Best wishes, Cara


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joyce Fetteroll

On Sep 17, 2009, at 12:52 AM, KarriL wrote:

> I'm having trouble with this in a different context in my life in
> where I've made a decision to hold off telling my little kids, 5
> and 7, certain traumatic life facts like putting animals to sleep,
> shocking events in the news, etc. Basically, I don't think they
> need to know every gory detail in life right now.

The choices shouldn't be every or none, though.

What and how something is said should be based on the individual
child not on age or some adult vision of what happy life means. Lying
about an animal's death to maintain a vision of a happy life can be
way more damaging than experiencing the warts of life. Exposing a
child to pictures of dead children because that's part of life would
just be cruel. There are other choices!

While some kids are very sensitive, for most kids death isn't as
scary for them as it is for adults. It doesn't mean the same thing.
They aren't necessarily lacking in understanding -- like at some ages
death may be equated with leaving and they assume the person or
animal will be back some day like Aunt Sally who visits once every 3
months (years to a child ;-). They just don't internalize death the
same way.

There are several good books about death for kids though the only one
coming to mind is The Tenth Good Thing About Barney. (It's about the
child's cat who died and he and the father come up with 10 great
things about the cat. It's a good read even without a pet dying.) If
you search the archives here for that book -- or at Amazon and read
the recommendations for other books -- you'll find some good
suggestions.

Unless the child is showing an interest in the world and the news, I
don't see a reason to show them. I wouldn't have taken 5 yo Kathryn
to a lecture on Henry Thoreau and I didn't turn on the news for her.
They didn't interest her. At 18, though she has an awareness of
what's going on in the world, I don't think she's seen a whole news
program just because it isn't part of her interests.

> It seems to me that we seem to be surrounded by insensitive people
> that have no problem telling my kids about these things and
> sometimes its been other same age kids within our own homeschooling
> circle. Even when I've told the person that my kids don't know that
> information, they seem to keep going or ignore it.

I'm not sure I'm getting a clear picture of what you're trying to
prevent them from hearing about. If this is happening often, then it
sounds like you're shielding them too much. If Kathryn had a personal
connection with someone who died and I hadn't yet told her I can
imagine asking she not be told until I could handle it. But
situations like that are rare. Why are these situations so frequent
for you?

> Besides going and living under a rock, how can I protect my kids
> from these unnecessary traumas brought upon them by other people.
> And I really do mean trauma because the stuff that has been said to
> them by another child has been horrible.

Are your kids finding these stories traumatic? Are they coming home
upset? Or are they asking questions that you find upsetting to answer
but aren't affecting them as much as you?

All what you've written is about you, not about your kids. It's all
about you protecting them and your assumption of hurt. But you
haven't said anything about your particular unique kids and how they
feel.

More specific examples would be helpful. Because all I can imagine is
you're living in a very dangerous area full of traumatized families
and your priority might be getting out of there or finding people who
are actively creating more peaceful pockets. Or you're projecting
your own imagined feelings onto your kids and assuming the stories
are more traumatizing to them than they really are. If that's the
case, your worry may be heightening their reaction. If you're
worried, they'll feel there's something to worry about when, if you
had been more objective, they would have noted it and moved on.

Joyce



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-I feel bad for that child, but I know that I can't protect them. I
do, however, want to protect mine.-=-

Not sending them to school is some protection. Kids being at school
are in danger of hearing about things from teachers. Thinking of
what things: child abuse, murder, abortion, in the discussion of
current events. And the other kids are likely to spill anything they
know, conversationally, at any time.

If someone was saying something to my kids when they ere little, I
would be quick and strong in my objection. I would signal them and
shake my head quickly "no!" or I would say, "SO! you guys want
lunch? Let's change the subject," and I would go as quickly to the
noisy person as I could and say "That's not good to talk about with
kids who don't know about it yet; don't.'

If it's someone or a situation where you're unable to negotiate the
topics, then distract your kids away from it and go somewhere else for
a while.

You can't control other people. You can make requests or try to be
persuasive or you can decide to pick new friends, but you cna't call
the shots with other peop;e's lives. And if you find yourslf needing
to protect your kids very often, maybe you're waiting too long to give
them a kid-version explanation of the thing, or of the euphemism, like
"putting a dog to sleep."

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

memismommy

--- In [email protected], Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...> wrote:
>

>
>
> There are several good books about death for kids though the only one
> coming to mind is The Tenth Good Thing About Barney. (It's about the
> child's cat who died and he and the father come up with 10 great
> things about the cat. It's a good read even without a pet dying.) If
> you search the archives here for that book -- or at Amazon and read
> the recommendations for other books -- you'll find some good
> suggestions.

This is a personal subject for us....when our oldest son was 22 months old, our second was born and died within 12 days. He never left the NICU. There was no shielding our living child from the permanence of "no baby brother", but we did our utmost to keep his life stable and happy...

We found a great book, Goodbye Mousie, by Robie H. Harris...about a boy who wakes up to find his mouse has died...it's told with humor and gentleness, the art is great, and it doesn't shy away from the feelings of grief. It helped our very young child, and, later, his ssister. she's 5 now, and the book is still a cherished part of her personal collection. It's hard to read without tearing up, but I recommend it for finding a "soft" way to introduce the concept of death.


> I'm not sure I'm getting a clear picture of what you're trying to
> prevent them from hearing about. If this is happening often, then it
> sounds like you're shielding them too much. If Kathryn had a personal
> connection with someone who died and I hadn't yet told her I can
> imagine asking she not be told until I could handle it. But
> situations like that are rare. Why are these situations so frequent
> for you?
>
> > Besides going and living under a rock, how can I protect my kids
> > from these unnecessary traumas brought upon them by other people.
> > And I really do mean trauma because the stuff that has been said to
> > them by another child has been horrible.
>
> Are your kids finding these stories traumatic? Are they coming home
> upset? Or are they asking questions that you find upsetting to answer
> but aren't affecting them as much as you?
>
> All what you've written is about you, not about your kids. It's all
> about you protecting them and your assumption of hurt. But you
> haven't said anything about your particular unique kids and how they
> feel.
>
> More specific examples would be helpful. Because all I can imagine is
> you're living in a very dangerous area full of traumatized families
> and your priority might be getting out of there or finding people who
> are actively creating more peaceful pockets. Or you're projecting
> your own imagined feelings onto your kids and assuming the stories
> are more traumatizing to them than they really are. If that's the
> case, your worry may be heightening their reaction. If you're
> worried, they'll feel there's something to worry about when, if you
> had been more objective, they would have noted it and moved on.
>
> Joyce
>
My sister shields her children from anything she finds uncomfortable. The dog went to a new home (adopting away a member of the family seems scarier, to me; I might fear I was next, if I were very young, or just have a lot of confusion). She routinely removes dead frogs and bugs from view so the children won't see them...now the children are beginning to ask about death, and she does't know what to say.

With my children, now 8 and 5, we made a commitment to tell them the truth...in a version they can easily grasp. I wait for them to show some interest in the topic or to ask questions,because it seems cruel to force the world's harsh realities upon them just to tell the truth. Even then, I proceed slowly and carefully. When they are satisfied, for the moment, we're done. When the answers they have no longer satisfy their need to know, we revisit the topic.

Your children will tell you (and maybe others, too) what is comfortable for them. It can be even more frightening, I think, if a parent can't bring themselves to allow any exposure to the "bad stuff" in life, once the child begins to sense that the bad stuff exists. How awful must it be if even Mom can't stand to talk about it?

Death happens to us all. It's often unpredictable, and ultimately, it's impossible to shield a child from this fact. For us, it came very early in parenthood, and in a way that could not be ignored. And, although I wish it hadn't, my children are joyful and thriving, largely unbothered by their knowledge of death. As Joyce put it so aptly, they've noted it and then moved on. There's lots of stuff to do, right now, because they are alive, and life is fun!

Peace,
Shan

Sandra Dodd

-=-Hi Sandra: this quote from your response would be great on the
randomized
quotes:-=-

Thanks!

I'll add that, then. I'm wounded and in the bed (my leg kind of sort
of had a nervous breakdown) and it's not as easy as it would otherwise
be. I just added a Prescott, Arizona group to
http://sandradodd.com/workd
and it was a surprising amount of work at this angle (me, pillows, in
the bed, computer kind of eased up on its own pillow.... what a
mess. But I'm enough better than Keith went to work and I stayed
here with a little bowl of food to go with each dose of ibuprofen.

Last night i sat up a few hours. I'll try that again later.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

KarriL

--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> <<<<<Not sending them to school is some protection. Kids being at school
> are in danger of hearing about things from teachers.>>>>>>

Great point!

> <<<<<If someone was saying something to my kids when they ere little, I
> would be quick and strong in my objection. I would signal them and
> shake my head quickly "no!" or I would say, "SO! you guys want
> lunch? Let's change the subject," and I would go as quickly to the
> noisy person as I could and say "That's not good to talk about with
> kids who don't know about it yet; don't.'>>>>>

That will definitely work with an adult. I will keep repeating it too, if they keep going because that has happened when I asked them to stop. I will do that. The problem that I've had is that sometimes it comes from a child. The child clearly seems distressed too. That is why it is being brought up to some extent, I think. These are kids that my kids regularly play with and like.
>
> <<<<If it's someone or a situation where you're unable to negotiate the
> topics, then distract your kids away from it and go somewhere else for
> a while.>>>>

I guess this is sometimes where I get tripped up because I feel that I have certain responsibilities that make it so that I can't leave without it being a huge drama. I also don't want to hurt my kids.
>
> <<<<You can't control other people. You can make requests or try to be
> persuasive or you can decide to pick new friends, but you cna't call
> the shots with other peop;e's lives. And if you find yourslf needing
> to protect your kids very often, maybe you're waiting too long to give
> them a kid-version explanation of the thing, or of the euphemism, like
> "putting a dog to sleep.">>>>

Yes, it's only in certain situations that I feel the need to protect my kids more than usual. I know that I can't control people or situations. I do address issues a lot with my kids, especially when this stuff comes up. I just feel like I have to run interference a lot with specific people and some of the issues have been down right shocking. I have addressed this fact with my kids and they do seem to ignore a lot, but I worry about trauma or how much they are absorbing and exposed to.

Thanks for your input. It kind of confirms what I've been thinking/doing.
-Karri
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Jenny Cyphers

>>> Besides going and living under a rock, how can I protect my kids from these unnecessary traumas brought upon them by other people. And I really do mean trauma because the stuff that has been said to them by another child has been horrible. I feel bad for that child, but I know that I can't protect them. I do, however, want to protect mine.>>>

I can tell you that from my own experience being a child raised in this manner, that the huge amount of sheltering was more harmful in the long run. My parents sheltered us from everything potentially dangerous. They were very religious and conservative. Our social circle only included other religious conservative people that talked about religious conservative things.
We weren't allowed to go to other people's houses without parent approval. I didn't even know that there were potential predators in the world. I was very naive about stuff like that because my parents sheltered us from all of that information.
I chose not to do that with my own kids. I shelter them from mean people as much as possible, but not from ideas and reality.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Jenny Cyphers

>>>I wait for them to show some interest in the topic or to ask questions,because it seems cruel to force the world's harsh realities upon them just to tell the truth. Even then, I proceed slowly and carefully. When they are satisfied, for the moment, we're done. When the answers they have no longer satisfy their need to know, we revisit the topic.>>>
We do this too.
I have a 15 yr old and an 8 yr old. The way that Chamille was raised when she was little is very different than the way in which Margaux is being raised. Chamille rarely watched movies geared for older kids, she did a lot of activities designed for her age, but Margaux hasn't done that as much, largely because she lives in a house with an older child. She's seen plenty of pg-13 movies at her young age.
Margaux would be the kid at a park day bringing up ideas that are way older than she is, to other kids, simply because of the fact that her world view involves teenagers who talk about all kinds of subjects in front of her and around her. Sometimes I do censor them and sometimes I tell them to take it to another room, but it doesn't entirely stop it from happening around Margaux.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

When my kids were little, one of our dogs died. I found her in the
yard. She looked comfortable, if a little dehydrated (her tongue was
out). I asked Kirby and Marty if they wanted to see her. Kirby said
yes. Marty said no. So Kirby and went out and with all the solemnity
of a funereal viewing, looked at her and talked about death and what a
good dog she had been.

Kirby made a painting of her later. It's too big to scan. It was
mostly black.

In 2000, Holly and I were in England and Kirby was home alone one day
when our dog accidentally killed one of the kittens our cat had had.
The dog was moving the kittens to another place. Her motherly
instincts were kicking in and she was putting them in a safer room.
One didn't survive the dog transfer. Luckily, he could IM me and I
could advise him on what to do to protect the others and how to deal
with the baby kitten.

There's no sense having possible-dead-pet drills in the absence of
death.

When one of Holly's rats died, we buried it in the yard, and Keith
gave a very sweet speech. It suprised me. He thanked the rat for
giving his daughter friendship and pleasure, or something like that.
Surprising sweet, for a rodent, coming from a guy like Keith. :-)

If the children trust the parents and the parents are compassionate
toward the children, it seems fairly easy for shocking moments to work
themselves out.

Sandra