[email protected]

Hi, I'm not sure if this is how to respond, i just hit reply, but i would like to add my two cents to the topic of "delayed speech in the eight month old."

My daughter, Ani, began making sounds on a "normal" timetable, then just stopped "progressing" at about ten months. She didn't say ANY words at all. She would "woof" when the dog was at the door, and that was it. I was becoming concerned that perhaps she was deaf or hard-of-hearing, as I have some exp. within deaf culture, and thought perhaps i was blessed with a "special" child after all.

She and I communicated beautifully, however, it was just all telepathic. She has been E.C'd since three months, and we always made it to the potty without her vocalizing any thing.

Fast forward to this Christmas: she was nineten months old, still not saying any words. She'd been making tons of sounds, trying out each one, practicing diff. pitches and tones for each new sound, incorporating the new sounds with her reproitoire of previously mastered one, yet, no words. Then we introduced the Santa story to her. Suddenly, everything's Santa! santa, santa, santa...within the month, she was speaking, quite clearly, appx. 18 words.

As I looked back on the time, I realize that a lie was the reason she began communicxation in spoken language. Our telepathy worked perfectly until that point, because all i'd told her was the TRUTH. As soon as an untruth was introduced, she was removed from the purity of complete truth, had fallen to this earth and had to adopt the "normal" way of communicating, i.e., through spoken language.

Now, at 22 months, she is stringing together two and three word phrases. She and I are still telepathic and I feel this is the future of human communications. As we learn to live in light, in complete openness and freedom, we will lose the need to decieve, to hide our true thoughs and intentions from one another. When we all begin to speak the truth, we will no longer need to speak at all.

laura
---- [email protected] wrote:
> There are 25 messages in this issue.
>
> Topics in this digest:
>
> 1.1. Re: "delayed" 8-month-old was: Book Recommendations
> From: melissa_hice
> 1.2. Re: "delayed" 8-month-old was: Book Recommendations
> From: Kim Musolff
> 1.3. Re: "delayed" 8-month-old was: Book Recommendations
> From: Joyce Fetteroll
> 1.4. Re: "delayed" 8-month-old was: Book Recommendations
> From: Karen Swanay
>
> 2. The Unschooling Unmanual - now available
> From: naturalchildproject
>
> 3a. Re: Failing WAS: unschooling and taking classes
> From: Adrean Clark
> 3b. Re: Failing
> From: kbcdlovejo@...
>
> 4.1. Re: Book Recommendations now Early Intervention
> From: jenniferheffern
> 4.2. Re: Book Recommendations now Early Intervention
> From: Adrean Clark
>
> 5a. Re: RVing full time? we do it
> From: harmonyglb
>
> 6.1. Re: Book Recommendations
> From: rabbits3arewe
> 6.2. Re: Book Recommendations
> From: Jodi Bezzola
> 6.3. Re: Book Recommendations
> From: Joyce Fetteroll
> 6.4. Re: Book Recommendations
> From: kbcdlovejo@...
>
> 7a. Re: Need Advice on computer times
> From: Kim Musolff
> 7b. Re: Need Advice on computer times
> From: Joyce Fetteroll
>
> 8.1. Re: Limits & parenting WAS "delayed" 8-month-old
> From: Kim Musolff
> 8.2. Re: Limits & parenting WAS "delayed" 8-month-old
> From: Kim Musolff
> 8.3. Re: Limits & parenting WAS "delayed" 8-month-old
> From: Pamela Sorooshian
> 8.4. Re: Limits & parenting WAS "delayed" 8-month-old
> From: Pamela Sorooshian
> 8.5. Re: Limits & parenting WAS "delayed" 8-month-old
> From: Schuyler
> 8.6. Re: Limits & parenting WAS "delayed" 8-month-old
> From: Joyce Fetteroll
>
> 9a. Re: 11 y/os
> From: Pamela Sorooshian
> 9b. Re: 11 y/os
> From: barefootmamax4
> 9c. Re: 11 y/os
> From: Zoa Conner
>
>
> Messages
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 1.1. Re: "delayed" 8-month-old was: Book Recommendations
> Posted by: "melissa_hice" mhice@... melissa_hice
> Date: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:04 pm ((PDT))
>
> My 6 yo ds had his first ear infection at 4 weeks of age. He
> continued to have lots of ear infections as well as tonsillitis.
> When he was around a year old, I told the doctor that I was concerned
> because my son was not making babbling type noises that my dd did
> when she was that age. The doctor referred my son to an ENT where a
> hearing test was performed. I was told that my son could not hear
> well at all and that because of his many ear infections and the fact
> that he had fluid in his ears, he would need tubes. We had that
> procedure done as well as his adenoids removed. DS has actually had
> three sets of tubes and a tonsilectomy since then.
>
> My son has never had any kind of therapy to deal with his "delayed"
> speech. When he was three, he finally started talking in sentences.
> Most people needed me to "translate" what he said to them because
> they couldn't understand him. He just turned 6 and most people
> understand him well now. He still has difficulty pronouncing r, th,
> thr, s, and a few others, but when I was teaching first grade, the
> inability to say those sounds correctly was considered developmental
> and children who had trouble with those sounds were not referred for
> speech therapy unless they continued to have the problems when they
> were in third grade.
>
> I notice that the more I spent time with my son talking with him, the
> more he picks up on sounds. He tries out new sounds and new words
> without any kind of fear that he might "mess up". I trust that he
> will learn to talk correctly and that it will happen in the time that
> is right for him.
>
> Melissa
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (60)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 1.2. Re: "delayed" 8-month-old was: Book Recommendations
> Posted by: "Kim Musolff" kmoose75@... little_minds_preschool
> Date: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:36 am ((PDT))
>
> ***I have massive fears that since I'm not limiting my girls' sugar intake,
> they will have big challenges with it like I did. I have to remind myself
> (sometimes hourly!) that *they are not me*. Sugar was completely restricted
> when I was a child, which manifested as me at 5 years of age stealing money
> from my parents, crossing a very busy highway, so I could get to a store
> that sold what I wanted, at 20 years of age as an out of control bulemic,
> and at 41 years of age as one who is still struggling with weight/body image
> and periodically obsessed with all things sugar.***
>
> But does it have to be one extreme or the other? Sure, I agree that if
> something is completely forbidden, it will most likely cause a person to
> want exactly that thing. But just because that is true, does it mean that
> allowing complete freedom is the BEST approach? Isn't there room for
> balance?
>
> Kim
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (60)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 1.3. Re: "delayed" 8-month-old was: Book Recommendations
> Posted by: "Joyce Fetteroll" jfetteroll@... jfetteroll
> Date: Tue Apr 22, 2008 3:47 am ((PDT))
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2008, at 5:36 AM, Kim Musolff wrote:
>
> > But just because that is true, does it mean that
> > allowing complete freedom is the BEST approach?
>
> How do you know that it isn't? Your fears are saying you should
> control "just in case." But you don't know. You've only known people
> who've controlled, or people who've been permissive, or people who've
> let go of controls and found disaster. I'm guessing you've never met
> people who've mindfully given their children freedom.
>
> What's your definition of "complete freedom"?
>
> Some people think we mean let the kids raise themselves with no input.
>
> My definition for kids is the same as for adults. If my husband sees
> me doing something imminently dangerous I'd want him to stop me.
>
> If I'm exploring in an area that's an interest to my husband I
> wouldn't want him hovering over me and telling me how to do things
> the "right" way. I'd want the freedom to explore, try things out,
> find out for myself why things work and why other things don't work
> and the good and bad parts of various approaches.
>
> If I'm exploring, and I'm about to make a bigger mess than he thinks
> I'd like to clean up, I'd like him to point it out so I can make a
> better decision. (Maybe I think the mess is okay for what I'll get
> out of it.)
>
> If I'm repeatedly doing something in an awkward way and I'm stuck,
> I'd appreciate him pointing out a better way.
>
> I would though, enjoy conversing about the subject with him, picking
> his brain, pulling in things that happen to come out that happen to
> interest me at the moment.
>
> Some people think it means give them whatever they ask for.
>
> This is where it takes examination. Often our instinct is to say no
> because our heads are full of scripts that say no that we haven't
> really examined or that mollify our fears: No jumping on beds. No
> snacks between meals. No ice cream for dinner. No swimming after
> eating. Only 1 hour of TV.
>
> We *think* that we're naturally sinful creatures who want to do all
> the bad things. We *think* that the only reason we don't is because
> we've been controlled until we're old enough to accept that there's
> good reason behind the rules and to just follow them.
>
> If that were true, then unschooled and mindfully parented kids should
> be hellions. If there's no one telling them they shouldn't have ice
> cream for dinner and someone actually letting them (after given them
> other possibilities), then by that reason they should have nothing
> but ice cream for dinner.
>
> My daughter *can* have cake for breakfast when we have it around. But
> she doesn't. I asked her once why and she said she wanted it to feel
> special. She eats fairly traditional things for breakfast even though
> she could have even ice cream!
>
> When she was younger, she wasn't hungry when she first got up. At
> some point she'd reach for the candy and I'd ask if she'd like some
> breakfast. Almost every time she said yes. She just reached for the
> candy because it was easy and convenient. (A better solution would
> have been to have healthy snacks in that spot that were easy to grab
> with the candy up so that she'd only go after it when she really
> wanted the candy and not because she wanted something quick.)
>
> > Isn't there room for
> > balance?
>
> Balance for who? Does it feel like balance to the child?
>
> We don't need to take them to or bring them the whole world. Three
> year olds generally aren't interested in pornography ;-)
>
> Giving them freedom doesn't mean we need to bring the whole grocery
> store home. We can pick and choose what foods we bring in. But when a
> child asks "Can we try that?" to something like Twinkies (barring
> allergies) what are the consequences of saying no and the
> consequences of saying yes? What do you fear will happen?
>
> If you want to try something that isn't imminently dangerous, do you
> want a lecture or do you want to check it out and see for yourself?
>
> > But when she's been
> > eating sugar all day, is acting cranky and tired because of it, and
> > wants to
> > eat cookies as I'm making dinner, I feel responsible to step in and
> > tell
> > her, "Cookies have too much sugar, and I'm about to serve dinner,
> > so no
> > cookies."
>
>
> To put this in perspective, she isn't in imminent danger by being
> cranky. This isn't the beginning of a life time of nothing but
> cookies. If you do nothing, she'll be cranky but not permanently
> harmed. What it is, is convenient for you to stop her. It's a lot
> easier for you to control and say no.
>
> She is, though, miserable. It's more mindful to have an array of
> healthy snacks that are as easy to grab as cookies. It's more mindful
> to be aware that she's eating a lot of cookies. If you *know* she's
> "eating sugar all day" then step in and find some alternatives way
> earlier than dinner time!
>
> Begin *before* there's a problem and that eliminates a lot of the
> need to say no. It doesn't eliminate all problems, but it cuts way
> down so we have more energy for the things we didn't see coming.
>
> Joyce
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (60)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 1.4. Re: "delayed" 8-month-old was: Book Recommendations
> Posted by: "Karen Swanay" luvbullbreeds@... kswanay1111
> Date: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:21 am ((PDT))
>
> > But when she's been
> > eating sugar all day, is acting cranky and tired because of it, and
> > wants to
> > eat cookies as I'm making dinner, I feel responsible to step in and
> > tell
> > her, "Cookies have too much sugar, and I'm about to serve dinner,
> > so no
> > cookies."
>
> I wanted to comment on this but don't know who the OP of this thought
> was but it doesn't really matter. This "fact" is very much Urban
> legend...much like "Chocolate and pizza cause pimples" is urban
> legend. When I was a vet tech I often saw people connect two things
> in their heads that weren't connected. I still have that in my
> training clients...for example, Maggie the Beagle would bark when her
> owner used the telephone. Her owner told me "Maggie is jealous of the
> time I spend on the phone." Oh really? I'll spare you the detective
> work but this is what actually happened. When Maggie was younger, she
> was barky as beagles tend to be. Her owner got a phone call, Maggie
> continued to bark, owner tossed Maggie a treat to shut her up. It
> worked. Maggie was quiet. Through a schedule of variable
> reinforcement (you can google why this creates the strongest "habits"
> in dogs as well as people...think slot machines) they made Maggie a
> barker during phone calls. But Maggie WAS NOT JEALOUS of the phone.
> The owner put the blame for the behavior on the dog's feelings about
> the time spent on the phone and not where they belonged, that she was
> trained by the owner to bark when the phone rang.
>
> Kids and foods. "Sugar makes her hyper and cranky." Oh really? How
> much sugar is in the kid's breakfast cereal and fruit drink? Is she
> still cranky? Why would the same or often less sugar make a child
> cranky if we shape it into a cookie? It doesn't. It's not
> scientifically sound. More likely said kid is cranky because it's
> getting late and she's hungry because she gets hungry at 4:30 and not
> 6 when dinner is typically served. "Pizza and chocolate gives you
> pimples" Oh really? Puberty gives kids pimples. When kids hit
> puberty they tend to take advantage of the freedom they can get so
> they wash less, eat more pizza and chocolate and have pimples but
> cloistered kids get pimples too. So the two things are not connected.
> And there is just as much grease in say a fish and chip meal as there
> is in pizza.
>
> My point to all of this is that to demonize one shape of food and not
> another..it just doesn't make any sense. And if you are raising a
> reasonably intelligent child, they will be able to figure that out
> when they are older and then you look like a liar. If you don't want
> your kid to have a cookie say that. "No you can't have a cookie
> because I don't want you eating that." But then that begs the
> question, if you don't want your kid to have a cookie why are they
> even in the house?
>
> Anyway, I guess the real bottom line is make sure you are drawing
> conclusions appropriately otherwise you undermine your credibility.
> And if your kid can't trust you to know what is right, that isn't a
> very comfortable place for them to be.
>
> Karen
>
>
> Messages in this topic (60)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 2. The Unschooling Unmanual - now available
> Posted by: "naturalchildproject" jan@... naturalchildproject
> Date: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:18 pm ((PDT))
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> Our newest book, the Unschooling Unmanual, is now available. It was
> co-edited by me and my son Jason, 27, who unschooled from the beginning.
>
> The Unmanual has personal stories and essays by unschoolers Nanda Van
> Gestel, Rue Kream, Mary Van Doren, Kim Houssenloge and me, as well as
> a wonderful essay by Daniel Quinn, author of Ishmael, and an excerpt
> from John Holt's book Learning All the Time. It's intended for both
> seasoned and prospective unschoolers, and should also be helpful for
> skeptical relatives and friends.
>
> Kelly Lovejoy's article "What is Unschooling?" will be included in the
> translated editions, and in an expanded edition we hope to have some
> time in '09.
>
> To read an excerpt and two book reviews, or to order the book, please
> visit http://www.naturalchild.org/unmanual/ .
>
> We're very excited about our new book. Please take a look!
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jan
>
> Jan Hunt, Director
> The Natural Child Project
> www.naturalchild.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (1)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 3a. Re: Failing WAS: unschooling and taking classes
> Posted by: "Adrean Clark" adreanaline@... fuzzyellowduck
> Date: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:12 pm ((PDT))
>
> Sorry it took me so long to reply.
>
> I thought long about what I would consider failing --- and my fear is
> that I don't provide enough stimulation for the boys.
>
> They are doing wonderfully though, our home is set up in a unique way
> that they can play freely. The boys love legos and Blues Clues and
> Power Rangers (I was getting a little worried that the craze wouldn't
> end but the twins are on Super Why now whew - not that I wasn't
> supportive, I just don't like the mock fighting and resulting tears
> :/). They read, talk, (mostly) get along with each other. Sometimes
> Azel even helps cook.
>
> The boys are interesting people and we are still learning how to
> communicate with each other in healthy ways. When I thought of
> "failing" originally I thought of not going out to field trips often
> enough and the like - schooly-think, right?
>
> How do you deal with the feeling of "we should be doing more"? That
> haunts me the most.
>
> Adrean
>
>
>
> On 4/16/08, kbcdlovejo@... <kbcdlovejo@...> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Adrean Clark <adreanaline@...>
> >
> > How do we know we're "failing" at unschooling?
> >
> > -=-=-=-=-=-
> >
> > Are you're children apathetic? Uninteresting? Uninterested?
> >
> > Have no interests? No hobbies? No passions? Have they lost the love of
> > learning? Do they literally do *nothing* all day?
> >
> > Are/have/do YOU?
> >
> > Have you or they lost the love of learning? Do you try to force them to
> > be the children you *wish* you'd had? Are you more concerned about the
> > future than the present?
> >
> > Is your home a miserable place to spend a day? A week? A year? Would
> > YOU want to be somewhere else? Anywhere else? Chances are, they would
> > too. <g>
> >
> >
> >
> > What would *you* consider "failing"?
> >
> >
> >
> > ~Kelly
> >
> > Kelly Lovejoy
> > Conference Coordinator
> > Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
> > http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
> >
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>
>
> Messages in this topic (20)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 3b. Re: Failing
> Posted by: "kbcdlovejo@..." kbcdlovejo@... kellyinsc
> Date: Tue Apr 22, 2008 5:38 am ((PDT))
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrean Clark <adreanaline@...>
>
> How do you deal with the feeling of "we should be doing more"? That
> haunts me the most.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-
>
> We do more. <g>
>
> We go through "waves" here of doing a LOT and of just hanging out not
> doing much of anything (so it seems).
>
> When those days of doing "nothing" seem to out-number the active days,
> I try to schedule something to get us out of the house and DOing
> something. We go to Charleston for the day. Or Camden. Or Charlotte.
> All are a bit of a drive, so we get that car-talking time in (which is
> good for jump-starting other possibilities) and (when we get there)
> some sight-seeing in and walking and inspiration---and lots of art,
> architecture, and history.
>
> There's a great place very nearby called the Congaree National
> Swamp---a boardwalk built through a swamp---absolutely beautiful, with
> all kinds of critters to hunt for. I have friends who have seen wild
> boar there, but we haven't yet---got my eyes peeled though! <g>
>
> Bringing a friend over for an extended stay is helpful. Bo's here now.
> He'll stay for a week. That always livens things up a bit. Visiting
> friends too: Duncan will be flying up to Boston to visit Shaun next
> month (his first solo flight! <g>).
>
> Recently, when it seemed that we are stuck in the house too much, I
> asked Duncan whether there was anything he especially wanted to
> DO---active-wise. He surprised me by saying tennis. So I got him (and
> Cameron) a few lessons with the local pro, and he and Cameron like to
> go down and hit a few balls around.
>
> If *I* am feeling that we're not doing enough, chances are we aren't.
> <g> There are times I feel we're in a rut---and *I* can get VERY
> comfortable in a rut. <G> At those times, I need to push myself to get
> out and do. But once that ball is rollling,....
>
> At the same time, if we've been going and going and going, it can be
> really nice to just hunker down and enjoy NOT doing for a while.
>
> Sooo, to *me*, if you feel that you need to be doing more, the solution
> is probably to do more. And maybe not more of the same thing, but
> something *different*.
>
>
> ~Kelly
>
> Kelly Lovejoy
> Conference Coordinator
> Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
> http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (20)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 4.1. Re: Book Recommendations now Early Intervention
> Posted by: "jenniferheffern" jenniferheffern@... jenniferheffern
> Date: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:12 pm ((PDT))
>
>
> > I think this is a serious problem that stems from the early
> > intervention stuff from schools. The government provides funds to
> > states, counties, cities, schools based on the number of children
> > they have in their districts who need early intervention. Therefore,
> > it's beneficial to the district...to find as many children as
> > possible who need early intervention. It's difficult for new parents
> > to trust themselves and trust their children when they see, hear and
> > read all about all of this stuff everywhere.
>
> I see this from two angles. Here is the first: My two daughters have
> mild-moderate hearing loss that was found through newborn hearing
> screening. We were surprised because we didn't have hearing loss in
> the family, and knew nothing about it. We were incredibly grateful
> for "early intervention" because it enabled us to get our children
> the technology (hearing aids) they needed and equipped us with some
> additional skills for encouraging speech development in hearing-
> impaired children. I'm not sure how unschoolers would argue with
> this. I don't think unschooling includes disregarding whwen our
> children have senses that could function at a higher level with
> technology and/or therapy. Yes, my children could function in a world
> w/o hearing aids and early intervention speech therapy, but they
> would do so with more frustration because of a limited ability to
> communicate. I know with my own children that this would not be the
> best decision for them since my oldest daughter has a lot of "high-
> need" feelings that would be exacerbated by a limited ability to
> communicate.
>
> Here's the second angle: In my before-kids job as a therapist in a
> foster care residential home, I saw many clients with a variety
> of "learning disabilities" that could be chalked up to the fact that
> they didn't fit into the mold of what the public school wanted in a
> student. I firmly believe that public schooling creates many of these
> diagnoses for children that wouldn't exist if they were in
> an "unschooled" situation. I also have felt as a parent (early on)
> the pressure created by having Parents as Teacher, etc. telling you
> what typical development is, and offering for the physical therapist
> to come in if your child isn't crawling, walking, etc. by a specified
> time.
>
>
> I guess my main point is that early intervention and the like should
> not be completely discounted because it really can benefit children.
> But as we've thoroughly discussed, the pressure created by these
> types of programs can also lead parents to not fully see their
> children as unique individuals, but as colmunations of developmental
> milestones that may or may not be "normal".
>
> Jen
> --- In [email protected], "beensclan" <beensclan@...>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I think this is a serious problem that stems from the early
> > > intervention stuff from schools. The government provides funds to
> > > states, counties, cities, schools based on the number of children
> > > they have in their districts who need early intervention.
> Therefore,
> > > it's beneficial to the district...to find as many children as
> > > possible who need early intervention. It's difficult for new
> parents
> > > to trust themselves and trust their children when they see, hear
> and
> > > read all about all of this stuff everywhere.
> > >
> > > People are born to development normally, to survive, to thrive. We
> > > don't need all this intervention and special treatment. If we did,
> > > humans would not populate the planet.
> > >
> > > Alysia
> > >
> >
> > I agree with what Alysia wrote here and know it for a fact. I used
> to
> > work in the Special Needs classrooms. Around the time I began to
> become
> > very disenchanted with the system was when one of the mums decided
> that
> > she would like here son to try attending a mainstream Grade 2 class
> in
> > hopes that his behaviour issues would lessen. I had to sit at a
> meeting
> > with teachers and an administration personel as they all agreed that
> > they would not let this student go mainstream. We all knew that if
> our
> > Special Needs class-size dropped to below ten students, we would be
> > affected funding-wise. The mother's request to move her son was
> denied.
> > The mother ended up taking this to the top and eventually (this
> makes me
> > cringe...) won the right to move her son to mainstream.
> >
> > After my experience with the schools and students with Special
> Needs I
> > knew to never let my son near that system. I'm pretty sure that if
> my
> > son entered the system, a label would be put on him. It would
> probably
> > be some form of sensory integration problem. Something that I see
> his
> > body working out year after year to the point now where he seems
> > "normal". Now he's free to learn, live and love with every
> confidence
> > that he is whole and wonderfully made.
> >
>
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (60)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 4.2. Re: Book Recommendations now Early Intervention
> Posted by: "Adrean Clark" adreanaline@... fuzzyellowduck
> Date: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:47 am ((PDT))
>
> Well, I have to disagree with you on that one. I went through a lot of
> "intervention" when I was a toddler and onwards - hearing aids, speech
> therapy, mainstreaming, etc.
>
> To this day I have physical and psychological effects of that
> experience - tinnitus from the amplification so close to my eardrums
> and well, I could write a book on the psychological scars of being
> constantly compared to hearing people. My self-worth got pegged on
> how well I was doing academically and how well I spoke and behaved
> accordingly to hearing cultural expections.
>
> If you asked my parents about it, they'd say they did the best they
> could. That I turned out all right anyway. Today I do not speak
> socially and nor do I use hearing aids. My education tanked out at
> undergrad status. There's other things I peg my self-worth on now so
> I'm ok with it, but it was a LONG process.
>
> So no, I do not think intervention fits unschooling. Unless it was a
> severe, life-threatening condition - even then there are options -
> it's best to engage and ask the child what they want, regardless of
> age.
>
> Adrean
>
> On 4/21/08, jenniferheffern <jenniferheffern@...> wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is a serious problem that stems from the early
> > > intervention stuff from schools. The government provides funds to
> > > states, counties, cities, schools based on the number of children
> > > they have in their districts who need early intervention. Therefore,
> > > it's beneficial to the district...to find as many children as
> > > possible who need early intervention. It's difficult for new parents
> > > to trust themselves and trust their children when they see, hear and
> > > read all about all of this stuff everywhere.
> >
> > I see this from two angles. Here is the first: My two daughters have
> > mild-moderate hearing loss that was found through newborn hearing
> > screening. We were surprised because we didn't have hearing loss in
> > the family, and knew nothing about it. We were incredibly grateful
> > for "early intervention" because it enabled us to get our children
> > the technology (hearing aids) they needed and equipped us with some
> > additional skills for encouraging speech development in hearing-
> > impaired children. I'm not sure how unschoolers would argue with
> > this. I don't think unschooling includes disregarding whwen our
> > children have senses that could function at a higher level with
> > technology and/or therapy. Yes, my children could function in a world
> > w/o hearing aids and early intervention speech therapy, but they
> > would do so with more frustration because of a limited ability to
> > communicate. I know with my own children that this would not be the
> > best decision for them since my oldest daughter has a lot of "high-
> > need" feelings that would be exacerbated by a limited ability to
> > communicate.
> >
> > Here's the second angle: In my before-kids job as a therapist in a
> > foster care residential home, I saw many clients with a variety
> > of "learning disabilities" that could be chalked up to the fact that
> > they didn't fit into the mold of what the public school wanted in a
> > student. I firmly believe that public schooling creates many of these
> > diagnoses for children that wouldn't exist if they were in
> > an "unschooled" situation. I also have felt as a parent (early on)
> > the pressure created by having Parents as Teacher, etc. telling you
> > what typical development is, and offering for the physical therapist
> > to come in if your child isn't crawling, walking, etc. by a specified
> > time.
> >
> >
> > I guess my main point is that early intervention and the like should
> > not be completely discounted because it really can benefit children.
> > But as we've thoroughly discussed, the pressure created by these
> > types of programs can also lead parents to not fully see their
> > children as unique individuals, but as colmunations of developmental
> > milestones that may or may not be "normal".
> >
> > Jen
> > --- In [email protected], "beensclan" <beensclan@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > I think this is a serious problem that stems from the early
> > > > intervention stuff from schools. The government provides funds to
> > > > states, counties, cities, schools based on the number of children
> > > > they have in their districts who need early intervention.
> > Therefore,
> > > > it's beneficial to the district...to find as many children as
> > > > possible who need early intervention. It's difficult for new
> > parents
> > > > to trust themselves and trust their children when they see, hear
> > and
> > > > read all about all of this stuff everywhere.
> > > >
> > > > People are born to development normally, to survive, to thrive. We
> > > > don't need all this intervention and special treatment. If we did,
> > > > humans would not populate the planet.
> > > >
> > > > Alysia
> > > >
> > >
> > > I agree with what Alysia wrote here and know it for a fact. I used
> > to
> > > work in the Special Needs classrooms. Around the time I began to
> > become
> > > very disenchanted with the system was when one of the mums decided
> > that
> > > she would like here son to try attending a mainstream Grade 2 class
> > in
> > > hopes that his behaviour issues would lessen. I had to sit at a
> > meeting
> > > with teachers and an administration personel as they all agreed that
> > > they would not let this student go mainstream. We all knew that if
> > our
> > > Special Needs class-size dropped to below ten students, we would be
> > > affected funding-wise. The mother's request to move her son was
> > denied.
> > > The mother ended up taking this to the top and eventually (this
> > makes me
> > > cringe...) won the right to move her son to mainstream.
> > >
> > > After my experience with the schools and students with Special
> > Needs I
> > > knew to never let my son near that system. I'm pretty sure that if
> > my
> > > son entered the system, a label would be put on him. It would
> > probably
> > > be some form of sensory integration problem. Something that I see
> > his
> > > body working out year after year to the point now where he seems
> > > "normal". Now he's free to learn, live and love with every
> > confidence
> > > that he is whole and wonderfully made.
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Sent from Gmail for mobile | mobile.google.com
>
>
> Messages in this topic (60)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 5a. Re: RVing full time? we do it
> Posted by: "harmonyglb" harmonyglb@... harmonyglb
> Date: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:13 pm ((PDT))
>
> Hi Andrea,
>
> What an exciting adventure you and your family are on. We also full-
> time RV with our 5yo homeschooled daughter from October till April
> each year, and work at our campground, Tall Pines Campground,
> Canoeing & Country Store during the camping season. If you will be
> full-timing you may want to check out the Families On The Road Group,
> most of them RV, but a number of them are like you, either staying in
> hotels or company house. Our campground is close to New Hartford, so
> If you are in the area, stop in and say hi! Also, if you belong to
> FOTR (familiesontheroad.com) we also give a 10% discount if you stay
> with us if you ever do get that RV you're considering. You can get
> directions to the campground online at www.TallPinesCampground-
> NY.com.
>
> Best of Luck,
> Gayle
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Andrea" <faceliftz@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi All,
> > As of last Thursday, April 10th, we are now considered Unschoolers
> on
> > the Road of Life
> > although we are not in an RV (which is something we are considering)
> >
> > My husbands co. has us moving around state to state managing the
> > build of mall stores. Each build takes 6 to 7 weeks and they pay a
> > weekly set lodging and food expense. This allows us to negotiate
> > short term leases w/corporate/furnished apartment complexes. We
> have
> > a 14 yr old dd and we had to down size tremendously and utilize a
> > storage unit. She was excited at the thought of our 'adventure'
> and
> > did a great job of deciding what things she really wanted to take,
> to
> > get rid of and to store.
> >
> > This is our first job out and we are staying in New Hartford, NY
> > between Albany and Syracuse.
> > DD had no problem making friends and within the first two days the
> > phone was already ringing for her to come outside and hang out with
> > the gang. Fortunately the kids are on spring break here so she was
> > able to get in a lot of kid socializing this week. I think it also
> > gave her some confidence that the making new friends with strangers
> > game is not going to be as hard as she thought it might be. She
> never
> > seemed to have a problem making friends back at home but she did
> > express her concerns when we first got here.
> >
> > I think so far our biggest challenge has been, renting out our home
> > (to family) giving someone else the responsibility of making sure
> > important mail gets to us, and leaving our family dog. (heart
> > wrenching) we wanted to get a feel for this life before we tried to
> > bring him with us. Unfortunately most of the corporate housing
> units
> > are not animal friendly.
> >
> > My husband and I have had a few moments of anxiety with just trying
> > to get used to the dynamics of this new life style.
> > It really is a challenge, but keeping an open mind and an attitude
> > of "this is an adventure" and "a means to accomplishing our goals"
> > will be key to making this whole life changing decision an exciting
> > experience.
> > Our family goal is to build or purchase a resort in Puerto Rico to
> > run as a family with in the next few years. So by keeping that
> goal
> > in the fore front as well as enjoying all of new terrain and
> visiting
> > as many attractions in each new location..it will be a wonderful
> life
> > experience for the three of us.
> >
> > PS. Anyone in the New Hartford, NY area??
> > Andrea
> >
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (18)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 6.1. Re: Book Recommendations
> Posted by: "rabbits3arewe" rabbits3arewe@... rabbits3arewe
> Date: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:13 pm ((PDT))
>
> Well, it certainly seems my prior comments got under a lot of peoples'
> skins.
>
> As I've read all the responses, I've been amazed at how almost
> everyone on this site is attached to a very narrow definition of "good
> parenting" and "unschooling." Based on the responses I've read, it
> seems anyone who has ideas out of this narrow range must certainly be
> hurting their kids.
>
> I recently had the good opportunity to meet some local unschoolers.
> They see unschooling as a spectrum. When someone recommended this site
> I thought it would embrace a supportive, spectrum philosophy. When I
> read about the group rules, etc. I saw nothing contradicting this.
> Perhaps it would be good to bold and underline information emphasizing
> that this site is geared towards a specific type of unschooling. The
> group name is also misleading and should be changed. Then people like
> me could make an informed decision on whether to join or not.
>
> Something I haven't figured out is: Why is it that one parent can
> "know" their kids are okay when they're a bit slower than others, but
> when I had concerns about my kid, when I "knew" something wasn't right
> and I did something about it, I was going to give my child a complex?
>
> My son was not making the sounds he should have. He was clearly having
> problems. No he was not talking, he was only 8 months, but language
> acquisition is a process that starts before birth and he was not
> progressing to the point that I was worried and I trusted my gut
> feelings.
>
> I am surprised at how many people here are against speech therapy, but
> as I read the responses, I can see that no one really knows what our
> speech therapy was like. In case anyone is interested, a speech
> therapist (a very nice and knowledgeable woman) came to our house. (We
> declined visits from someone we didn't think could help us.) She
> watched how my son and I played. She kept telling me what a wonderful
> job I was doing and gave me little hints. "When he's in the swing,
> make the wee sound like this," (she told me why, but it's been so long
> I don't remember.) "Use the word puppy instead of dog because it's
> easier for him to form the word puppy." "Stand in front of the mirror
> and make this kind of noise." His therapy was her teaching me how to
> play with him in ways that were just a bit different than what I'd
> been doing. The therapist had my husband and me set the goals for
> therapy and when we met them in 3 months the therapy ended.
>
> Although I believe children should be able to follow their own paths,
> I do set limits. For example, I don't let my 2 year old play with
> drain cleaner no matter how much he tries to convince me it is what he
> wants to do. When he kept steering his tricycle off the sidewalk and
> into the easements, I walked in front of him and had him look at me so
> he would steer and stay on the sidewalk. Based on many of the comments
> I have read, it sounds like my making pro-active parenting/teaching
> choices like that and speech therapy have been detrimental to my son.
>
> I appreciated the comments from the poster who pointed out that, in
> the good ol' natural days, women and children (and men) died from
> causes they do not die from now. Children with "delays" did not always
> overcome them (they still don't.) I suspect in many cultures many of
> these children were left to die because caring for them required too
> much work.
>
> I stopped taking the comments personally when I realized this group
> does have a very narrow definition of unschooling and "good"
> parenting. I am not saying the parents here aren't making the best
> choices for THEIR families. I also am not saying that I can't learn
> some new ideas or techniques. I am saying I'm on a different part of
> the unschooling spectrum from most of the posts I've read. And that
> works for me and my family.
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (60)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 6.2. Re: Book Recommendations
> Posted by: "Jodi Bezzola" jodibezzola@... jodibezzola
> Date: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:56 pm ((PDT))
>
> ~~I do set limits. For example, I don't let my 2 year old play with
> drain cleaner no matter how much he tries to convince me it is what he
> wants to do. When he kept steering his tricycle off the sidewalk and
> into the easements, I walked in front of him and had him look at me so
> he would steer and stay on the sidewalk.~~
>
> I don't think you'll find an unschooler on the planet - radical or otherwise - who would let their 2 year old play with Drano or drive their tricycle into traffic. Both of these are simply keeping our kids safe. It's radical, not ridiculous.
>
> The preamble posted on the home page of the group can't possibly encompass all that this list is about. I think that is one reason why it's is suggested for new members to read for a week or two without posting to get a feel for the list and to know if it's really where you want to be.
>
> Jodi
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (60)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 6.3. Re: Book Recommendations
> Posted by: "Joyce Fetteroll" jfetteroll@... jfetteroll
> Date: Tue Apr 22, 2008 4:06 am ((PDT))
>
>
> On Apr 21, 2008, at 11:51 PM, rabbits3arewe wrote:
>
> > Well, it certainly seems my prior comments got under a lot of peoples'
> > skins.
>
> Not at all (meaning it didn't get people ticked off). But it got in
> people's brains and sparked alive a need to explain unschooling and
> mindful parenting :-) In fact it was a fun challenge.
>
> > this site is attached to a very narrow definition of "good
> > parenting" and "unschooling."
>
> Yes, pretty much! :-)
>
> Philosophies tend to limit our choices as a way of achieving
> something better.
>
> Once someone has thoroughly examined an idea, held their fears up to
> examination, and found the idea lacking, doesn't it make sense to
> drop it.
>
> Most people haven't thoroughly examined the ideas they've come to.
> They've found something that works. Why *should* they examine
> something that's working? There really isn't a reason to.
>
> It isn't until something's broken that people take the time to pull
> it apart and examine what's wrong. No reason to pull apart something
> that's working!
>
> I'd guess you've found something that feels right and feels like it's
> working for you. Maybe your kids will be easy going or at least
> compatible with the way you do things and everything will hum along
> just fine for you.
>
> But there are lots and lots of people here who have done a lot of the
> same things that are working for you (I'm just generalizing here) and
> found they didn't work and sought better answers. What they found
> here are people who've enjoyed deconstructing everything and
> examining it thoroughly, even things we thought were working. :-)
>
> Why does spanking work for some families and not others? Why does
> control and strict discipline work for some families and not for
> others? Why does controlling food to "healthy" (organic, vegetarian,
> no sugar, whatever someone's definition is) food work for some and
> not others? Why does teaching reading work sometimes and sometimes it
> doesn't?
>
> If you haven't found a problem with what you're doing, there's no
> need to examine.
>
> But what happens to lots of people who read, who don't have problems,
> they start noticing little things that they hadn't before. They
> notice that their kids are cranky when they've said no to something
> the parent thinks is reasonable and then, because of what's written
> here, they understand why the child is cranky and they see other ways
> they could have handled it.
>
> As is often said, take what you want and leave the rest.
>
> What the list *isn't* though, is a place to share "what works". It's
> a place to share ideas that will help people move towards unschooling
> and more mindful parenting.
>
> > Based on the responses I've read, it
> > seems anyone who has ideas out of this narrow range must certainly be
> > hurting their kids.
>
> No, it means that we've seen that certain practices have the
> potential. And if there's the potential for harm, and there's a
> better way that avoids the harm, why take the chance?
>
> > I can see that no one really knows what our
> > speech therapy was like.
>
> Yes, you explained it well. It was play. It was fun. I suspect your
> daughter wasn't the least damaged.
>
> The downside that people are trying to point out is that because
> experts stepped in and "fixed" something, you feel less like you
> could have nurtured her on your own, you feel less like your daughter
> could have figured it out on her own. I *do* remember the feelings as
> a first time mother that there could be hidden things wrong that only
> experts could see and only experts would know how to fix. It's best
> for the kids and yourself to get over those feelings.
>
> *Much* more helpful is to come to a list like this and ask
> experienced unschoolers what their experiences were. If your daughter
> were 8 mos old again and you expressed your concerns here, I'd bet
> there would be others who said, "Hey, yeah, my child did that too.
> She's fine now."
>
> The fact that what the "experts" helped you do fixed the "problem" in
> 3 months says that it would have cleared up on its own. She may have
> taken longer to figure things out. (Seems to me Einstein didn't speak
> until he was 3.) Experts *want* to find problems. They don't get paid
> if they say there's no problem. I don't mean they're mercenary. They
> may strongly believe they done something that prevented a huge problem.
>
> Reading teachers are the same. They're absolutely certain that
> without their help that kids would not read. The truth -- as
> demonstrated by unschooled kids -- is that most kids naturally learn
> to read in the 6-8 range. Teachers just happen to be there during
> those years. If the teachers jumped up and down and waved their hands
> while others read to them read when they wanted to and immersed them
> in positive experiences with print, the teachers would be just as
> effective at teaching reading ;-) (Perhaps more effective because
> they wouldn't be turning off kids who aren't developmentally ready.)
>
> > Although I believe children should be able to follow their own paths,
> > I do set limits. For example, I don't let my 2 year old play with
> > drain cleaner
>
> That's not a limit. That's helping her keep herself safe. She *wants*
> the world safe for her explorations. She'd be really mad if you let
> her do something imminently dangerous!
>
> It's *very* helpful to clear thinking to see the difference. Not
> having the freedom to drink drain cleaner is *nothing* like not
> having the freedom to eat a Twinkie. Not having the freedom to ride a
> tricycle into traffic is not the same as not having the freedom to
> explore television.
>
> Joyce
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (60)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 6.4. Re: Book Recommendations
> Posted by: "kbcdlovejo@..." kbcdlovejo@... kellyinsc
> Date: Tue Apr 22, 2008 6:26 am ((PDT))
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rabbits3arewe <rabbits3arewe@...>
>
>
> Well, it certainly seems my prior comments got under a lot of peoples'
> skins.
>
> -=-=-
>
> Nope. Just more fodder for discussion.
>
> -=-=-=-
>
> As I've read all the responses, I've been amazed at how almost
> everyone on this site is attached to a very narrow definition of "good
> parenting" and "unschooling." Based on the responses I've read, it
> seems anyone who has ideas out of this narrow range must certainly be
> hurting their kids.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-
>
> To me, it's mostly about not thinking deeply enough.
>
> But I admit to have a pretty narrow definition of unschooling. Not
> everyone on this list does however.
>
> -==-=-=-=-
>
> I recently had the good opportunity to meet some local unschoolers.
> They see unschooling as a spectrum. When someone recommended this site
> I thought it would embrace a supportive, spectrum philosophy. When I
> read about the group rules, etc. I saw nothing contradicting this.
> Perhaps it would be good to bold and underline information emphasizing
> that this site is geared towards a specific type of unschooling. The
> group name is also misleading and should be changed. Then people like
> me could make an informed decision on whether to join or not.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> Following the list guidelines and reading for a couple of weeks---as
> well as reading the archives---helps a LOT in getting the feel of the
> list.
>
> I don't think we'll be changing the name. I think we work *really* hard
> to help other understand the *basics* of unschooling. Its foundation is
> trust and respect. And part of the trust is understanding that children
> don't do or learn things at the same time in the same way. And parents
> need to trust that children DO learn, no matter what the time table.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=--=
>
> Something I haven't figured out is: Why is it that one parent can
> "know" their kids are okay when they're a bit slower than others, but
> when I had concerns about my kid, when I "knew" something wasn't right
> and I did something about it, I was going to give my child a complex?
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-
>
> No one said you were giving your child a "complex."
>
> But the reliance on "experts" in something that is developmental *can*
> have negative impact later. Not necessarily with the "delayed" speech
> of an eight month old. But the idea that we need experts to "fix"
> children who seem "behind." Also---the whole idea that a child needs to
> be "fixed" at all is damaging to the child and the parent/child
> relationship.
>
> -===-=-=-
>
> My son was not making the sounds he should have. He was clearly having
> problems. No he was not talking, he was only 8 months, but language
> acquisition is a process that starts before birth and he was not
> progressing to the point that I was worried and I trusted my gut
> feelings.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-
>
> Maybe you're right, and the ONLY thing that would have corrected his
> "speech" was intervention.
>
> What would the outcome have been, do you think, had there been no
> intervention? If you had just played and talked with him? Do you think
> he'd be mute? That he wouldn't make the "o" sound?
>
> When he's not reading at seven, will that be the same reaction? Early
> intervention?
>
> *Many* parents "intervene" with reading at four! The schools want it
> earlier and earlier---'cause Early is Best!
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> I am surprised at how many people here are against speech therapy, but
> as I read the responses, I can see that no one really knows what our
> speech therapy was like. <snip> The therapist had my husband and me
> set the goals for
> therapy and when we met them in 3 months the therapy ended.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-
>
> It really doesn't matter what the therapy was like. The concern is over
> the proposed *need* for therapy at all.
>
> And the outcome makes me wonder all the more. Therapy ended before the
> infant was even a year old? So...kind of on a normal schedule?
>
> Maybe you're right, and only early intervention was going to prevent
> the baby from being tongue-tied.
>
> -=-=-=-==-
>
> Although I believe children should be able to follow their own paths,
> I do set limits. For example, I don't let my 2 year old play with
> drain cleaner no matter how much he tries to convince me it is what he
> wants to do. When he kept steering his tricycle off the sidewalk and
> into the easements, I walked in front of him and had him look at me so
> he would steer and stay on the sidewalk. Based on many of the comments
> I have read, it sounds like my making pro-active parenting/teaching
> choices like that and speech therapy have been detrimental to my son.
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-
>
> Right. My kids play with Drain-O all the time. <g>
>
> You're mixing apples and oranges.
>
> The point is that the "spectrum" of learning is wide. Some kids speak
> at 12 months. Some don't speak until three. Some walk at eight months.
> Some don't walk until two years. Some read at four years. Some don't
> read until 12. We don't need "early intervention" for something that
> will happen naturally but at different speeds. We all learn at
> different rates. That's one of the big problems with schools----they
> want all kids doing things at the same time because it's easier for the
> teachers. It doesn't matter what's easier---or *better*---for each
> CHILD. "On time" is what's important. *WE* and our children, on the
> other hand, have all the time in the world.
>
> Milestones are a great way to determine that our children are
> progressing "normally"---what's "average." But "average" means that
> there is a low end and a high end, early and late ends. Being late to a
> milestone doesn't mean that he'll never get there.
>
> -=-=-=-=-==-=-
>
> I appreciated the comments from the poster who pointed out that, in
> the good ol' natural days, women and children (and men) died from
> causes they do not die from now. Children with "delays" did not always
> overcome them (they still don't.)
>
> -=-=-=-=-=-=-
>
> I think *all* children with "delays" DO overcome them. They're just
> slow in getting there. That's what a "delay" IS.
>
> It's the children with actual permanent physical/psychological problems
> who may not overcome them. They may learn how to deal with their
> problems in creative ways. Or not.
>
> But a "delay" is just the low end of "average." And they'll eventually
> catch up in time.
>
>
> ~Kelly
>
> Kelly Lovejoy
> Conference Coordinator
> Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
> http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (60)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 7a. Re: Need Advice on computer times
> Posted by: "Kim Musolff" kmoose75@... little_minds_preschool
> Date: Mon Apr 21, 2008 10:32 pm ((PDT))
>
> ***
> > > I know that if he getts his needs met with
> > > an active play, he will not be interested in games so much,
> >
> > Not necessarily true - my kids are both pretty active. They find
> > ways to get their physical needs met *and* spend plenty of time
> > watching tv and playing computer and video games.
> >
> if we spend so much more time at home with our
> children with everyone learning all the time, doesn't it make sense
> that they could get more screen time just because they have more
> time in general and still get just as much learning and physical
> activity and exercise or maybe even more than if they spent 6-8
> hours at school? ***
>
> I've wondered about this too. The recommended "hour" of tv a day, just
> seems so limiting, especially if children have ALL DAY to explore and
> learn!
>
> But I do still wonder about the addiction factor. My 6yo seems to be almost
> addicted to the computer/tv. He doesn't take much interest in anything else
> lately. Even things he used to love! He actually said to me the other day,
> "Mommy, I wish I liked board games again, so I could play with you guys."
> He's a pretty shy kid, and I feel like sometimes he doesn't want to go
> places with us, because it's easier to just stay home and play on the
> computer than to have to deal with other people. Any way I put it, it just
> never sounds fun to get out and play (even if there are no other people
> involved). Has this happened with anyone else? Will it get better?
>
> Kim
>
>
>
> On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 10:05 PM, keetry <keetry@...> wrote:
>
> > --- In [email protected]<unschoolingbasics%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > "Meredith" <meredith@...>
> > wrote:
> > > > I know that if he getts his needs met with
> > > > an active play, he will not be interested in games so much,
> > >
> > > Not necessarily true - my kids are both pretty active. They find
> > > ways to get their physical needs met *and* spend plenty of time
> > > watching tv and playing computer and video games.
> > >
> >
> > I've been wondering about this lately...the idea of people watching
> > hours of TV and, therefor, not getting outside and getting physical
> > activity/exercise and being healthy. How much of this is tied to the
> > idea of the average child/adult who spends 6-8 hours a day at
> > school/work and only has a few hours at home before needing to go to
> > bed so s/he can get up and go to school/work the next day? I've read
> > that a lot of school time is wasteful. It doesn't really take a
> > child 6-8 hours to do all the work that's required but it does take
> > that long to wrangle all of those kids. If you were to do "school"
> > at home, it would take you half the time.
> >
> > I experienced this when I first started homeschooling. I got a bunch
> > of textbooks and a guideline of what work to do and when. My son was
> > done with all of the daily textbook work within 2 hours. It was the
> > same work that was done in a 6-7 subject school day.
> >
> > So, my point is that if we spend so much more time at home with our
> > children with everyone learning all the time, doesn't it make sense
> > that they could get more screen time just because they have more
> > time in general and still get just as much learning and physical
> > activity and exercise or maybe even more than if they spent 6-8
> > hours at school? An hour of physical exercise...that leaves about 12
> > hours to do whatever. So then 4 or 6 hours watching TV anb/or
> > playing computer games still leaves a lot of time to do other things.
> >
> > Alysia
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Messages in this topic (10)
> ________________________________________________________________________
> 7b. Re: Need Advice on computer times
> Posted by: "Joyce Fetteroll" jfetteroll@... jfetteroll
> Date: Tue Apr 22, 2008 2:30 am ((PDT))
>
>
> On Apr 22, 2008, at 1:32 AM, Kim Musolff wrote:
>
> > But I do still wonder about the addiction factor. My 6yo seems to
> > be almost
> > addicted to the computer/tv.
>
> Passions can look and feel like addictions.
>
> But it's not. If TV and video games were addicting, then unschooled
> kids would be addicted.
>
> Plenty of unschooled kids have gone through periods of high use, but
> the none have shown the long term effects of addiction: needing more
> and greater fixes, and so on.
>
> Try reading the following. Scroll down, it's the last on, it starts
> with "Hi" I went into TV and addiction pretty thoroughly.
>
> Arguments against arguments against TV
> http://tinyurl.com/2kprgh
>
> And to see it clearly, he's not watching TV or the computer. He's not
> turning the TV on and watching whatever comes on. Same with the
> computer. He's using both to find things that interest him. They're
> access portals. Just like libraries are access portals to books.
>
> Rather than looking at the box he's looking at, sit with him and see
> what he explores and talk about what's interesting him. Don't sit
> with the idea of getting him off, but of immersing in the world with
> him. Understand the draw so he has someone to talk to who understands.
>
> Find *more* that he can do with what draws him. Boy, did I know a lot
> about Pokemon when my daughter was that age ;-) We were immersed in a
> world of Pokemon. But don't see it as a way of pulling him from
> something but as expanding on interests that are already there. If he
> feels you pulling, he's likely to hold on tighter.
>
> > He doesn't take much interest in anything else
> > lately. Even things he used to love!
>
> Passions can be that way. And they do eat up a lot of time!
>
> One thing about TV is that kids can feel trapped by the TV station's
> schedule. They feel they need to be in front of the TV when the
> stations show the child's favorite programs. And what episode of the
> program the stations show can feel random, so there's an even more
> compelling reason to stick around.
>
> TiVo/DVRs can be great for that. Series can be set to record and then
> the shows can be watched anytime the child wants.
>
> Before they were invented, I put in VHS tapes to record programs so
> my daughter felt free to leave the TV. Very often she didn't bother
> watching the show she'd taped. What she wanted was to be in control
> of what and when. You can also buy many series on DVD. (Check Amazon
> for used copies.)
>
> It might help to read books about passionate people so he can see
> he's not alone :-)
>
> > He actually said to me the other day,
> > "Mommy, I wish I liked board games again, so I could play with you
> > guys."
>
> It could be a sign that he's getting ready to move on. It may take a
> while still.
>
> Reassure him that passions can be all consuming. Ask him if he'd like
> to start ex
>
> > He's a pretty shy kid, and I feel like sometimes he doesn't want to go
> > places with us, because it's easier to just stay home and play on the
> > computer than to have to deal with other people.
>
> And if you were a social person and someone wanted you to stay at
> home and play on the computer but you *really* didn't like it, would
> it make you love computers if they made you?
>
> I think people see "shy" and computers and project that into the
> future of adult children living in their parents' basement with only
> the internet for company. But all those people were conventionally
> parented. And all those kids were forced to socialize from a young
> age, weren't they?
>
> Well, yeah, the thinking might go, but they're extreme cases. And
> there would have been a lot more except for parents pushing. And
> parent who believe that spanking and tight control creates upstanding
> young adults, believe that<br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)