mozafamily
I am confused about my responces as a parent and I'll give
some (ACTUAL)examples I would really appreciate feedback on:
He's running down a sidewalk incline with a big sign that says "no
Running" Should I:
1) Ignore it, console him if he falls down
2) Ask him to read the sign
3) say something like "don't run"
4) say something like "please stop running, it's dangerous to run
down an incline like this"
another example: He's standing on a shelf in a department store,
should I:
1) Ignore it, pray silently to myself that he doesn't break it
2) say something like "is standing on a shelf a safe and
appropriate thing to do?"
3) say something like "don't stand on store shelves"
4) say something like "Please get down, you could break that"
I keep reading more books (currently reading John Holt - Freedom and
Beyond and I think its the most confusing yet) and none of them can
seem to agree which approach is better, URGH! Please help.
some (ACTUAL)examples I would really appreciate feedback on:
He's running down a sidewalk incline with a big sign that says "no
Running" Should I:
1) Ignore it, console him if he falls down
2) Ask him to read the sign
3) say something like "don't run"
4) say something like "please stop running, it's dangerous to run
down an incline like this"
another example: He's standing on a shelf in a department store,
should I:
1) Ignore it, pray silently to myself that he doesn't break it
2) say something like "is standing on a shelf a safe and
appropriate thing to do?"
3) say something like "don't stand on store shelves"
4) say something like "Please get down, you could break that"
I keep reading more books (currently reading John Holt - Freedom and
Beyond and I think its the most confusing yet) and none of them can
seem to agree which approach is better, URGH! Please help.
joylyn
Unschooling doesn't mean unparenting.
If your child, whom you love and cherish, is about to do something that
might cause harm, than of course you should speak up.
However, in my mind, simply because there are rules doesn't mean those
rules are fair or enforcable. In your first example, the sidewalk has a
sign that says no running. Why is that sign there? You say it's an
incline, right? Is it such down hill that if he runs, falling woudl be
more dangerous than just running on another sidewalk? If so, then I'd
point that out. Hey, look Janene, there is a sign that says no running
(pointing out the sign), I wonder why it says that. I might take her
hand and have a conversation. In your second example, I think parents
have a responsibility to make sure their children don't damage property,
including that in a store. My children don't stand on shelves simply
becuase we've said, since they could do so, that's not a good idea, and
explained why.
I have really decided recently that I do not like the term unschooling,
because un means no or not, and I don't like that connotation. We learn
together as a family. They are the children and Mark and I are the
parents. I am not more than they are, nor less, we just are. We learn
together, but because I am older, I have learned more, especially, I
would hope, about how life works. We talk a lot about lots of different
things. I would like my children to learn through other's mistakes, and
not just their own. If they could learn through my mistakes, the ones I
made not just last week but those I made as a child, than that's be great.
Does a child really need to fall and break an arm in order to learn that
a sign posted on an incline indicating not to run might be something to
head? Surely a logical discussion regarding that sign and the
conditions would work just as well.
Joylyn
mozafamily wrote:
If your child, whom you love and cherish, is about to do something that
might cause harm, than of course you should speak up.
However, in my mind, simply because there are rules doesn't mean those
rules are fair or enforcable. In your first example, the sidewalk has a
sign that says no running. Why is that sign there? You say it's an
incline, right? Is it such down hill that if he runs, falling woudl be
more dangerous than just running on another sidewalk? If so, then I'd
point that out. Hey, look Janene, there is a sign that says no running
(pointing out the sign), I wonder why it says that. I might take her
hand and have a conversation. In your second example, I think parents
have a responsibility to make sure their children don't damage property,
including that in a store. My children don't stand on shelves simply
becuase we've said, since they could do so, that's not a good idea, and
explained why.
I have really decided recently that I do not like the term unschooling,
because un means no or not, and I don't like that connotation. We learn
together as a family. They are the children and Mark and I are the
parents. I am not more than they are, nor less, we just are. We learn
together, but because I am older, I have learned more, especially, I
would hope, about how life works. We talk a lot about lots of different
things. I would like my children to learn through other's mistakes, and
not just their own. If they could learn through my mistakes, the ones I
made not just last week but those I made as a child, than that's be great.
Does a child really need to fall and break an arm in order to learn that
a sign posted on an incline indicating not to run might be something to
head? Surely a logical discussion regarding that sign and the
conditions would work just as well.
Joylyn
mozafamily wrote:
> I am confused about my responces as a parent and I'll give[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> some (ACTUAL)examples I would really appreciate feedback on:
> He's running down a sidewalk incline with a big sign that says "no
> Running" Should I:
> 1) Ignore it, console him if he falls down
> 2) Ask him to read the sign
> 3) say something like "don't run"
> 4) say something like "please stop running, it's dangerous to run
> down an incline like this"
>
> another example: He's standing on a shelf in a department store,
> should I:
> 1) Ignore it, pray silently to myself that he doesn't break it
> 2) say something like "is standing on a shelf a safe and
> appropriate thing to do?"
> 3) say something like "don't stand on store shelves"
> 4) say something like "Please get down, you could break that"
>
> I keep reading more books (currently reading John Holt - Freedom and
> Beyond and I think its the most confusing yet) and none of them can
> seem to agree which approach is better, URGH! Please help.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
Sylvia Toyama
In the first example, and any situation where a sign is posted saying NO...., I would point out the sign and tell him we need to follow the rules. When asked why (after all, my kids always ask why) I explain that the rule is posted by whatever authority there is, and is for his safety, because the people responsible don't want to see anyone hurt, and because it would cost them a lot of money if he got hurt or someone else was hurt. The rules exist for a reason, following them is just simple consideration, in my book.
For things like climbing on the shelf, I would tell him to get down because it's not safe -- he could be hurt himself, or he could cause someone else to be hurt. At the very least, he could damage something and someone would need to pay for the repairs, and I have better things to do with my money.
In both kinds of situations, I've been known to physically remove a child. I have a responsibility to keep them safe, and to prevent them from accidentally harming anyone else. Just part of the job, and that's how I explain it to my kids.
Sylvia
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
For things like climbing on the shelf, I would tell him to get down because it's not safe -- he could be hurt himself, or he could cause someone else to be hurt. At the very least, he could damage something and someone would need to pay for the repairs, and I have better things to do with my money.
In both kinds of situations, I've been known to physically remove a child. I have a responsibility to keep them safe, and to prevent them from accidentally harming anyone else. Just part of the job, and that's how I explain it to my kids.
Sylvia
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
joylyn
Sylvia Toyama wrote:
another adult says, ever. I want them to make their own decisions, even
if it goes against rules. Rules are often wrong, not reasonable, or
downright against my moral beliefs. My kids have learned about civil
disobidience.
to think for themselves.
Joylyn
> In the first example, and any situation where a sign is posted sayingReally? I don't teach my children to blindly follow rules or to do what
> NO...., I would point out the sign and tell him we need to follow the
> rules. When asked why (after all, my kids always ask why) I explain
> that the rule is posted by whatever authority there is, and is for his
> safety, because the people responsible don't want to see anyone hurt,
> and because it would cost them a lot of money if he got hurt or
> someone else was hurt. The rules exist for a reason, following them
> is just simple consideration, in my book.
another adult says, ever. I want them to make their own decisions, even
if it goes against rules. Rules are often wrong, not reasonable, or
downright against my moral beliefs. My kids have learned about civil
disobidience.
>I agree with this, but I also think I have a responsibility to help them
>
> For things like climbing on the shelf, I would tell him to get down
> because it's not safe -- he could be hurt himself, or he could cause
> someone else to be hurt. At the very least, he could damage something
> and someone would need to pay for the repairs, and I have better
> things to do with my money.
>
> In both kinds of situations, I've been known to physically remove a
> child. I have a responsibility to keep them safe, and to prevent them
> from accidentally harming anyone else. Just part of the job, and
> that's how I explain it to my kids.
to think for themselves.
Joylyn
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> Sylvia
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AlwaysLearning/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
Sylvia Toyama
Really? I don't teach my children to blindly follow rules or to do what
another adult says, ever. I want them to make their own decisions, even
if it goes against rules. Rules are often wrong, not reasonable, or
downright against my moral beliefs. My kids have learned about civil
disobidience.
****
Yes, in that example of the no running rule, and similar ones. For example, at our neighborhood park there is a sign that reads No Fishing, No Wading No Swimming at the pond. Actually it's just a big drainage basin, but it does have fish, ducks and frogs -- it also has a rough concrete finish, and the water is beyond skanky and filthy. The rule exists for a good reason. Besides, the entire time they are leaning over the edge looking for fish, I'm truly very worried someone will fall in and be hurt. I realize it's obssesive, but it's one of my genuine phobias, so in that case, I'm glad I can cite the rule and herd them back towards the playground. Maybe I should more closely examine my motives, and how I respond.
For that matter, it might be best if everyone just discounts much of what I say this weekend -- I've just been thru an 'encounter' with my Mom where she has AGAIN offered unsolicited advice for how I should be disciplining my children, the many mistakes I've made with my oldest (and the current fall-out he's working thru) adn how I really need to look at my methods and make sure I prevent the same mistakes with the other two.... and I'm a little defensive and scattered right now. It's probably time for a personal rant into my journal.....
Syl
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
another adult says, ever. I want them to make their own decisions, even
if it goes against rules. Rules are often wrong, not reasonable, or
downright against my moral beliefs. My kids have learned about civil
disobidience.
****
Yes, in that example of the no running rule, and similar ones. For example, at our neighborhood park there is a sign that reads No Fishing, No Wading No Swimming at the pond. Actually it's just a big drainage basin, but it does have fish, ducks and frogs -- it also has a rough concrete finish, and the water is beyond skanky and filthy. The rule exists for a good reason. Besides, the entire time they are leaning over the edge looking for fish, I'm truly very worried someone will fall in and be hurt. I realize it's obssesive, but it's one of my genuine phobias, so in that case, I'm glad I can cite the rule and herd them back towards the playground. Maybe I should more closely examine my motives, and how I respond.
For that matter, it might be best if everyone just discounts much of what I say this weekend -- I've just been thru an 'encounter' with my Mom where she has AGAIN offered unsolicited advice for how I should be disciplining my children, the many mistakes I've made with my oldest (and the current fall-out he's working thru) adn how I really need to look at my methods and make sure I prevent the same mistakes with the other two.... and I'm a little defensive and scattered right now. It's probably time for a personal rant into my journal.....
Syl
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pam sorooshian
On Feb 29, 2004, at 12:43 PM, joylyn wrote:
trappings of school. Maybe some day (maybe sooner than we think <G>)
learning will no longer be equated with schooling and even schooling
will no longer mean what it does today - lecturing, testing, imposed
curriculum, grades, assignments, and learning during specific
hours/days. Until then, it makes sense to me that we are defined by the
fact that we do NOT do those things - we do not do school. It doesn't
talk about what we do instead - but that is not what distinguishes us
from how other people educate their children. My oldest daughter went
to school until 4th grade. When she was in school she was schooled, but
she also learned "naturally" - she learned through games and
conversation and real life, just like she continued to do, later, as an
unschooler. The ONLY difference was that when she was in school she was
also "schooled." We pulled her out and then she was no longer schooled
- hence, she "unschooled." The natural learning just kept right on
going, through it all. While it is true that unschooled kids don't have
the roadblocks in their natural learning pathways that school sets up,
to say we are "natural learners" as if kids in school don't also learn
"naturally," sets up a false dichotomy. Remember, much of what kids
learn in their lives is learned outside of school, naturally, even in
spite of lecturing, grading, homework, assignments, and
one-size-fits-all curriculum. Even though it takes up far more of their
lives than seems healthy to us, school isn't their ENTIRE life and
natural learning happens in schooled kids lives, too.
In response to the question, "Wouldn't the term 'natural learning' be
more affirming than the use of the negative in the term 'unschooling'?"
Suzanne Carter, a poet and homeschooling mom, wrote:
"Lots of people make this point, but I never see the negation as
negative in a value-judgment sense when I use the word--to me
unschooling is as positive as unchaining, unbinding, unleashing,
unfolding, unfurling, unlimiting...."
"All mean freedom and growth and vast possibilities to me."
This is posted on the unschooling.com website, along with a number of
other comments and definitions on unschooling, at:
<http://www.unschooling.com/library/faq/definitions.shtml>
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
> I have really decided recently that I do not like the term unschooling,Unschooling means "not" schooling. It means living without the
> because un means no or not, and I don't like that connotation. We
> learn
> together as a family.
trappings of school. Maybe some day (maybe sooner than we think <G>)
learning will no longer be equated with schooling and even schooling
will no longer mean what it does today - lecturing, testing, imposed
curriculum, grades, assignments, and learning during specific
hours/days. Until then, it makes sense to me that we are defined by the
fact that we do NOT do those things - we do not do school. It doesn't
talk about what we do instead - but that is not what distinguishes us
from how other people educate their children. My oldest daughter went
to school until 4th grade. When she was in school she was schooled, but
she also learned "naturally" - she learned through games and
conversation and real life, just like she continued to do, later, as an
unschooler. The ONLY difference was that when she was in school she was
also "schooled." We pulled her out and then she was no longer schooled
- hence, she "unschooled." The natural learning just kept right on
going, through it all. While it is true that unschooled kids don't have
the roadblocks in their natural learning pathways that school sets up,
to say we are "natural learners" as if kids in school don't also learn
"naturally," sets up a false dichotomy. Remember, much of what kids
learn in their lives is learned outside of school, naturally, even in
spite of lecturing, grading, homework, assignments, and
one-size-fits-all curriculum. Even though it takes up far more of their
lives than seems healthy to us, school isn't their ENTIRE life and
natural learning happens in schooled kids lives, too.
In response to the question, "Wouldn't the term 'natural learning' be
more affirming than the use of the negative in the term 'unschooling'?"
Suzanne Carter, a poet and homeschooling mom, wrote:
"Lots of people make this point, but I never see the negation as
negative in a value-judgment sense when I use the word--to me
unschooling is as positive as unchaining, unbinding, unleashing,
unfolding, unfurling, unlimiting...."
"All mean freedom and growth and vast possibilities to me."
This is posted on the unschooling.com website, along with a number of
other comments and definitions on unschooling, at:
<http://www.unschooling.com/library/faq/definitions.shtml>
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.