lots of input
Sandra Dodd
There's a saying I can't find to quote or credit that's something
like "using one source is plagiarism; using two is research."
With things like unschooling, I always assume that people are using
three or ten sources, but then I'm reminded of times when someone
seems to have glommed on to one source and ignored all others. It's
not the best. I'm thinking of someone years and YEARS ago on
*Prodigy who was bemoaning her kids not staying together on their
lessons (she wasn't an unschooler; most weren't there, then). The
girl would happily have done several language arts lessons in one
day, while the boy could hardly finish one. The mom had to force the
girl to stop, and force the boy to go.
To my very sensible ("sensible" in the range of "DUH!" I thought)
suggestion that she let the girl do as much as she wanted, and help
the boy with his, or let him do something else entirely, she said
that I could not possibly BEGIN to understand the situation, as I was
not the mother of twins.
Rejecting other people's ideas because they're not the mothers of
whatever particular "problem" a parent has labelled is legal in all
English-speaking countries as far as I'm aware, but just because
something's legal doesn't mean it's the best plan. Had that mom
joined a list of homeschooling parents of twins, she might or might
not have gotten better information, but past the early childhood
shared language likelihood and the lifelong comparisons and
irritations, learning works the same way with a twin as with any
other person. A twins group could have given her some good ideas,
but couldn't have provided everything in the whole wide world she
needed.
As it was, she kinda glommed onto me, and I'm reminded of this
because I pulled out two fat file folders of things she sent me--
photos and long letters and copies of handouts she had made for
crafts and painting classes she taught. It's some very cool stuff,
but because I made suggestions she really liked, she thought *I*
should be the source of all her input. That went on for a few years,
with me making lots of suggestions for other sources and resources,
and her writing and saying how clever I was to have suggested that
(rather than going to those other places for other ideas).
I don't mind people recommending other lists in addition to this
one. I think everyone should have several sources of information. I
assume that all-to-most of the people on this list are also on
UnschoolingDiscussion (and if you're not, you might look into it!).
Sometimes I throw the link out to other lists ( http://sandadodd.com/
lists/other ) not because I want to suggest people should leave this
list, or that one, but because if they're hungry for more input
quickly, more than one list is a way to get more ideas, other voices
and more points of view.
Is it because of our culture's experience with religion that some
people tend toward choosing one list and dropping all others? Is it
like changing churches or something?
Sometimes , it seems, some want to just have one source and otherwise
they feel disloyal or in danger of terminal confusion. Like their
soul won't be saved, or they'll have sinned by going to a
Presbyterian service if they're Pentecostal. But if you want to
learn about Christianity, you have to go to LOTS of kinds of
churches. And if you want to know about religion other than
Christianity, you have to explore, and read, and meet people and
watch movies and...
If people want to know about unschooling, they need to know something
about structured homeschooling and unit studies, so they know what
they could do and why they've chosen not to. it will help to know
enough about homeschooling in general to carry on a conversation with
people who aren't even homeschoolers who know a little or a lot about
it. It helps to know enough about unschooling's range and history to
be able to understand and defend what you're doing. That's unlikely
to come from one list or one website or one book.
Mix it up, explore, and don't forget that no one has gathered all of
any one sort of person all in one places. They're out and about.
Some are using labels and some aren't. Go with the principles and
ideas and underlying truths of learning, and it won't matter so much
anymore about the particulars. Learn enough about learning that you
the mom (or dad) really get it. Learning isn't just for kids. We
can feel how WE learn and grow and that helps us understand how other
people do. Yes there are differences in preference and
"intelligences" (I mean Gardner-style, not IQ style). Some MUCH
prefer books to conferences, or vice versa. Some would like to talk
for hours, and others would rather sit back and just watch and
think. But still the learning is personal and should not ever be
dependent on just one source.
Sandra
like "using one source is plagiarism; using two is research."
With things like unschooling, I always assume that people are using
three or ten sources, but then I'm reminded of times when someone
seems to have glommed on to one source and ignored all others. It's
not the best. I'm thinking of someone years and YEARS ago on
*Prodigy who was bemoaning her kids not staying together on their
lessons (she wasn't an unschooler; most weren't there, then). The
girl would happily have done several language arts lessons in one
day, while the boy could hardly finish one. The mom had to force the
girl to stop, and force the boy to go.
To my very sensible ("sensible" in the range of "DUH!" I thought)
suggestion that she let the girl do as much as she wanted, and help
the boy with his, or let him do something else entirely, she said
that I could not possibly BEGIN to understand the situation, as I was
not the mother of twins.
Rejecting other people's ideas because they're not the mothers of
whatever particular "problem" a parent has labelled is legal in all
English-speaking countries as far as I'm aware, but just because
something's legal doesn't mean it's the best plan. Had that mom
joined a list of homeschooling parents of twins, she might or might
not have gotten better information, but past the early childhood
shared language likelihood and the lifelong comparisons and
irritations, learning works the same way with a twin as with any
other person. A twins group could have given her some good ideas,
but couldn't have provided everything in the whole wide world she
needed.
As it was, she kinda glommed onto me, and I'm reminded of this
because I pulled out two fat file folders of things she sent me--
photos and long letters and copies of handouts she had made for
crafts and painting classes she taught. It's some very cool stuff,
but because I made suggestions she really liked, she thought *I*
should be the source of all her input. That went on for a few years,
with me making lots of suggestions for other sources and resources,
and her writing and saying how clever I was to have suggested that
(rather than going to those other places for other ideas).
I don't mind people recommending other lists in addition to this
one. I think everyone should have several sources of information. I
assume that all-to-most of the people on this list are also on
UnschoolingDiscussion (and if you're not, you might look into it!).
Sometimes I throw the link out to other lists ( http://sandadodd.com/
lists/other ) not because I want to suggest people should leave this
list, or that one, but because if they're hungry for more input
quickly, more than one list is a way to get more ideas, other voices
and more points of view.
Is it because of our culture's experience with religion that some
people tend toward choosing one list and dropping all others? Is it
like changing churches or something?
Sometimes , it seems, some want to just have one source and otherwise
they feel disloyal or in danger of terminal confusion. Like their
soul won't be saved, or they'll have sinned by going to a
Presbyterian service if they're Pentecostal. But if you want to
learn about Christianity, you have to go to LOTS of kinds of
churches. And if you want to know about religion other than
Christianity, you have to explore, and read, and meet people and
watch movies and...
If people want to know about unschooling, they need to know something
about structured homeschooling and unit studies, so they know what
they could do and why they've chosen not to. it will help to know
enough about homeschooling in general to carry on a conversation with
people who aren't even homeschoolers who know a little or a lot about
it. It helps to know enough about unschooling's range and history to
be able to understand and defend what you're doing. That's unlikely
to come from one list or one website or one book.
Mix it up, explore, and don't forget that no one has gathered all of
any one sort of person all in one places. They're out and about.
Some are using labels and some aren't. Go with the principles and
ideas and underlying truths of learning, and it won't matter so much
anymore about the particulars. Learn enough about learning that you
the mom (or dad) really get it. Learning isn't just for kids. We
can feel how WE learn and grow and that helps us understand how other
people do. Yes there are differences in preference and
"intelligences" (I mean Gardner-style, not IQ style). Some MUCH
prefer books to conferences, or vice versa. Some would like to talk
for hours, and others would rather sit back and just watch and
think. But still the learning is personal and should not ever be
dependent on just one source.
Sandra
Danielle Conger
Sandra Dodd wrote:
***But isn't this the purpose of having multiple lists, each with its
own distinct "flavor" and community? Why do the multiple voices need to
be on the same list, in the same spot? Why isn't okay if different
people set up lists with the different purposes and definitions from
which everyone can freely choose? I think that's the glory of having
multiple lists and exactly why I'm a member of different lists.
Why so much angst over how people define their own lists? That's the
part I'm not getting. If someone doesn't like one group's definition,
move on to another or create one. That's true diversity, imo--allowing
different definitions to exist without needing to blow them apart in
their own house, so to speak.
Yahoo lists are a weird hybrid between public and private. Kinda like
churches. Each group gets to define who and what they are though they
welcome and depend upon (with certain restrictions) public exploration
and membership.
It's kinda like running a 4-H group or a community book discussion
group. People can join and participate, and even have respectful
disagreement and input on the topics, but that's not the same thing as
going in and insisting that people discuss a totally different book or
that their approach to the activity is all wrong. Participation is a
kind of tantamount acceptance of the scheduled activity or book, though
if one didn't like it, they could leave and start their own group where
they'd have more control over the choice of activities/ book selections.
total free for all cacophony of voices. There comes a point at which,
imo, that multiplicity/ diversity actually takes away from in depth
exploration rather than adding to it.
Really, what's wrong with an on-topic, lightly moderated or even heavily
moderated list? As long as there's freedom in list-making, in other
words not a monopoly on a topic, then the freedom is there and can't be
lost. The key is in the free proliferation of lists, as I see it.
the thoughtful dialog where energy isn't wasted trashing other people. I
just don't understand the need to define oneself against someone else
when people can stand alone in such interesting and unique ways with
really great things to say. ****
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (7), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
> Is it because of our culture's experience with religion that someI agree. I just wrote something similar to another list:
> people tend toward choosing one list and dropping all others? Is it
> like changing churches or something?
***But isn't this the purpose of having multiple lists, each with its
own distinct "flavor" and community? Why do the multiple voices need to
be on the same list, in the same spot? Why isn't okay if different
people set up lists with the different purposes and definitions from
which everyone can freely choose? I think that's the glory of having
multiple lists and exactly why I'm a member of different lists.
Why so much angst over how people define their own lists? That's the
part I'm not getting. If someone doesn't like one group's definition,
move on to another or create one. That's true diversity, imo--allowing
different definitions to exist without needing to blow them apart in
their own house, so to speak.
Yahoo lists are a weird hybrid between public and private. Kinda like
churches. Each group gets to define who and what they are though they
welcome and depend upon (with certain restrictions) public exploration
and membership.
It's kinda like running a 4-H group or a community book discussion
group. People can join and participate, and even have respectful
disagreement and input on the topics, but that's not the same thing as
going in and insisting that people discuss a totally different book or
that their approach to the activity is all wrong. Participation is a
kind of tantamount acceptance of the scheduled activity or book, though
if one didn't like it, they could leave and start their own group where
they'd have more control over the choice of activities/ book selections.
> I'm not saying people shouldnt speak their truth...Im saying peopleSee, this is what I'm not getting at all. Not every group needs to be a
> should
> speak their truth...and noone can really control how another does
> that....not
> unless they moderate a list...but thats irrelevant here.
total free for all cacophony of voices. There comes a point at which,
imo, that multiplicity/ diversity actually takes away from in depth
exploration rather than adding to it.
Really, what's wrong with an on-topic, lightly moderated or even heavily
moderated list? As long as there's freedom in list-making, in other
words not a monopoly on a topic, then the freedom is there and can't be
lost. The key is in the free proliferation of lists, as I see it.
> And it takes so much time and good energy to focus on other people.Well, amen to that. I've stuck around here and have been really enjoying
the thoughtful dialog where energy isn't wasted trashing other people. I
just don't understand the need to define oneself against someone else
when people can stand alone in such interesting and unique ways with
really great things to say. ****
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (7), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
Susan McGlohn
At 10:00 1/5/2006, you wrote:
out in addition to, not in place of, this and UnschoolingDiscussion.
I am on several different unschooling lists, and each has value and each
offer a different flavor, but it is all unschooling. Sort of like a sundae
with different ice creams all combined, and some nuts thrown on top
;-) (Sarah is working at Ben & Jerrys now, so my analogies are taking on
an ice cream theme lately...mmm)
Susan (in VA)
wife to VegMan (aka Ted) since 12/86
momma to Sarah (10/89), Andrew (6/91), and Aaron (3/98)
"It's a small world....but a BIG life!" ~ Aaron, age 6
http://radicalchristianunschool.homestead.com/index.html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>I don't mind people recommending other lists in addition to thisWhen I suggested Nanci check out Shine, this is what I meant -- to check it
>one. I think everyone should have several sources of information.
out in addition to, not in place of, this and UnschoolingDiscussion.
I am on several different unschooling lists, and each has value and each
offer a different flavor, but it is all unschooling. Sort of like a sundae
with different ice creams all combined, and some nuts thrown on top
;-) (Sarah is working at Ben & Jerrys now, so my analogies are taking on
an ice cream theme lately...mmm)
Susan (in VA)
wife to VegMan (aka Ted) since 12/86
momma to Sarah (10/89), Andrew (6/91), and Aaron (3/98)
"It's a small world....but a BIG life!" ~ Aaron, age 6
http://radicalchristianunschool.homestead.com/index.html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Gold Standard
Sandra said:
sensible and INCREDIBLY insightful thinking. Adding lists can only add
information.
There was never a mention or intention to suggest LEAVING this list. I'm
still here! It's not all or nothing!
Joanne said:
probably have the same experience I do of getting different things from each
list. I'm sure you're glad to know about that list as well as this one. Both
lists rock!
Okay, I'm done.
Thank you,
Jacki
>>I don't mind people recommending other lists in addition to thisYeah, that's what I thought you thought Sandra. I really respect your
>>one. I think everyone should have several sources of information.<<
sensible and INCREDIBLY insightful thinking. Adding lists can only add
information.
There was never a mention or intention to suggest LEAVING this list. I'm
still here! It's not all or nothing!
Joanne said:
>>There are quite a few of us with children that have different needsJoanne, I know you from both lists and based on your posts believe you
>>on this list (and some of the other ones like UD & UB).<<
probably have the same experience I do of getting different things from each
list. I'm sure you're glad to know about that list as well as this one. Both
lists rock!
Okay, I'm done.
Thank you,
Jacki
Sandra Dodd
On Jan 5, 2006, at 8:25 AM, Susan McGlohn wrote:
Never had that before and might never have it again, but there it
gloriously was. Now I know something I didn't know before.
I could stick with only what's in the freezer, or the same thing I
usually have at Baskin Robbins, but I wouldn't know as much about the
world of ice cream in Albuquerque in general if I didn't explore. I
hadn't had ice cream for months, though we do have it in the freezer,
always. Holly and I went to Ben & Jerry's with no time schedules.
She was dressed all stripey. It was fun.
> Sort of like a sundaeMe, day before yesterday, chunky monkey with hot fudge.
> with different ice creams all combined, and some nuts thrown on top
> ;-) (Sarah is working at Ben & Jerrys now, so my analogies are
> taking on
> an ice cream theme lately...mmm)
Never had that before and might never have it again, but there it
gloriously was. Now I know something I didn't know before.
I could stick with only what's in the freezer, or the same thing I
usually have at Baskin Robbins, but I wouldn't know as much about the
world of ice cream in Albuquerque in general if I didn't explore. I
hadn't had ice cream for months, though we do have it in the freezer,
always. Holly and I went to Ben & Jerry's with no time schedules.
She was dressed all stripey. It was fun.
Ren Allen
"Why so much angst over how people define their own lists? That's the
part I'm not getting. If someone doesn't like one group's definition,
move on to another or create one."
I could tell you some history of these lists..but I'll spare you.
The nice thing about the old days, was this was the big
list...everyone was here. Anne, Pam, Joyce, Sandra, everyone!! So you
could get all those perspectives and "truths" at one big convention.
It slowly splintered off over the years, due to a variety of
issues...and now we have many, many lists doing what one list used to do.
That's ok, things evolve. I don't think we have to have one BIG list,
but it WAS easier then.:)
Ren
part I'm not getting. If someone doesn't like one group's definition,
move on to another or create one."
I could tell you some history of these lists..but I'll spare you.
The nice thing about the old days, was this was the big
list...everyone was here. Anne, Pam, Joyce, Sandra, everyone!! So you
could get all those perspectives and "truths" at one big convention.
It slowly splintered off over the years, due to a variety of
issues...and now we have many, many lists doing what one list used to do.
That's ok, things evolve. I don't think we have to have one BIG list,
but it WAS easier then.:)
Ren
Danielle Conger
Ren Allen wrote:
seems odd when people continue to rehash and define themselves against
what happened years ago, which is what that post was reacting to. *shrug*
I like having different lists with different flavors. I like having
options. But, then again, my favorite thing in the world is a big brunch
buffet. ;)
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (7), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
>Yes, I've heard enough to understand it all for the most part. It just
> I could tell you some history of these lists..but I'll spare you.
seems odd when people continue to rehash and define themselves against
what happened years ago, which is what that post was reacting to. *shrug*
I like having different lists with different flavors. I like having
options. But, then again, my favorite thing in the world is a big brunch
buffet. ;)
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (7), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
Ren Allen
"I like having different lists with different flavors. I like having
options. But, then again, my favorite thing in the world is a big brunch
buffet. ;)"
I'm like that too.
Actually, I had mentioned something to Kelly about yet another list a
while back and she about had a heart attack.:)
I started remembering my early days in '00 and'01 (I'm waaaaay after
the AOL times) when I could just log onto unschooling.com and one or
two lists and it sounded so nice and simple!!!
But there are some nice things about more lists, one of those being
that you can focus on helping newer folks or give die-hard RU's a safe
place to really talk. I love answering questions and helping others
the way I was assisted when starting out, but sometimes you just want
to be where people already get it.
Buffets are good. Especially if they have sushi.;)
Ren
options. But, then again, my favorite thing in the world is a big brunch
buffet. ;)"
I'm like that too.
Actually, I had mentioned something to Kelly about yet another list a
while back and she about had a heart attack.:)
I started remembering my early days in '00 and'01 (I'm waaaaay after
the AOL times) when I could just log onto unschooling.com and one or
two lists and it sounded so nice and simple!!!
But there are some nice things about more lists, one of those being
that you can focus on helping newer folks or give die-hard RU's a safe
place to really talk. I love answering questions and helping others
the way I was assisted when starting out, but sometimes you just want
to be where people already get it.
Buffets are good. Especially if they have sushi.;)
Ren
Nanci Kuykendall
>No one but maybe a koala or an aphid would eat allhis food >off the same tree for life.
>SandraYeah, but maybe to the koala, that tree looks like a
universe of vastly different leaves, with visual and
textural viariations that to him seem huge. Maybe
different sections of the tree have different flavors
too, because this side gets more sun, or these leaves
are closer to the trunk or whatever. Maybe his one
eucalyptus tree, or set of trees, is a whole lot of
variety to his finely tuned senses.
No point to that, it just occurred to me. lol
Nanci K.
Sandra Dodd
On Jan 5, 2006, at 2:58 PM, Ren Allen wrote:
song from Cheers. <g>
I'm singing all my e-mail.
Sandra
> -=-but sometimes you just want to be where people already get it.-=-Everything is reminding me of a song today, and that was the theme
song from Cheers. <g>
I'm singing all my e-mail.
Sandra
Pamela Sorooshian
On Jan 5, 2006, at 9:06 AM, Ren Allen wrote:
But I don't think I have "so much angst" but still I can bemoan the
fact that there are people whose posts I used to seriously appreciate
and they're busy on lists that I'm not on and so I don't get to read
much of them anymore.
AND - sometimes they are off on those lists because they think those
are the lists where their particular situations are more
appropriately discussed, while, in fact, they're missed and the lack
of those discussions is noticeable.
Someone asked me if I was serious that I'd want to see threads on
this list that discussed details of unschooling autistic kids, for
example. Wouldn't that be boring to people who don't have autistic
kids? My answer is that, yes, I'd like to see those discussions - of
sensitive, gifted, autistic, minority, very young, older, etc. HOW we
understand to apply unschooling principles when it isn't as simple/
easy to see - those insights are going to be very valuable to all of us.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> "Why so much angst over how people define their own lists? That's theYep. They can and do.
> part I'm not getting. If someone doesn't like one group's definition,
> move on to another or create one."
But I don't think I have "so much angst" but still I can bemoan the
fact that there are people whose posts I used to seriously appreciate
and they're busy on lists that I'm not on and so I don't get to read
much of them anymore.
AND - sometimes they are off on those lists because they think those
are the lists where their particular situations are more
appropriately discussed, while, in fact, they're missed and the lack
of those discussions is noticeable.
Someone asked me if I was serious that I'd want to see threads on
this list that discussed details of unschooling autistic kids, for
example. Wouldn't that be boring to people who don't have autistic
kids? My answer is that, yes, I'd like to see those discussions - of
sensitive, gifted, autistic, minority, very young, older, etc. HOW we
understand to apply unschooling principles when it isn't as simple/
easy to see - those insights are going to be very valuable to all of us.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ren Allen
" My answer is that, yes, I'd like to see those discussions - of
sensitive, gifted, autistic, minority, very young, older, etc. HOW we
understand to apply unschooling principles when it isn't as simple/
easy to see - those insights are going to be very valuable to all of us."
Yes, and some of us have children that could easily carry one of those
labels, but we've chosen NOT to define them any differntly than any of
our children.
I understand there are some challenges you NEED greater insight for,
but there are plenty of unschoolers dealing with "atypical" children
and choosing not to separate them in any way.
Ren
sensitive, gifted, autistic, minority, very young, older, etc. HOW we
understand to apply unschooling principles when it isn't as simple/
easy to see - those insights are going to be very valuable to all of us."
Yes, and some of us have children that could easily carry one of those
labels, but we've chosen NOT to define them any differntly than any of
our children.
I understand there are some challenges you NEED greater insight for,
but there are plenty of unschoolers dealing with "atypical" children
and choosing not to separate them in any way.
Ren
Susan McGlohn
At 18:16 1/5/2006, you wrote:
funny!
Susan (VA)
http://radicalchristianunschool.homestead.com/index.html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Everything is reminding me of a song today, and that was the themeMe TOO! Ever since this thread started, as a matter of fact. That is too
>song from Cheers. <g>
>I'm singing all my e-mail.
funny!
Susan (VA)
http://radicalchristianunschool.homestead.com/index.html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Danielle Conger
Pamela Sorooshian wrote:
There have been times when people have felt that their questions haven't
been taken seriously, which was one of the biggest drives for me to
create the AlwaysUnschooled list.
Although I can totally understand the argument that kids aren't
unschooled until they are legally and literally *not doing school*
whatever age that may be in whatever state/ country, I still take the
unschooling lifestyle--unschooling as it spills into parenting--very
seriously and think that if parents do it from the very beginning, so
much the better, so much less to undo.
I felt that a place where all these parents of young kids could be
encouraged, get information and engage in self-examination would be a
really good thing. In much the same way that I think ubasics is a really
great place for all those initial what ifs and howcoulditpossiblys.
I'm just not sure that an elist lends itself to the broadness your
talking about. I think message boards can do it, but they're a very
different beast to me, and I'm not as fond of them, personally. They're
more permanent in many ways, but slower, too. I like the immediacy of
email.
But that's just me. *shrug*
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (7), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
>Weeeelll, and this is said with the best of intentions...
>
> AND - sometimes they are off on those lists because they think those
> are the lists where their particular situations are more
> appropriately discussed, while, in fact, they're missed and the lack
> of those discussions is noticeable.
There have been times when people have felt that their questions haven't
been taken seriously, which was one of the biggest drives for me to
create the AlwaysUnschooled list.
Although I can totally understand the argument that kids aren't
unschooled until they are legally and literally *not doing school*
whatever age that may be in whatever state/ country, I still take the
unschooling lifestyle--unschooling as it spills into parenting--very
seriously and think that if parents do it from the very beginning, so
much the better, so much less to undo.
I felt that a place where all these parents of young kids could be
encouraged, get information and engage in self-examination would be a
really good thing. In much the same way that I think ubasics is a really
great place for all those initial what ifs and howcoulditpossiblys.
I'm just not sure that an elist lends itself to the broadness your
talking about. I think message boards can do it, but they're a very
different beast to me, and I'm not as fond of them, personally. They're
more permanent in many ways, but slower, too. I like the immediacy of
email.
But that's just me. *shrug*
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (7), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
Sandra Dodd
On Jan 5, 2006, at 6:01 PM, Ren Allen wrote:
Yes, and the only way to "prove" to those who are claiming one has no
experience whatsoever is to out your kids and that defeats the
purpose of avoiding the differentiations and labels.
It happens in discussions about giftedness. If one says "you don't
need to do this" the other mom might say "If you're not the mother of
a gifted child, you have no idea what you're talking about." If you
DO know what you're talking about, how do you prove it?
In a discussion of IQ, if one is saying "IQ needs to be ignored;
don't test them, because you'll never forget the number," they might
say "well that's fine for an average/normal person to say, but..."
and so at that point, does the first speaker pull out the old IQ score?
If someone will only listen to a person with a high IQ
and if someone with a high IQ says IQ doesn't matter
and BECAUSE that person showed a score,
then IQ matters.
If the person who won't listen to someone who won't prove their
officially-measured IQ "worth," then she is left assuming she's
correct, and that anyone with a high IQ would flaunt it.
Sandra
> Yes, and some of us have children that could easily carry one of those==============================================
> labels, but we've chosen NOT to define them any differntly than any of
> our children.
> I understand there are some challenges you NEED greater insight for,
> but there are plenty of unschoolers dealing with "atypical" children
> and choosing not to separate them in any way.
Yes, and the only way to "prove" to those who are claiming one has no
experience whatsoever is to out your kids and that defeats the
purpose of avoiding the differentiations and labels.
It happens in discussions about giftedness. If one says "you don't
need to do this" the other mom might say "If you're not the mother of
a gifted child, you have no idea what you're talking about." If you
DO know what you're talking about, how do you prove it?
In a discussion of IQ, if one is saying "IQ needs to be ignored;
don't test them, because you'll never forget the number," they might
say "well that's fine for an average/normal person to say, but..."
and so at that point, does the first speaker pull out the old IQ score?
If someone will only listen to a person with a high IQ
and if someone with a high IQ says IQ doesn't matter
and BECAUSE that person showed a score,
then IQ matters.
If the person who won't listen to someone who won't prove their
officially-measured IQ "worth," then she is left assuming she's
correct, and that anyone with a high IQ would flaunt it.
Sandra
Gold Standard
>>I like havingOmygawd me too!! Makes my mouth water just thinking about it :o)
>>options. But, then again, my favorite thing in the world is a big brunch
>>buffet. ;)<<
Jacki, who thinks a Sunday family brunch buffet is in her near future...
Nancy Wooton
On Jan 5, 2006, at 5:32 PM, Danielle Conger wrote:
birth, if not before, and is a philosophy as much as a method. I try
to get people to understand that *home* schooling is something legally
related to school; if they have a toddler, that child is at home, but
not home(pre)schooling <g> In California, your child is off the hook
until first grade and age 6, after which you must be "schooling" in
some form.
Nancy
> Although I can totally understand the argument that kids aren'tI make that argument, but not for unschooling, which I think begins at
> unschooled until they are legally and literally *not doing school*
> whatever age that may be in whatever state/ country
birth, if not before, and is a philosophy as much as a method. I try
to get people to understand that *home* schooling is something legally
related to school; if they have a toddler, that child is at home, but
not home(pre)schooling <g> In California, your child is off the hook
until first grade and age 6, after which you must be "schooling" in
some form.
Nancy
Pamela Sorooshian
On Jan 5, 2006, at 2:40 PM, Nanci Kuykendall wrote:
someone (again) recently asked me how we ever get into the holiday
spirit without any serious winter weather. Well - gee - the obvious
answer is that we Southern Californians have more finely tuned senses
- we NOTICE the shorter days, the difference in the angle of the
sun's light and so on. Oh yeah - and even the warm winds blowing off
the desert that we've been experiencing today, which quickly melted
all the snow that just yesterday sparkled on the distant mountains,
are part of the wonderful variety of "winter" weather that we get. We
don't need a winter snowstorm to clobber us over the head and shout
"It is WINTER at us." <BEG>
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yeah, but maybe to the koala, that tree looks like aHey good point. Kind of like weather in Southern California --
> universe of vastly different leaves, with visual and
> textural viariations that to him seem huge. Maybe
> different sections of the tree have different flavors
> too, because this side gets more sun, or these leaves
> are closer to the trunk or whatever. Maybe his one
> eucalyptus tree, or set of trees, is a whole lot of
> variety to his finely tuned senses.
someone (again) recently asked me how we ever get into the holiday
spirit without any serious winter weather. Well - gee - the obvious
answer is that we Southern Californians have more finely tuned senses
- we NOTICE the shorter days, the difference in the angle of the
sun's light and so on. Oh yeah - and even the warm winds blowing off
the desert that we've been experiencing today, which quickly melted
all the snow that just yesterday sparkled on the distant mountains,
are part of the wonderful variety of "winter" weather that we get. We
don't need a winter snowstorm to clobber us over the head and shout
"It is WINTER at us." <BEG>
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
On Jan 5, 2006, at 6:44 PM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
grown - the two who could have easily been "labeled" in various ways
are, in fact, adults now at 18 and 21. I simply don't have it in me
to "out" them now, after resisting all these years, suddenly saying,
"I DO understand because MY kid also is xyz....."
But now some of you are probably wondering what labels they WOULD
have had if I hadn't purposefully and actively resisted and refused
to do anything except treat them as individuals. Oh well - wonder
away - I'm still not doing it! <G>
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Yes, and the only way to "prove" to those who are claiming one has noI'm feeling exactly that pressure right now. My kids are pretty well
> experience whatsoever is to out your kids and that defeats the
> purpose of avoiding the differentiations and labels.
grown - the two who could have easily been "labeled" in various ways
are, in fact, adults now at 18 and 21. I simply don't have it in me
to "out" them now, after resisting all these years, suddenly saying,
"I DO understand because MY kid also is xyz....."
But now some of you are probably wondering what labels they WOULD
have had if I hadn't purposefully and actively resisted and refused
to do anything except treat them as individuals. Oh well - wonder
away - I'm still not doing it! <G>
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Gold Standard
Ren said:
I've released those feelings for the most part and want to tell you what
bothered me about these comments.
I'm not sure what you mean Ren with "choosing not to separate them in any
way". It SOUNDS like you are saying that adding another list that has lots
of parents with kids with similar situations is separating the kids in some
way. Could it be more that there is a union happening? That's what it feels
like to me. And since we are having this discussion here on this list...what
are we separating from?
It's not like MY SON is on the shine list...he knows nothing about the
differences between the lists I'm on. These are my lists. They help me and I
hope I've helped someone else along the way.
We don't see Andrew in any negative or limited way. In fact, we see him
shine more than ever! I am a better parent from being reminded over and over
again through reading posts that my child is an absolute perfect part of the
universe and my job is in part to see where he shines and support that 100%.
Them's healin' words for a parent who can't escape that their path with
their child in unschooling doesn't look like most of the posts on other
lists, or even like it does for the three other children in her own home.
And that advice seems like good regular unschooling advice, but it is not
what I've gotten anywhere else. So yes, joining another community is just
that...a joining...not a separating.
and take in good advice when it is there. Maybe others have said that they
are looking for proof?
I think good advice stands well all on its own.
there. In our case, we would be avoiding parts of my son. Same for all kids
I assume. We all ARE different. Having words that describe with accuracy can
certainly help understand one's self and others as well. I mean, it's not as
if the word "autistic" is a BAD thing, is it?
It seems like there is a great resistant to use the word "autistic" <insert
any other label>. I'd like to explore that for a sec. The way I see it,
"autistic" is only a *bad* word if you see it as meaning limiting and
debilitating and damaged. For two of my family, it has opened limitless
doors and has meant joy and understanding and appreciation in what otherwise
was a very confusing existence in this world.
It has helped my husband ENORMOUSLY...more on that in a bit.
It *seems* a reason people don't want to use labels is the thought that the
label creates a box.
For us, it was just the opposite. Having this descriptive word provided
explanations that finally opened the box.
My son said a couple of weeks ago to the teacher of a drama class he is
taking, "Oh. You're probably wondering why I am so blunt about what I think.
You see, I am working on making that easier on people around me, but it is
somewhat hardwired for me. Please don't be offended. If you ask my opinion,
I will give you the honest answer, no matter how offensive it seems. You
might know about it as an autistic thing." The moment he used the word
"autistic" the teacher suddenly realized that he wasn't an asshole, he
really spoke without the editing that most of us do. She was MUCH more
understanding after that. The label gave her some information to work with
without him having to say "I have sensory issues and my brain really hasn't
figured out yet what is okay to say to people and what isn't, no matter how
much great modeling I've had in my home my whole life and I'm walking in and
out of the room because I can only take the noise and fluorescent lights for
a few minutes at a time and my bladder gets REAL active in situations like
this and I know I look like an adult and should have better manners but I
really am doing the best I can ..." etc. "Autistic tendencies" has been much
easier for him to say.
He knew that this teacher was a little freaked out by him and because of
knowing the word "autistic" he already had mechanisms to help him navigate
through the world of "normal" people (no there is no such thing as
normal...I know...he knows...just using it in this example, with quotation
marks). He has googled autism and sought out on his own resources for
self-help and self-awareness. And is a happy and healthy creature indeed!
He has armed himself with some pretty dang useful tools that I would never
have thought to give him. It came from having a word to describe some of his
differences. Avoiding his differences would not help him in any way that I
can see.
JUDGING his differences is another story. THAT is the area where I see work
needing to be done. But not avoiding.
And now for my husband's story, if you are still reading :o)
He was "diagnosed" with Asperger's Syndrome at age 50. He says this was the
biggest relief of his life. Because his life, particularly his younger
years, were spent wondering why he couldn't do things others could, why he
didn't fit in and didn't even know what "fitting in" meant, why people were
always getting mad at him, why he could understand so many things that most
people couldn't and why other people were so stupid. His parents hadn't a
clue as to why he was this way and ignored to their best ability his
differences. Didn't try to help him navigate in this world, and in fact,
joined the bullies and the rigid teachers and the cranky neighbors in just
thinking he was weird and defective and beating him up in one way or
another. Not like any of us, I know, and that is a great difference between
our children and this story. But the core of this story is that Charles KNEW
he had differences, but no one would address it or help him or give him
words to understand. Only lack of words that left him hanging. He said that
if he was given this label when he was 12, he would have had a much easier
life.
If we are seeing our children no matter who they are as having no limits in
what they can do if they want to do it, then using a word to gain
information I see no harm in. We're not married to the word. The word isn't
defining us. We're just using it because it is a darned useful tool right
now.
Didn't mean to make this so long. My apologies.
Thanks,
Jacki
>>I understand there are some challenges you NEED greater insight for,Sandra said:
>>but there are plenty of unschoolers dealing with "atypical" children
>>and choosing not to separate them in any way.
>>Yes, and the only way to "prove" to those who are claiming one has noI know I said I was done, but these two comments hit me...actually hurt.
>>experience whatsoever is to out your kids and that defeats the
>>purpose of avoiding the differentiations and labels.
I've released those feelings for the most part and want to tell you what
bothered me about these comments.
I'm not sure what you mean Ren with "choosing not to separate them in any
way". It SOUNDS like you are saying that adding another list that has lots
of parents with kids with similar situations is separating the kids in some
way. Could it be more that there is a union happening? That's what it feels
like to me. And since we are having this discussion here on this list...what
are we separating from?
It's not like MY SON is on the shine list...he knows nothing about the
differences between the lists I'm on. These are my lists. They help me and I
hope I've helped someone else along the way.
We don't see Andrew in any negative or limited way. In fact, we see him
shine more than ever! I am a better parent from being reminded over and over
again through reading posts that my child is an absolute perfect part of the
universe and my job is in part to see where he shines and support that 100%.
Them's healin' words for a parent who can't escape that their path with
their child in unschooling doesn't look like most of the posts on other
lists, or even like it does for the three other children in her own home.
And that advice seems like good regular unschooling advice, but it is not
what I've gotten anywhere else. So yes, joining another community is just
that...a joining...not a separating.
>>the only way to "prove" to those who are claiming one has noI need no proof of anyone else's situation to recognize good advice. I read
>>experience whatsoever is to out your kids and defeats the
>>purpose of avoiding the differentiations and labels.<<
and take in good advice when it is there. Maybe others have said that they
are looking for proof?
I think good advice stands well all on its own.
>>avoiding the differentiations and labels.<<I am wondering why would we avoid differentiations when they are right
there. In our case, we would be avoiding parts of my son. Same for all kids
I assume. We all ARE different. Having words that describe with accuracy can
certainly help understand one's self and others as well. I mean, it's not as
if the word "autistic" is a BAD thing, is it?
It seems like there is a great resistant to use the word "autistic" <insert
any other label>. I'd like to explore that for a sec. The way I see it,
"autistic" is only a *bad* word if you see it as meaning limiting and
debilitating and damaged. For two of my family, it has opened limitless
doors and has meant joy and understanding and appreciation in what otherwise
was a very confusing existence in this world.
It has helped my husband ENORMOUSLY...more on that in a bit.
It *seems* a reason people don't want to use labels is the thought that the
label creates a box.
For us, it was just the opposite. Having this descriptive word provided
explanations that finally opened the box.
My son said a couple of weeks ago to the teacher of a drama class he is
taking, "Oh. You're probably wondering why I am so blunt about what I think.
You see, I am working on making that easier on people around me, but it is
somewhat hardwired for me. Please don't be offended. If you ask my opinion,
I will give you the honest answer, no matter how offensive it seems. You
might know about it as an autistic thing." The moment he used the word
"autistic" the teacher suddenly realized that he wasn't an asshole, he
really spoke without the editing that most of us do. She was MUCH more
understanding after that. The label gave her some information to work with
without him having to say "I have sensory issues and my brain really hasn't
figured out yet what is okay to say to people and what isn't, no matter how
much great modeling I've had in my home my whole life and I'm walking in and
out of the room because I can only take the noise and fluorescent lights for
a few minutes at a time and my bladder gets REAL active in situations like
this and I know I look like an adult and should have better manners but I
really am doing the best I can ..." etc. "Autistic tendencies" has been much
easier for him to say.
He knew that this teacher was a little freaked out by him and because of
knowing the word "autistic" he already had mechanisms to help him navigate
through the world of "normal" people (no there is no such thing as
normal...I know...he knows...just using it in this example, with quotation
marks). He has googled autism and sought out on his own resources for
self-help and self-awareness. And is a happy and healthy creature indeed!
He has armed himself with some pretty dang useful tools that I would never
have thought to give him. It came from having a word to describe some of his
differences. Avoiding his differences would not help him in any way that I
can see.
JUDGING his differences is another story. THAT is the area where I see work
needing to be done. But not avoiding.
And now for my husband's story, if you are still reading :o)
He was "diagnosed" with Asperger's Syndrome at age 50. He says this was the
biggest relief of his life. Because his life, particularly his younger
years, were spent wondering why he couldn't do things others could, why he
didn't fit in and didn't even know what "fitting in" meant, why people were
always getting mad at him, why he could understand so many things that most
people couldn't and why other people were so stupid. His parents hadn't a
clue as to why he was this way and ignored to their best ability his
differences. Didn't try to help him navigate in this world, and in fact,
joined the bullies and the rigid teachers and the cranky neighbors in just
thinking he was weird and defective and beating him up in one way or
another. Not like any of us, I know, and that is a great difference between
our children and this story. But the core of this story is that Charles KNEW
he had differences, but no one would address it or help him or give him
words to understand. Only lack of words that left him hanging. He said that
if he was given this label when he was 12, he would have had a much easier
life.
If we are seeing our children no matter who they are as having no limits in
what they can do if they want to do it, then using a word to gain
information I see no harm in. We're not married to the word. The word isn't
defining us. We're just using it because it is a darned useful tool right
now.
Didn't mean to make this so long. My apologies.
Thanks,
Jacki
Susan McGlohn
At 20:01 1/5/2006, you wrote:
"a-typical" kids on the defensive. Maybe it isn't meant to, and maybe the
parent is just hyper-sensitive because everyone is telling them what they
should or should not do for their kids, but when someone says, "My child
has autism" and someone else comes back with, "We have chosen not to label
our child", it can sound like a put-down, or maybe a challenge.
Recognizing that my kids have challenges and behaviors that are unique to
their particular a-typical neurological make-ups, and learning all about
those neurological differences and how others have helped their kids (and
dismissing some or most of it), and getting insight into other ways I can
help them that I might not have realized before makes me a better parent
for my children.
Sometimes using that word or label opens up a lot of information that might
not have be available before. I could google "temper tantrum" and get a
set of websites with information, but if I google "tantrum+autism" I get a
whole other set of results.
The labels aren't things that I use to separate them from others, or even
to define them to others in real life. We don't go to Park Day and
announce, "This is Aaron, and he has Aspergers, or possibly High
Functioning Autism". But those words/labels are useful in discussing those
challenges and behaviors with others when I am looking for input, and in
knowing how to help my boys in real life situations too.
We knew from an early age that Andrew had some sort of information
processing problem. It was just obvious from watching him and having other
children around that somehow he was not getting the same messages as
everyone else. But it wasn't until I had really researched it and had my
suspicions confirmed and then was surprised at the severity of it when the
test results were shown to me, that I really understood what the world was
like for him, and could begin to figure out ways to help. Knowing that
Andrew has CAPD (central auditory processing disorder) meant that I then
had a reference point for finding out how to help him navigate those
challenging situations.
Andrew's name isn't spelled CAPD, and it isn't a definition of Who He Is,
but it is a definition of some of the challenges he has that others
don't. Aaron isn't autistic; Aaron has autism, and it does affect how he
interacts with others and how he behaves and thinks.
If a parent has a child who is still having incredibly challenging moments
even with all the mindful parenting and unschooling environment and such,
and the parent has had to spend hours and hours researching to get that
greater insight in order to help that child, and that research has led them
to the door of a developmental pediatrician or neurologist or an auditory
specialist or a pharmacy or a therapist or whatever, does that mean
they less accepting of their child as a whole being than a parent who has
chosen not to go that route?
Susan (in VA)
wife to VegMan (aka Ted) since 12/86
momma to Sarah (10/89), Andrew (6/91), and Aaron (3/98)
"It's a small world....but a BIG life!" ~ Aaron, age 6
http://radicalchristianunschool.homestead.com/index.html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Yes, and some of us have children that could easily carry one of thoseIt is statements like this, though, that can put a parent of those
>labels, but we've chosen NOT to define them any differntly than any of
>our children.
>I understand there are some challenges you NEED greater insight for,
>but there are plenty of unschoolers dealing with "atypical" children
>and choosing not to separate them in any way.
"a-typical" kids on the defensive. Maybe it isn't meant to, and maybe the
parent is just hyper-sensitive because everyone is telling them what they
should or should not do for their kids, but when someone says, "My child
has autism" and someone else comes back with, "We have chosen not to label
our child", it can sound like a put-down, or maybe a challenge.
Recognizing that my kids have challenges and behaviors that are unique to
their particular a-typical neurological make-ups, and learning all about
those neurological differences and how others have helped their kids (and
dismissing some or most of it), and getting insight into other ways I can
help them that I might not have realized before makes me a better parent
for my children.
Sometimes using that word or label opens up a lot of information that might
not have be available before. I could google "temper tantrum" and get a
set of websites with information, but if I google "tantrum+autism" I get a
whole other set of results.
The labels aren't things that I use to separate them from others, or even
to define them to others in real life. We don't go to Park Day and
announce, "This is Aaron, and he has Aspergers, or possibly High
Functioning Autism". But those words/labels are useful in discussing those
challenges and behaviors with others when I am looking for input, and in
knowing how to help my boys in real life situations too.
We knew from an early age that Andrew had some sort of information
processing problem. It was just obvious from watching him and having other
children around that somehow he was not getting the same messages as
everyone else. But it wasn't until I had really researched it and had my
suspicions confirmed and then was surprised at the severity of it when the
test results were shown to me, that I really understood what the world was
like for him, and could begin to figure out ways to help. Knowing that
Andrew has CAPD (central auditory processing disorder) meant that I then
had a reference point for finding out how to help him navigate those
challenging situations.
Andrew's name isn't spelled CAPD, and it isn't a definition of Who He Is,
but it is a definition of some of the challenges he has that others
don't. Aaron isn't autistic; Aaron has autism, and it does affect how he
interacts with others and how he behaves and thinks.
If a parent has a child who is still having incredibly challenging moments
even with all the mindful parenting and unschooling environment and such,
and the parent has had to spend hours and hours researching to get that
greater insight in order to help that child, and that research has led them
to the door of a developmental pediatrician or neurologist or an auditory
specialist or a pharmacy or a therapist or whatever, does that mean
they less accepting of their child as a whole being than a parent who has
chosen not to go that route?
Susan (in VA)
wife to VegMan (aka Ted) since 12/86
momma to Sarah (10/89), Andrew (6/91), and Aaron (3/98)
"It's a small world....but a BIG life!" ~ Aaron, age 6
http://radicalchristianunschool.homestead.com/index.html
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
On Jan 5, 2006, at 9:53 PM, Gold Standard wrote:
I'm sure you understand the risks of labeling, too, of course. The
worst case is that people have preconceived notions of what
"autistic" means and they can relate to a person based on that,
rather than based on the reality of the individual. Well - the worst
is when people who have some authority over the child do this.
Another danger is when a child believes that their diagnosis makes
them incompetent - I've seen that with kids I've known. And, this
may not apply to autism as a label, but there are also self-
fulfilling prophecies because of labels -- we all know the studies in
which teachers are told they are being give a class of gifted kids
(even though the class is, in fact, a random sample of kids) and, lo
and behold, the kids excel beyond the typical class. Other teachers
are told they are being given a class of special needs kids and, no
big surprise, the teacher sees the kids as having all kinds of
problems and the kids don't achieve up to average levels.
I SO understand the relief that you described your husband having - I
know that even when we have symptoms of physical problems, sometimes
it can be such a relief just to give it a name and know that there
are others who share the symptoms, etc. I've had RLS (Restless Leg
Syndrome) for most of my life - but didn't know it had a name and
that other people had it too, until fairly recently (because it got
bad enough that my need for medical help became very apparent). It
was certainly a relief to know it wasn't just me, that it was a real
syndrome and not "all in my head." So - with autistic characteristics
I can imagine that the relief would be even greater.
There are times that labels are useful, for sure. Just like John Holt
decided not to give out information about his own college degrees,
wanting his ideas to stand on their own, I decided many years ago to
try not to utilize commonly assigned labels in describing my children
- but instead to actually describe the individual child's specific
characteristics and let those stand on their own. I didn't want to
call my child ADD or ADHD or "gifted" or "spirited" or whatever the
current trendy label was - and my reason was that I think those
labels mistakenly indicate that we know something about the child -
but we don't know ANYTHING much from those labels, in fact. And I so
often saw the risks become reality - kids lived up to their labels.
So - there are TIMES for labels - when needing a diagnosis in order
to get treatment is an obvious time. And if my kids were in school,
I'd be getting them labeled in order to get certain services, too.
And, yes, to find support might be one of those times - I'm on an RLS
email list, for example.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> If we are seeing our children no matter who they are as having noNo apology necessary - it was VERY interesting.
> limits in
> what they can do if they want to do it, then using a word to gain
> information I see no harm in. We're not married to the word. The
> word isn't
> defining us. We're just using it because it is a darned useful tool
> right
> now.
>
> Didn't mean to make this so long. My apologies.
I'm sure you understand the risks of labeling, too, of course. The
worst case is that people have preconceived notions of what
"autistic" means and they can relate to a person based on that,
rather than based on the reality of the individual. Well - the worst
is when people who have some authority over the child do this.
Another danger is when a child believes that their diagnosis makes
them incompetent - I've seen that with kids I've known. And, this
may not apply to autism as a label, but there are also self-
fulfilling prophecies because of labels -- we all know the studies in
which teachers are told they are being give a class of gifted kids
(even though the class is, in fact, a random sample of kids) and, lo
and behold, the kids excel beyond the typical class. Other teachers
are told they are being given a class of special needs kids and, no
big surprise, the teacher sees the kids as having all kinds of
problems and the kids don't achieve up to average levels.
I SO understand the relief that you described your husband having - I
know that even when we have symptoms of physical problems, sometimes
it can be such a relief just to give it a name and know that there
are others who share the symptoms, etc. I've had RLS (Restless Leg
Syndrome) for most of my life - but didn't know it had a name and
that other people had it too, until fairly recently (because it got
bad enough that my need for medical help became very apparent). It
was certainly a relief to know it wasn't just me, that it was a real
syndrome and not "all in my head." So - with autistic characteristics
I can imagine that the relief would be even greater.
There are times that labels are useful, for sure. Just like John Holt
decided not to give out information about his own college degrees,
wanting his ideas to stand on their own, I decided many years ago to
try not to utilize commonly assigned labels in describing my children
- but instead to actually describe the individual child's specific
characteristics and let those stand on their own. I didn't want to
call my child ADD or ADHD or "gifted" or "spirited" or whatever the
current trendy label was - and my reason was that I think those
labels mistakenly indicate that we know something about the child -
but we don't know ANYTHING much from those labels, in fact. And I so
often saw the risks become reality - kids lived up to their labels.
So - there are TIMES for labels - when needing a diagnosis in order
to get treatment is an obvious time. And if my kids were in school,
I'd be getting them labeled in order to get certain services, too.
And, yes, to find support might be one of those times - I'm on an RLS
email list, for example.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Daniel MacIntyre
I'm not afraid of labels - my kids have TONS of them! Here are a few:
beautiful, Kind, sweet, affable, gregarious, rambunctious, funny, cute,
spirited, happy, sad, hungry, confused, ecstatic, hysterical, cautious,
hopeful, confident, magnificent, wonderful, wild, zany, smart, ornery, loud,
quiet, messy, fun, contradictory, agreeable, dizzy, huggable, sweet smelling
after a bath, clumsy, graceful, peaceful, provocative, rebellious, polite,
knowledgeable, ignorant (but learning), hurting, healing, comforting,
comfortable, zealous, quirky, young, old, unpredictable and currently,
asleep.
Yes, some of these labels are contradict others. My children have no
problem with that - why should I?
beautiful, Kind, sweet, affable, gregarious, rambunctious, funny, cute,
spirited, happy, sad, hungry, confused, ecstatic, hysterical, cautious,
hopeful, confident, magnificent, wonderful, wild, zany, smart, ornery, loud,
quiet, messy, fun, contradictory, agreeable, dizzy, huggable, sweet smelling
after a bath, clumsy, graceful, peaceful, provocative, rebellious, polite,
knowledgeable, ignorant (but learning), hurting, healing, comforting,
comfortable, zealous, quirky, young, old, unpredictable and currently,
asleep.
Yes, some of these labels are contradict others. My children have no
problem with that - why should I?
On 1/5/06, Pamela Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
>
>
> On Jan 5, 2006, at 6:44 PM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
>
> > Yes, and the only way to "prove" to those who are claiming one has no
> > experience whatsoever is to out your kids and that defeats the
> > purpose of avoiding the differentiations and labels.
>
> I'm feeling exactly that pressure right now. My kids are pretty well
> grown - the two who could have easily been "labeled" in various ways
> are, in fact, adults now at 18 and 21. I simply don't have it in me
> to "out" them now, after resisting all these years, suddenly saying,
> "I DO understand because MY kid also is xyz....."
>
> But now some of you are probably wondering what labels they WOULD
> have had if I hadn't purposefully and actively resisted and refused
> to do anything except treat them as individuals. Oh well - wonder
> away - I'm still not doing it! <G>
>
> -pam
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Daniel
( Blogging at http://key-words.blogspot.com/ )
"When the solution is simple, God is answering."
Albert Einstein
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
On Jan 5, 2006, at 11:18 PM, Susan McGlohn wrote:
But that statement was made by a parent of children who do have
characteristics and tendencies of "a-typical children."
If you think you can easily or clearly separate and label, then for
you that's fine.
I believe you will be incorrect as often as not.
-=-Recognizing that my kids have challenges and behaviors that are
unique to
their particular a-typical neurological make-ups...-=-
I don't think they're unique. I think they're shared with very many
people, in one degree or another. There is a continuum, a spectrum,
and there are not little dividing walls between degrees or "make-ups."
-=-learning all about
those neurological differences and how others have helped their kids
(and
dismissing some or most of it), and getting insight into other ways I
can
help them that I might not have realized before makes me a better parent
for my children.-=-
Then that's great.
There are other ways to realize that because every child has
different combinations, talents, intelligences, limitations,
oddities, biochemical sets, etc. that flexibility and personal
attention are important. Some families can and do deal with those
things without labelling the children or joining groups dedicated to
seeing them as different. That's okay.
-=-Aaron isn't autistic; Aaron has autism,-=-
Is it a disease? If it's a condition, then "autistic" is a better
way to state it. It's not a disease he caught and might recover
from, is it? If someone is blind, he doesn't "have blindness." It's
not an insult to say someone is autistic. It's a way to indicate
that those conditions are part of "Who He Is." Not all of who he is,
but a part of the package.
-=-If a parent has a child who is still having incredibly challenging
moments
even with all the mindful parenting and unschooling environment and
such,
and the parent has had to spend hours and hours researching to get that
greater insight in order to help that child, and that research has
led them
to the door of a developmental pediatrician or neurologist or an
auditory
specialist or a pharmacy or a therapist or whatever, does that mean
they less accepting of their child as a whole being than a parent
who has
chosen not to go that route?-=-
That question can't be answered for all the parents in the world.
Parents are as different as children are. The dyad relationships are
different even within families. It's too complex a question. And it
doesn't need to be answered on this list, either. People should be
on as many or as few lists as they want to be on. No list can or
should try to be everything to anyone.
Sandra
> It is statements like this, though, that can put a parent of those========================
> "a-typical" kids on the defensive.
But that statement was made by a parent of children who do have
characteristics and tendencies of "a-typical children."
If you think you can easily or clearly separate and label, then for
you that's fine.
I believe you will be incorrect as often as not.
-=-Recognizing that my kids have challenges and behaviors that are
unique to
their particular a-typical neurological make-ups...-=-
I don't think they're unique. I think they're shared with very many
people, in one degree or another. There is a continuum, a spectrum,
and there are not little dividing walls between degrees or "make-ups."
-=-learning all about
those neurological differences and how others have helped their kids
(and
dismissing some or most of it), and getting insight into other ways I
can
help them that I might not have realized before makes me a better parent
for my children.-=-
Then that's great.
There are other ways to realize that because every child has
different combinations, talents, intelligences, limitations,
oddities, biochemical sets, etc. that flexibility and personal
attention are important. Some families can and do deal with those
things without labelling the children or joining groups dedicated to
seeing them as different. That's okay.
-=-Aaron isn't autistic; Aaron has autism,-=-
Is it a disease? If it's a condition, then "autistic" is a better
way to state it. It's not a disease he caught and might recover
from, is it? If someone is blind, he doesn't "have blindness." It's
not an insult to say someone is autistic. It's a way to indicate
that those conditions are part of "Who He Is." Not all of who he is,
but a part of the package.
-=-If a parent has a child who is still having incredibly challenging
moments
even with all the mindful parenting and unschooling environment and
such,
and the parent has had to spend hours and hours researching to get that
greater insight in order to help that child, and that research has
led them
to the door of a developmental pediatrician or neurologist or an
auditory
specialist or a pharmacy or a therapist or whatever, does that mean
they less accepting of their child as a whole being than a parent
who has
chosen not to go that route?-=-
That question can't be answered for all the parents in the world.
Parents are as different as children are. The dyad relationships are
different even within families. It's too complex a question. And it
doesn't need to be answered on this list, either. People should be
on as many or as few lists as they want to be on. No list can or
should try to be everything to anyone.
Sandra
Gold Standard
>>Some families can and do deal with thoseJust for clarification, in case when you say "or joining groups dedicated to
>>things without labelling the children or joining groups dedicated to
>>seeing them as different.<<
seeing them as different" you are talking about the shine list, that does
not describe that place at all.
That list sparks the thought "my kid is perfect and cool and SO worthy of
admiration" to people who often tended to focus on what was wrong instead of
what was right. In fact the "dedication" of that group is seeing and
nurturing the shine of our children, no matter who they are. Which is about
the opposite of a dedication to seeing them as different.
I don't know of any other group joinings talked about in this thread, which
is what makes me think you may be talking about that list. I sure could be
wrong though!
Jacki
Susan McGlohn
At 02:13 1/6/2006, you wrote:
processing disorder, but within that disorder there are varying degrees of
severity. I agree that autism is a spectrum disorder as far as severity,
but everyone isn't on that spectrum.
too. Doesn't mean we have to stay under them.
stop at that word. That word has value only when I am trying to
communicate about why or how he does something that is specific to that
condition.
to how comfortable they feel about sharing those challenging moments. Pam
said she wanted people living with atypical kids to share on this list too,
so if when someone mentions a label or condition or diagnosis when they try
to get input they are met with "well, we have chosen not to label our kids"
it makes it harder for them to share.
Susan M (VA)
http://radicalchristianunschool.homestead.com/index.html
"I am taking this opportunity to tell you that I am untraditional. I teach
my kids about the things that really matter. I will teach them about
Abraham Lincoln and Ronnie Van Sandt, because they are equally important in
my house." ~Jessie Baylor, Elizabethtown
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>-=-Recognizing that my kids have challenges and behaviors that areActually, there are characteristics that are unique to an auditory
>unique to
>their particular a-typical neurological make-ups...-=-
>
>I don't think they're unique. I think they're shared with very many
>people, in one degree or another. There is a continuum, a spectrum,
>and there are not little dividing walls between degrees or "make-ups."
processing disorder, but within that disorder there are varying degrees of
severity. I agree that autism is a spectrum disorder as far as severity,
but everyone isn't on that spectrum.
>Then that's great.Never said it wasn't. It's okay to look under those labels for answers
>There are other ways to realize that because every child has
>different combinations, talents, intelligences, limitations,
>oddities, biochemical sets, etc. that flexibility and personal
>attention are important. Some families can and do deal with those
>things without labelling the children or joining groups dedicated to
>seeing them as different. That's okay.
too. Doesn't mean we have to stay under them.
>-=-Aaron isn't autistic; Aaron has autism,-=-No, it isn't an insult. My point was that the definition of Aaron doesn't
>
>Is it a disease? If it's a condition, then "autistic" is a better
>way to state it. It's not a disease he caught and might recover
>from, is it? If someone is blind, he doesn't "have blindness." It's
>not an insult to say someone is autistic. It's a way to indicate
>that those conditions are part of "Who He Is." Not all of who he is,
>but a part of the package.
stop at that word. That word has value only when I am trying to
communicate about why or how he does something that is specific to that
condition.
>That question can't be answered for all the parents in the world.Perhaps not. But knowing whether or not they are accepted goes a long way
>Parents are as different as children are. The dyad relationships are
>different even within families. It's too complex a question. And it
>doesn't need to be answered on this list, either.
to how comfortable they feel about sharing those challenging moments. Pam
said she wanted people living with atypical kids to share on this list too,
so if when someone mentions a label or condition or diagnosis when they try
to get input they are met with "well, we have chosen not to label our kids"
it makes it harder for them to share.
> People should beDefinitely!
>on as many or as few lists as they want to be on. No list can or
>should try to be everything to anyone.
Susan M (VA)
http://radicalchristianunschool.homestead.com/index.html
"I am taking this opportunity to tell you that I am untraditional. I teach
my kids about the things that really matter. I will teach them about
Abraham Lincoln and Ronnie Van Sandt, because they are equally important in
my house." ~Jessie Baylor, Elizabethtown
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
> -=-[K]nowing whether or not they are accepted goes a long way===================
> to how comfortable they feel about sharing those challenging
> moments. Pam
> said she wanted people living with atypical kids to share on this
> list too,
> so if when someone mentions a label or condition or diagnosis when
> they try
> to get input they are met with "well, we have chosen not to label
> our kids"
> it makes it harder for them to share.-=-
Pam stated an opinion. Ren stated an opinion. Others stated
opinions. Their opinions were facts, in that Ren stated that she
felt and believed and did (whatever), and Pam stated the fact that
she thinks it's really good for this list. It's a fact that those
were their opinions. <g>
So what if their totally legitimate statements seem to be
contradictory? It doesn't matter. We can't and don't need to try to
come to a consensus. It doesn't have to be a vote-off between people
who agree with what Ren said and what Pam said (and knowing them both
as well as I do, I didn't see it as contradictory anyway).
Unschooling doesn't require labelling and sorting kids. The
principles of learning and of unschooling work the same with
'profoundly gifted' and with people slower to learn; it works the
same way with people who have high verbal intelligence and low; it
works the same way with people who have high mathematical
intelligence and low or anywhere in between. It works the same way
with people with high kinesthetic intelligence, low, or in between.
Same with musical, spatial, interpersonal, intrapersonal, nature
intelligence...
The moment to moment activities of a child or parent will be
different depending on his or her own interests and abilities and
opportunities, but the principles are the same.
This list, unschooling.info, my site, Joyce's site, every other site
anywhere relating to parenting or homeshooling or unschooling is
presenting information, ideas, and experiences. It's the
responsibility of each parent to take what she likes and to leave the
rest.
This list is what it is. If I get really tired of it being what it
is, or it becomes something I can no longer support, I'll go to
yahoogroups and delete it. It's like a party, and someday for some
reason the party will be over. Until that time, it seems a waste of
time to complain about the party when there are so many others so
nearby. Party hopping is fine. Complaining that one party should be
more like another party is a kind of negativity that harms the
complainant and the party both.
Sandra
Pamela Sorooshian
On Jan 5, 2006, at 11:36 PM, Gold Standard wrote:
with autistic spectrum characteristics, highly sensitive natures,
explosive behaviors, and so on - by seeming to be sending them away
to the shining list. I just wish people who do that would be a lot
more careful, go out of their way, to phrase their offering of other
lists to be clear that they are still very much welcome to continue
on the regular lists, too. It is not an objection to the existence
of the list or to giving people information about it - it is that I
really want to be clear that people are not wrong to be having those
discussions on the regular lists. Sometimes the people being given
that advice - go to the shining list - say "Oh, okay." Then they're
gone. End of our discussion. I just don't want that to happen so I
REMIND people that it is perfectly okay and, in fact, valuable, for
those conversations to continue on the general lists.
But truly I am NOT talking about any one list. The same thing happens
on my state list because people went off and started a special list
for homeschooling gifted kids. As soon as someone says they have a
kid who is unusually advanced in something or other, someone refers
them to the gifted list and they go there and the conversation dies
out on the main list.
I do like message boards because there can be folders for specific
topics, but we're all there together, too, and tend to interact with
a greater diversity of subject matter.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I don't know of any other group joinings talked about in thisThere is a tendency for people to respond to questions about kids
> thread, which
> is what makes me think you may be talking about that list. I sure
> could be
> wrong though!
with autistic spectrum characteristics, highly sensitive natures,
explosive behaviors, and so on - by seeming to be sending them away
to the shining list. I just wish people who do that would be a lot
more careful, go out of their way, to phrase their offering of other
lists to be clear that they are still very much welcome to continue
on the regular lists, too. It is not an objection to the existence
of the list or to giving people information about it - it is that I
really want to be clear that people are not wrong to be having those
discussions on the regular lists. Sometimes the people being given
that advice - go to the shining list - say "Oh, okay." Then they're
gone. End of our discussion. I just don't want that to happen so I
REMIND people that it is perfectly okay and, in fact, valuable, for
those conversations to continue on the general lists.
But truly I am NOT talking about any one list. The same thing happens
on my state list because people went off and started a special list
for homeschooling gifted kids. As soon as someone says they have a
kid who is unusually advanced in something or other, someone refers
them to the gifted list and they go there and the conversation dies
out on the main list.
I do like message boards because there can be folders for specific
topics, but we're all there together, too, and tend to interact with
a greater diversity of subject matter.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ren Allen
"I'm not sure what you mean Ren with "choosing not to separate them in
any way". It SOUNDS like you are saying that adding another list that
has lots of parents with kids with similar situations is separating
the kids in some way. "
Having a list for atypical children IS separating how we DISCUSS them....
But I think I need to define more clearly.
I was actually trying to give leeway, for those parents of more
difficult challenges and say I can understand a need for a diagnoses
or label when faced with certain issues. I certainly would want to
understand what was happening in my child's world with certain
challenges that would be beyond my understanding.
When I said "some of us" I simply meant that there are a lot of us at
general lists dealing with some of these issues, and that there is a
lot of good advice and information shared on these general lists. Just
because someone isn't at a special list (which are also extremely
valuable) doesn't mean there isn't a wealth of information at a
general list.
That's all. I wasn't trying to sound like labels are never helpfuly
(for understanding) and anyone that has read my posts in the past
knows this. I could have worded the above better...my ONLY point was
that there are many, many parents dealing with issues but might not be
on a special, more distinct list.
Heck, I'm on the shine list!!:) I don't post there very often and only
read occasionally because I find the volume overwhelming...but I am
not knocking the value of ANY list. They're obviously useful, or
people wouldn't join.:) And I'm not knocking the value of a diagnosis
for some parents, or even a label when they need help understanding.
I'm only saying that there are parent's of atypical kids all over the
place.....many of them never having a label for what they're dealing
with, but still a great source of unschooling/atypical child information.
any way". It SOUNDS like you are saying that adding another list that
has lots of parents with kids with similar situations is separating
the kids in some way. "
Having a list for atypical children IS separating how we DISCUSS them....
But I think I need to define more clearly.
I was actually trying to give leeway, for those parents of more
difficult challenges and say I can understand a need for a diagnoses
or label when faced with certain issues. I certainly would want to
understand what was happening in my child's world with certain
challenges that would be beyond my understanding.
When I said "some of us" I simply meant that there are a lot of us at
general lists dealing with some of these issues, and that there is a
lot of good advice and information shared on these general lists. Just
because someone isn't at a special list (which are also extremely
valuable) doesn't mean there isn't a wealth of information at a
general list.
That's all. I wasn't trying to sound like labels are never helpfuly
(for understanding) and anyone that has read my posts in the past
knows this. I could have worded the above better...my ONLY point was
that there are many, many parents dealing with issues but might not be
on a special, more distinct list.
Heck, I'm on the shine list!!:) I don't post there very often and only
read occasionally because I find the volume overwhelming...but I am
not knocking the value of ANY list. They're obviously useful, or
people wouldn't join.:) And I'm not knocking the value of a diagnosis
for some parents, or even a label when they need help understanding.
I'm only saying that there are parent's of atypical kids all over the
place.....many of them never having a label for what they're dealing
with, but still a great source of unschooling/atypical child information.
Gold Standard
>>I just wish people who do that would be a lotYes thank you Pam. I take your point to heart and will be careful about this
>>more careful, go out of their way, to phrase their offering of other
>>lists to be clear that they are still very much welcome to continue
>>on the regular lists, too.<<
myself.
Jacki