Deb Lewis

***Just don't dismiss anything because for you it has an association with

school.***

Nothing was dismissed. The link was posted and those who wanted
participated.
The question was whether it was responsible for the basics list to
recommend a very schoolish activity - keeping in mind this list has a
higher membership of people in the process of deschooling than some other
lists.

***because for you it has an association with
school.***

For me? I don't think I'm the only one who noticed. <g>

***Ya know, school is part of the world, like it or not. If there was no
school, would activities like these, reframed in different language, be
more fun or appropriate?***

I think everyone understands the reality of school. But unschoolers have
made a deliberate choice to turn away from school and they've done so
because they believe life without school and school influence is a better
life.

***If there was no
school, would activities like these, reframed in different language, be
more fun or appropriate?***

There are fun things to do everyday, everywhere that are not associated
with schools or school language and that's what unschoolers know. They
don't have to look to the schools or to things that look like school.
They don't have to use a school example. They can look in another
direction entirely and find more than the schools could ever think to
offer.

***Is it just the
language you have a problem with?***

The language is a symptom. And like a symptom, if a person can get rid
of it for awhile, they can finally feel strong enough to fight the
disease.

The word "student" can keep parents looking at their child as if he was a
person who needed to be educated by some method or teacher. For
unschooling to work parents need to see their children as whole beings,
not lacking.

The words Kindergarten through (grade) twelve can keep parents comparing
their children to other children and measuring them against a standard.
Unschoolers need to understand learning and growth are personal,
individual, unique.

***I'm very interested in language
myself- after all, the way we speak affects the way we think, and vice
versa.***

Then it makes sense for unschoolers to stop using school related language
in regards to their lives and children. Unschooling won't work if
parents still see school and academics as a measuring stick. It starts
with the language, it transforms in their heads to thinking, and for
people to think like unschoolers (to think like people who are *not
schoolers* ) they need to stop using the language of school.

***But, in a broader sense, couldn't ANY life be a life of
unschooling?***

No. Children who are compelled into school by law and by parents are not
living an unschooling life.
People who are schooling are not unschooling.

***thereby segregating those that 'are' unschoolers from those that
'aren't'
unschoolers. ***

Unschoolers aren't trying to isolate their children from the world. It
is the schools have separated children from the broader society and
isolated them in institutions. Unschooled children are talking to and
meeting with people of all ages and backgrounds and beliefs every day.

***I can imagine an unschooling mom who lets her
babies cry it out and spanks her children.***

This list is a list to help new unschoolers discover and apply the
unschooling philosophy to their whole lives and that's why discussions
about *how* to spank or *how* to let babies cry it out are not
appropriate here. Discussions to give moms ideas for changing those
practices are welcome.

***(like it or not, I think we all have rules or
guidelines, spoken or unspoken).***

A well considered philosophy inspires principled living and leaves little
or no need for rules. Danielle Conger wrote a very thought provoking
article titled Rules vs. Principles for Life Learning Magazine and I've
included it at the end of this post for those who haven't read it
recently.

***It's not that
I value an educational website more than watching TV (though I'll admit
I value almost everything more than TV;***

Do you mean you didn't consiously compare the two things? By your
writing it seemed you considered her interest in the activity an
improvement over watching TV. If something is better, that's a value
judgement.

***She is very rarely excited about
anything, and she will sit in front of the TV for hours and hours, just
zoning out because she has no interest in doing anything. ***

What kinds of things does she watch?

***it's that she was actually excited and energetic and
happy, which is rare for her.***

Is it possible she was excited because you initiated something with her?
Because it doesn't fit that a child who "has no interest in doing
anything" was interested in coin flipping/ data gathering in an instant.


There are things that hinder unschooling. Those things are often our own
beliefs. Those beliefs that can hinder us are often revealed by our
choice of words because just as you said, the way we speak (or write) can
be an indication of the way we think. So, when someone writes and uses
language that devalues their child's choices it's a clue to their
thinking. When parents are making judgements about a child's choice to
watch TV they're seeing the TV as less valuable than some other thing and
they're evaluating their child as less discriminating than they'd like
him to be.

A child who's watching TV is watching *something.* A comedy? A drama?
Sports? Cartoons? Maybe she's interested in acting, dialogue, set
design, fashion, comedic timing, language, good stories, animation,
graphics, human interaction, human potential, sound, lighting...

For unschooling to really take off parents need to pay attention to what
their kids like. The need to know what they like to watch on TV and why
they like it. They need to know what interests their child and be
involved in that interest.

*If* a child really and truly "had no interest" in anything and was
sleeping late and was staring at TV with a total lack of interest in the
programing then the parent should know why that's happening as well. If
a child is lost and bored and doesn't have anyone helping her find
wonderful things to do then the mom needs to be much more available.

Deb Lewis



From here it's Danielle:

Rules vs. Principles

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

Recently, while attending the 3rd Annual Live and Learn Conference, I was
fortunate enough to attend an ongoing seminar by Ben Lovejoy on Rules
versus Principles. I had heard about a previous year�s presentation by
Ben and Sandra Dodd, which got me thinking about this difference. Posted
on an online discussion group, the rules/principles debate seemed a
deceptively simple semantic argument, but it sunk deep in my brain and
refused to let go.

Prior to this initial discussion, I hadn�t thought much about the
difference between rules and principles, nor would I have thought it to
be a terribly important distinction if pressed. Not that is, until I
really began to hash it out in my own mind and found it to be absolutely
fundamental to self-directed learning.
If organic learning means believing in a child's innate ability and
motivation to learn, offering her the freedom in which to learn and
respecting the learning in every moment and method, then organic learning
itself is dependent upon a freedom that must extend beyond the mere
educational box of schooling. Freedom cannot be
compartmentalized--allowed here, unaccepted there--if it is to flourish.
Instead, it must be nourished, fed, encouraged and allowed to expand, so
it may fully form the individuals that our children are and choose to
become.

Freedom, however, does not mean a free-for-all. It does not mean freedom
to destroy, hurt, abuse, manipulate or coerce others--a common
misconception when first encountering the ideas of self-directed learning
or non-coercive parenting. Freedom has both natural and ethical limits.
The key is to find those limits rather than imposing arbitrary or
coercive ones in their stead. But, how exactly do we find those natural
or ethical limits? That's where an exploration of rules vs. principles
becomes particularly useful.

Rules are all about authority, hierarchy, rigidity and absolutes. They
tend to be top down, reinforcing a power structure that relies upon a
"might makes right" mentality--"because I say so," "I'm the parent,
that's why," "That's just the way it goes." Rules exist outside the
person to whom they are applied. They are externally enforced and
prohibit the possibility of question, adaptation or exception.

Rules, laws, regulations, commandments all inherently imply punishment
for transgression and silence for challenge. Break a rule, get grounded
or spanked. Break a law, get a ticket or go to jail, and so on. More
importantly, rules are inherently paradoxical because they are
simultaneously absolute and arbitrary.

A parent both chooses the rules and chooses who must follow and when. A
dictator makes rules that he is above. Even in a democracy, rules require
interpretation, include loopholes and remain inconsistently and
opportunely enforced. American jails, for instance, are filled with the
racial inconsistencies in the application of American law. Rules and laws
operate on the myth of universality while reality consistently reveals
the arbitrary nature of their application.

Think about a household rule like �No eating in the bedroom� for
instance. A decree like this is phrased as an absolute when it is far
more likely an arbitrary restriction that will get thrown out the moment
a parent wants ice cream during E.R. or the family wants to share a bowl
of popcorn while snuggling in bed and watching a movie. As a rule, �No
eating in the bedroom� comes across as an arbitrary absolute�a paradox!

Children sense this internal contradiction and resist its inherent
injustice. Of course, countless parenting books hail "consistency" as the
key to enforcing rules successfully. In this example, then, a parent
would forfeit the family fun of popcorn and a movie and the pleasure of
ice cream in her own bed for the sake of consistency. Or worse, she would
become sneaky, like so many parents, and enjoy the coveted treat only
after the children have been sent to bed, none the wiser. Either way,
something is sacrificed: the joy of family bonding or the parent's own
ethical standing.

Principles, on the other hand, are about autonomy, mindful living,
freedom and flexibility. Principles, rather than being absolute and
automatic, demand careful thought and inquiry both to establish and
apply. They represent a consensus about rightness, fairness and equity
that once agreed upon provide an internal measure of conduct.

If after careful consideration we adopt a principle, we internalize it
and thoughtfully apply it to countless situations throughout our life.
There is no external threat demanding our adherence, only our own
internal sense of right and wrong. Living by principles offers our
children both the model of an ethical life and the opportunity to grow as
ethical and just individuals within themselves.

Principles can also help simplify our lives. A single sound principle,
fully explored and sincerely adopted, alleviates the need for a multitude
of rules. Rules proliferate because they are isolated and specific while
principles are few, simple and basic, cutting to the ethical origin or
foundation of living in the world.

For instance, if we live by the simple principle "cause no harm," we
eliminate the need for countless rigid household rules and invite,
instead, creative thinking and problem solving. Suppose that a child
wants to draw on the walls. If the rule is "no drawing on the walls," the
child's choices are severely limited: draw on the wall and get in
trouble, or sacrifice her own creative impulse. Or, perhaps a creative
child will quickly decide that although walls are off limits, furniture,
computer monitors or appliances may not be. One rule rapidly necessitates
multiple rules to cover all the possibilities a clever child might
imagine.

If the principle is "do no harm," however, that same creative child has a
number of different choices, guided by a single principle and limited
only by her own imaginative problem solving. Choosing to live by
principles, the whole family is able to help brainstorm for creative
solutions to her driving desire to draw on a grand scale.

Principle-driven parents might explain that they don�t want paint ruined
and the associated expense or labor of repainting. They might offer to
put up a chalkboard, poster board, or craft paper, test and find truly
washable crayons, donate less-conspicuous wall space to creative
expression like a bedroom, closet or basement wall. Throughout this
problem solving process, parents act as their children's partners rather
than punishers, fostering peace and trust in the relationship and leaving
the child�s dreams and creativity intact.

Principles apply to all, not just a few and not just those low down on
the hierarchical ladder because they are based on careful thought and
consent. As Ben Lovejoy pointed out in his seminar, rules are something
to get around by clever thinking whereas principles are guidelines for
life. Sound principles, unlike rules, apply to everyone regardless of age
or position because they represent the foundation of what's right and
fair for all. They demand thought and enable the flexibility necessary
to ensure freedom for all family members, not just those �in charge.�

For parents, putting principles in place of rules provides the
opportunity to model mindful living, problem solving and respect for
others. Principles enable us to forge strong and thoughtful connections
with our children as partners rather than adversaries, and they provide
the ethical foundation for living mindfully in the world rather than in
isolation, coercion or compliance.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------

� Danielle Conger 2005