summerhill
[email protected]
This mirrors the "unparenting" we were talking about at UB & at the
NEunschooling Conference.
It's as if there are NO boundaries sometimes. Too *much* hands-off or
something.
Icky.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
School with no rules is forced to lay down law because of spoilt pupils
By Richard Garner, Education Editor
Published: 03 June 2006
For years, Summerhill, the "free" school founded by the philosopher A S
Neill in the 1920s, gained notoriety for its pupils skipping lessons,
outdoor bathing in the nude and voting for their own school rules. It
was,
in fact, the very epitome of the kind of liberal progressive school so
frowned upon by education traditionalists such as Chris Woodhead, the
former
schools inspector.
Now, in a new book, its current head, Zoe Neill Redhead, the founder's
daughter, reveals the school is having to adopt a more disciplinarian
tone
towards its current pupils, who have been so pampered by their parents,
she
says, that they no longer know the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.
"We see the results of parental interference and over-indulgence all the
time," she says in the book Summerhill and A S Neill, previewed in this
week's Times Educational Supplement and published by the Open
University.
"In modern society, parents seem to be unable to leave their kids alone
for
more than a short while. At Summerhill, we now see many children who
are in
constant search of adult influence and stimulation, unable to quietly
get
along with their own lives without the need for admiration and
attention."
The result has been that - while the school still adopts its liberal
approach with pupils able to make their own rules - it has had also to
adopt
the role of a disciplinarian towards them, because they know no rules.
In
Mrs Neill Redhead's words, it has had to start "teaching kids that they
can't do what they like, that they have to have regard to other people's
rights and feelings - a bit of a role reversal that Neill would have
found
interesting".
The philosophy of Summerhill, which is in Leiston in Suffolk, has always
been that the individual has control over his or her own life. Hence the
policy that pupils are allowed to decide for themselves which lessons
they
want to attend - a policy criticised by Ofsted, the education standards
watchdog, in the late Nineties, which led the then education secretary
David
Blunkett issuing a notice of complaint against the school which could
have
led to its closure.
He was insistent that pupils should be compelled to attend lessons - but
ultimately lost a court battle with the school.
So Summerhill continued with its ideal that "you don't have to be
answerable
to your parents or any adult; you can just get on with your life and
learn
or make mistakes".
"You can be lonely, you can be bored, you can take risks, you can be
really
nice or you can be quite horrible," says Mrs Neill Redhead. "So long as
what
you do doesn't upset or hurt anybody else, you can be completely
yourself."
Unfortunately, she argues, this philosophy does not fit in with modern
parenting. "The new parenting trend makes parents feel they have to be
part
of their children's childhood at every turn," she writes. "Parents rush
home
from work or pick up the children from school and are immediately
involved
in the pattern of providing a stimulating environment for the children.
We
must not let them watch too much television, play computer games or play
outside in the street ... Talk to them at home and make sure that we are
always on hand to inspire and encourage them.
"This in itself causes many tensions within the family for the obvious
reason that parents find it extremely difficult and tiring to provide
this
constant stream of enthusiasm and that the children are more often that
not
reluctant participants."
As for Summerhill, it is thriving again with 84 pupils (its average was
60
while A S Neill was head), after winning its legal showdown with the
Government.
<http://red.as-eu.falkag.net/red?cmd=url&flg=0&&rdm=94074268&dlv=1028,300
28,
386161,177088,660284&kid=177088&ucl=111111A&dmn=.mia.bellsouth.net&scx=80
0&s
cy=600&scc=32&sta=,,,1,,,,,,,0,6,0,27330,27228,14659,1642,528&iid=386161&
bid
=660284&dat=>
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://liveandlearnconference.org
"The hardest problem for the brain is not learning, but forgetting. No
matter how hard we try, we can't deliberately forget something we have
learned, and that is catastrophic if we learn that we can't learn."
~Frank Smith
NEunschooling Conference.
It's as if there are NO boundaries sometimes. Too *much* hands-off or
something.
Icky.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
School with no rules is forced to lay down law because of spoilt pupils
By Richard Garner, Education Editor
Published: 03 June 2006
For years, Summerhill, the "free" school founded by the philosopher A S
Neill in the 1920s, gained notoriety for its pupils skipping lessons,
outdoor bathing in the nude and voting for their own school rules. It
was,
in fact, the very epitome of the kind of liberal progressive school so
frowned upon by education traditionalists such as Chris Woodhead, the
former
schools inspector.
Now, in a new book, its current head, Zoe Neill Redhead, the founder's
daughter, reveals the school is having to adopt a more disciplinarian
tone
towards its current pupils, who have been so pampered by their parents,
she
says, that they no longer know the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.
"We see the results of parental interference and over-indulgence all the
time," she says in the book Summerhill and A S Neill, previewed in this
week's Times Educational Supplement and published by the Open
University.
"In modern society, parents seem to be unable to leave their kids alone
for
more than a short while. At Summerhill, we now see many children who
are in
constant search of adult influence and stimulation, unable to quietly
get
along with their own lives without the need for admiration and
attention."
The result has been that - while the school still adopts its liberal
approach with pupils able to make their own rules - it has had also to
adopt
the role of a disciplinarian towards them, because they know no rules.
In
Mrs Neill Redhead's words, it has had to start "teaching kids that they
can't do what they like, that they have to have regard to other people's
rights and feelings - a bit of a role reversal that Neill would have
found
interesting".
The philosophy of Summerhill, which is in Leiston in Suffolk, has always
been that the individual has control over his or her own life. Hence the
policy that pupils are allowed to decide for themselves which lessons
they
want to attend - a policy criticised by Ofsted, the education standards
watchdog, in the late Nineties, which led the then education secretary
David
Blunkett issuing a notice of complaint against the school which could
have
led to its closure.
He was insistent that pupils should be compelled to attend lessons - but
ultimately lost a court battle with the school.
So Summerhill continued with its ideal that "you don't have to be
answerable
to your parents or any adult; you can just get on with your life and
learn
or make mistakes".
"You can be lonely, you can be bored, you can take risks, you can be
really
nice or you can be quite horrible," says Mrs Neill Redhead. "So long as
what
you do doesn't upset or hurt anybody else, you can be completely
yourself."
Unfortunately, she argues, this philosophy does not fit in with modern
parenting. "The new parenting trend makes parents feel they have to be
part
of their children's childhood at every turn," she writes. "Parents rush
home
from work or pick up the children from school and are immediately
involved
in the pattern of providing a stimulating environment for the children.
We
must not let them watch too much television, play computer games or play
outside in the street ... Talk to them at home and make sure that we are
always on hand to inspire and encourage them.
"This in itself causes many tensions within the family for the obvious
reason that parents find it extremely difficult and tiring to provide
this
constant stream of enthusiasm and that the children are more often that
not
reluctant participants."
As for Summerhill, it is thriving again with 84 pupils (its average was
60
while A S Neill was head), after winning its legal showdown with the
Government.
<http://red.as-eu.falkag.net/red?cmd=url&flg=0&&rdm=94074268&dlv=1028,300
28,
386161,177088,660284&kid=177088&ucl=111111A&dmn=.mia.bellsouth.net&scx=80
0&s
cy=600&scc=32&sta=,,,1,,,,,,,0,6,0,27330,27228,14659,1642,528&iid=386161&
bid
=660284&dat=>
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://liveandlearnconference.org
"The hardest problem for the brain is not learning, but forgetting. No
matter how hard we try, we can't deliberately forget something we have
learned, and that is catastrophic if we learn that we can't learn."
~Frank Smith
Sandra Dodd
It sounds like her complaint, though, it too MUCH parenting:
-=-"The new parenting trend makes parents feel they have to be
part
of their children's childhood at every turn," she writes. "Parents rush
home
from work or pick up the children from school and are immediately
involved
in the pattern of providing a stimulating environment for the children.
We
must not let them watch too much television, play computer games or play
outside in the street ... Talk to them at home and make sure that we are
always on hand to inspire and encourage them.
"This in itself causes many tensions within the family for the obvious
reason that parents find it extremely difficult and tiring to provide
this
constant stream of enthusiasm and that the children are more often that
not
reluctant participants."
-=-
-=-"The new parenting trend makes parents feel they have to be
part
of their children's childhood at every turn," she writes. "Parents rush
home
from work or pick up the children from school and are immediately
involved
in the pattern of providing a stimulating environment for the children.
We
must not let them watch too much television, play computer games or play
outside in the street ... Talk to them at home and make sure that we are
always on hand to inspire and encourage them.
"This in itself causes many tensions within the family for the obvious
reason that parents find it extremely difficult and tiring to provide
this
constant stream of enthusiasm and that the children are more often that
not
reluctant participants."
-=-
Kerrin Taylor
Well I guess part of the problem is that those kids still "have" to go to
school. No matter how much freedom they have when they're there, what does
it mean without the basic freedom to be at home with family?
Kerrin.
school. No matter how much freedom they have when they're there, what does
it mean without the basic freedom to be at home with family?
Kerrin.
> School with no rules is forced to lay down law because of spoilt pupils
>
Ren Allen
"Well I guess part of the problem is that those kids still "have" to
go to school. No matter how much freedom they have when they're there,
what does it mean without the basic freedom to be at home with family?"
I don't think that is the crux of the issue though.
It sounds like these children have been pampered to the point of NOT
being aware of other people's feeling or how their behavior affects
others. Not such a great thing for life skills.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
go to school. No matter how much freedom they have when they're there,
what does it mean without the basic freedom to be at home with family?"
I don't think that is the crux of the issue though.
It sounds like these children have been pampered to the point of NOT
being aware of other people's feeling or how their behavior affects
others. Not such a great thing for life skills.
Ren
learninginfreedom.com
Sandra Dodd
"Well I guess part of the problem is that those kids still "have" to
go to school. No matter how much freedom they have when they're there,
what does it mean without the basic freedom to be at home with family?"
-=-I don't think that is the crux of the issue though.
It sounds like these children have been pampered to the point of NOT
being aware of other people's feeling or how their behavior affects
others. Not such a great thing for life skills.-=-
True.
I think about that sometimes, in an unschooling context. Sometimes
in the past detractors of mine have said "You think you can tell
people whether they can unschool." They misunderstand deeply. There
are people who can't successfully unschool, but it has nothing to do
with the opinions, approval or permission of others. They wouldn't
be able to unschool even if I'd never been born, or never had kids,
or whatever.
Some people aren't energetic or creative or desirous enough to do it.
But when it comes to the social end of parenting, the nature vs.
nurture part is very problematical. If parents aren't filled with
interpersonal intelligence, and their children are genetically
likewise unendowed, how will the children get the clues they need to
deal with other people?
School?
Sometimes there's a teacher who's able to help kids understand some
social realities. My 4th grade teacher was really good at
relationship counseling on a casual level. She noticed if best
friends were mad at each other, or if someone was being harrassed,
and would give subtle suggestions to both parties to help them move
toward more peaceful stuck-in-the-same-classroom co-existence.
More often, schoolKIDS "teach" other kids how to act, or how not to
act. In some cases that might be better than nothing at all, if the
family of origin was able to provide exactly "nothing at all." It's
cruel and can be painful, though.
Holly and I have watched the first season of Desperate Housewives
this week. I'm nearly through and she has a couple of bonus bits to
watch. That's the most intense watching she's ever done and the most
I've done since The Two Towers DVDs came out. It's a lot at once,
which is kind of fun.
There's a situation in which Lynette leaves all her kids with Bree
suddenly, after all others turned her down. Bree was saying no, but
she relented. Those kids are played as horror kids sometimes, for
the effect. Bree spanked one, for dumping a tray of homemade cookies
all over the floor after she had told him no, and wait, and that she
would give him cookies when they were cool. He kept going back, and
then the whole pan and cookies were on the floor.
Lynette was furious because Bree spanked, but Lynette's tool was "I
will spank you" and she never did (admittedly). So the next time she
was really angry with her kids, she threatened to take them to Bree's
house for a spanking. <g>
But my rambling point is that at some level if parents are unable to
learn at home how to be considerate of others, and to take "no" for
an answer about other people's personal stuff and boundaries, their
children will have to learn that somewhere else. The idea that
parents whose kids weren't good at interpersonals would leave their
kids at a boarding school (no matter how "free" the curriculum) is
probably the very issue central to that article.
So I retract my previous defense, because I suppose it is possible
for parents to be with their children SO much that the kids never
have an opportunity to see whether they can get along with other
people, and make social decisions without looking at their mom for
direction or approval. And a level lower is those who look to a mom
for approval and she approves EVERYTHING, no matter how wrong or bad,
and then simple gets angry at the other people for not allowing the
inappropriate behavior.
And since I've already written a friggin' book here, I will close
with a recent success story. Yesterday two of Marty's friends were
going to pick him up to go run around, but they ended up staying
here. Then another friend came over to see all my kids. Then a
friend of Kirby's from work came over. I hadn't met her before. She
was nice. So my three (14, 17, 19) plus four more (17-21) were all
having a great time laughing and looking at stuff on Kirby's computer
and around our house, and Marty's big Lego Viking village, and so forth.
They decided to go out for ice cream and then to see "Over the
Hedge." I asked Holly if she needed money, and she didn't. (She
saves her allowance up.) Every other person there has a job.
Outside of Kirby possibly having an interest in the girl from work,
there were no couples. Two of those kids do have steady others, but
didn't bring them over. So it was four teenaged girls, four teenaged
boys, no romantic tension (unless Kirby and new-girl; didn't see any).
And here's the big success part. They asked Keith if he wanted to
go. I didn't know they had, when Marty came and asked me if I wanted
to go. So they would have taken me, or Keith, or both of us, with them.
We separately thanked them and declined and found out later they had
asked us both. Pretty sweet!
We didn't "teach them" to invite their parents to the movies. <g>
One advantage of our not going was that then they could fit into the
big van and didn't have to take two cars.
Sandra
go to school. No matter how much freedom they have when they're there,
what does it mean without the basic freedom to be at home with family?"
-=-I don't think that is the crux of the issue though.
It sounds like these children have been pampered to the point of NOT
being aware of other people's feeling or how their behavior affects
others. Not such a great thing for life skills.-=-
True.
I think about that sometimes, in an unschooling context. Sometimes
in the past detractors of mine have said "You think you can tell
people whether they can unschool." They misunderstand deeply. There
are people who can't successfully unschool, but it has nothing to do
with the opinions, approval or permission of others. They wouldn't
be able to unschool even if I'd never been born, or never had kids,
or whatever.
Some people aren't energetic or creative or desirous enough to do it.
But when it comes to the social end of parenting, the nature vs.
nurture part is very problematical. If parents aren't filled with
interpersonal intelligence, and their children are genetically
likewise unendowed, how will the children get the clues they need to
deal with other people?
School?
Sometimes there's a teacher who's able to help kids understand some
social realities. My 4th grade teacher was really good at
relationship counseling on a casual level. She noticed if best
friends were mad at each other, or if someone was being harrassed,
and would give subtle suggestions to both parties to help them move
toward more peaceful stuck-in-the-same-classroom co-existence.
More often, schoolKIDS "teach" other kids how to act, or how not to
act. In some cases that might be better than nothing at all, if the
family of origin was able to provide exactly "nothing at all." It's
cruel and can be painful, though.
Holly and I have watched the first season of Desperate Housewives
this week. I'm nearly through and she has a couple of bonus bits to
watch. That's the most intense watching she's ever done and the most
I've done since The Two Towers DVDs came out. It's a lot at once,
which is kind of fun.
There's a situation in which Lynette leaves all her kids with Bree
suddenly, after all others turned her down. Bree was saying no, but
she relented. Those kids are played as horror kids sometimes, for
the effect. Bree spanked one, for dumping a tray of homemade cookies
all over the floor after she had told him no, and wait, and that she
would give him cookies when they were cool. He kept going back, and
then the whole pan and cookies were on the floor.
Lynette was furious because Bree spanked, but Lynette's tool was "I
will spank you" and she never did (admittedly). So the next time she
was really angry with her kids, she threatened to take them to Bree's
house for a spanking. <g>
But my rambling point is that at some level if parents are unable to
learn at home how to be considerate of others, and to take "no" for
an answer about other people's personal stuff and boundaries, their
children will have to learn that somewhere else. The idea that
parents whose kids weren't good at interpersonals would leave their
kids at a boarding school (no matter how "free" the curriculum) is
probably the very issue central to that article.
So I retract my previous defense, because I suppose it is possible
for parents to be with their children SO much that the kids never
have an opportunity to see whether they can get along with other
people, and make social decisions without looking at their mom for
direction or approval. And a level lower is those who look to a mom
for approval and she approves EVERYTHING, no matter how wrong or bad,
and then simple gets angry at the other people for not allowing the
inappropriate behavior.
And since I've already written a friggin' book here, I will close
with a recent success story. Yesterday two of Marty's friends were
going to pick him up to go run around, but they ended up staying
here. Then another friend came over to see all my kids. Then a
friend of Kirby's from work came over. I hadn't met her before. She
was nice. So my three (14, 17, 19) plus four more (17-21) were all
having a great time laughing and looking at stuff on Kirby's computer
and around our house, and Marty's big Lego Viking village, and so forth.
They decided to go out for ice cream and then to see "Over the
Hedge." I asked Holly if she needed money, and she didn't. (She
saves her allowance up.) Every other person there has a job.
Outside of Kirby possibly having an interest in the girl from work,
there were no couples. Two of those kids do have steady others, but
didn't bring them over. So it was four teenaged girls, four teenaged
boys, no romantic tension (unless Kirby and new-girl; didn't see any).
And here's the big success part. They asked Keith if he wanted to
go. I didn't know they had, when Marty came and asked me if I wanted
to go. So they would have taken me, or Keith, or both of us, with them.
We separately thanked them and declined and found out later they had
asked us both. Pretty sweet!
We didn't "teach them" to invite their parents to the movies. <g>
One advantage of our not going was that then they could fit into the
big van and didn't have to take two cars.
Sandra
Pamela Sorooshian
On Jun 4, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
night. A late show - started at 10:30 - by the time we saw it and
stood around in the parking lot and talked about it for a while, it
was 2 am when we got home.
It was 8 boys ages 16 to 20, my 15 yo daughter, and me. Breakdown -
two other radical unschoolers, two pretty relaxed homeschoolers, one
school-at-home homeschooler, one who goes to public school, one who
graduated from high school, one who got himself out of high school
and is taking back his own life - after getting to know unschoolers.
They mostly know each other through their karate studio. We went out
for ice cream, first, then we went to see Mission Impossible. I hung
out with them easily, naturally, and didn't give it much thought
except I do remember saying to one of them that it had suddenly
occurred to me that this was a really unusual group of kids who
didn't think twice about including a mom in their Friday night out
plans and that I was really lucky to know them. There were two other
adults who I thought might go along, too, but didn't. And there was
another mom and her son who had ice cream with us, but didn't go to
the movie. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I honestly think they like
me just fine and it never even occurred to them that it was in any
way odd for me to go with them. I was there when plans were being
made and was included very naturally.
Now - the other unusual thing was the 8 boys to 1 girl ratio, among
the teens, I guess. but that is not unusual for my daughter - she has
some girlfriends and has overnighters with them and hangs out some
with them, but most of her close friends are boys. There was another
girl who had been with them earlier in the evening, at the karate
studio, and we thought she was going, and also a sister of one of the
boys was planning to go and then backed out. My other daughter was
planning to go - I was actually on my way to pick her up and she
called and said she'd gotten hooked on watching recorded episodes of
LOST, so she'd changed her mind.
So - two back-to-back stories of movies and teens and parents being
invited/included. Cool!
By the way - it was really good to see Mission Impossible with a
bunch of teenage boys - they LOVED it - they were all charged up by
it, lots of adrenaline - made it that much more fun for me, just
observing their reactions to it.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> And here's the big success part. They asked Keith if he wanted toHey - I DID go to the movies with a bunch of teenagers on Friday
> go. I didn't know they had, when Marty came and asked me if I wanted
> to go. So they would have taken me, or Keith, or both of us, with
> them.
>
> We separately thanked them and declined and found out later they had
> asked us both. Pretty sweet!
>
> We didn't "teach them" to invite their parents to the movies. <g>
> One advantage of our not going was that then they could fit into the
> big van and didn't have to take two cars.
night. A late show - started at 10:30 - by the time we saw it and
stood around in the parking lot and talked about it for a while, it
was 2 am when we got home.
It was 8 boys ages 16 to 20, my 15 yo daughter, and me. Breakdown -
two other radical unschoolers, two pretty relaxed homeschoolers, one
school-at-home homeschooler, one who goes to public school, one who
graduated from high school, one who got himself out of high school
and is taking back his own life - after getting to know unschoolers.
They mostly know each other through their karate studio. We went out
for ice cream, first, then we went to see Mission Impossible. I hung
out with them easily, naturally, and didn't give it much thought
except I do remember saying to one of them that it had suddenly
occurred to me that this was a really unusual group of kids who
didn't think twice about including a mom in their Friday night out
plans and that I was really lucky to know them. There were two other
adults who I thought might go along, too, but didn't. And there was
another mom and her son who had ice cream with us, but didn't go to
the movie. Maybe I'm deluding myself, but I honestly think they like
me just fine and it never even occurred to them that it was in any
way odd for me to go with them. I was there when plans were being
made and was included very naturally.
Now - the other unusual thing was the 8 boys to 1 girl ratio, among
the teens, I guess. but that is not unusual for my daughter - she has
some girlfriends and has overnighters with them and hangs out some
with them, but most of her close friends are boys. There was another
girl who had been with them earlier in the evening, at the karate
studio, and we thought she was going, and also a sister of one of the
boys was planning to go and then backed out. My other daughter was
planning to go - I was actually on my way to pick her up and she
called and said she'd gotten hooked on watching recorded episodes of
LOST, so she'd changed her mind.
So - two back-to-back stories of movies and teens and parents being
invited/included. Cool!
By the way - it was really good to see Mission Impossible with a
bunch of teenage boys - they LOVED it - they were all charged up by
it, lots of adrenaline - made it that much more fun for me, just
observing their reactions to it.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-By the way - it was really good to see Mission Impossible with a
bunch of teenage boys - they LOVED it - they were all charged up by
it, lots of adrenaline - made it that much more fun for me, just
observing their reactions to it.-=-
I went to see Troy with six or seven teenaged boys, a midnight
showing. They liked it in ways I wouldn't have thought to like it.
<g> It was more fun for being with them. Bummer it wasn't a better
movie! <bwg>
-=-So - two back-to-back stories of movies and teens and parents being
invited/included. Cool!-=-
But does that fit us into the category of parents who are with their
kids so much that when the kids go to Summerhill they don't know how
to behave? <bwg>
[I know... there are WAY too many factors to simplify it, and it's
also very possible that the deterioration of Summerhill has nothing
at all to do with parental practices, but simply with the loss of a
cult-of-personality situation. Many projects depend on the
founder's knowledge and energy and commitment to work longterm.
(Growing WIthout Schooling magazine comes to mind.)
Sandra
bunch of teenage boys - they LOVED it - they were all charged up by
it, lots of adrenaline - made it that much more fun for me, just
observing their reactions to it.-=-
I went to see Troy with six or seven teenaged boys, a midnight
showing. They liked it in ways I wouldn't have thought to like it.
<g> It was more fun for being with them. Bummer it wasn't a better
movie! <bwg>
-=-So - two back-to-back stories of movies and teens and parents being
invited/included. Cool!-=-
But does that fit us into the category of parents who are with their
kids so much that when the kids go to Summerhill they don't know how
to behave? <bwg>
[I know... there are WAY too many factors to simplify it, and it's
also very possible that the deterioration of Summerhill has nothing
at all to do with parental practices, but simply with the loss of a
cult-of-personality situation. Many projects depend on the
founder's knowledge and energy and commitment to work longterm.
(Growing WIthout Schooling magazine comes to mind.)
Sandra
[email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
But does that fit us into the category of parents who are with their
kids so much that when the kids go to Summerhill they don't know how
to behave? <bwg>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To me it's not so much about being with the kids too much as it is
about being with the kids and not caring, not guiding. Not helping them
to understand others' personal boundaries and what's socially
acceptable in different situations.
We've had a couple of discussions lately at UnschoolingBasics about
"unparenting"---Deb Lewis (as usual) made some really good points. Ren
and I talked about it a bit before/during/after the NE Unschooling
Conference.
Freedom's great, but it needs to be tempered with direction. We're not
necessarily seeing that as much as I would like (especially in my role
as conference coordinator! <G>). I don't want to see kids held by the
hand and escorted everywhere and screamed at not to touch. But at the
same time the "wild monkeys" aren't my cup of tea either.
I'm guessing it's the wild monkey atmosphere at Summerhill that is
causing the problems: the children haven't been guided at all---just
let loose.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://liveandlearnconference.org
"The hardest problem for the brain is not learning, but forgetting. No
matter how hard we try, we can't deliberately forget something we have
learned, and that is catastrophic if we learn that we can't learn."
~Frank Smith
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
But does that fit us into the category of parents who are with their
kids so much that when the kids go to Summerhill they don't know how
to behave? <bwg>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
To me it's not so much about being with the kids too much as it is
about being with the kids and not caring, not guiding. Not helping them
to understand others' personal boundaries and what's socially
acceptable in different situations.
We've had a couple of discussions lately at UnschoolingBasics about
"unparenting"---Deb Lewis (as usual) made some really good points. Ren
and I talked about it a bit before/during/after the NE Unschooling
Conference.
Freedom's great, but it needs to be tempered with direction. We're not
necessarily seeing that as much as I would like (especially in my role
as conference coordinator! <G>). I don't want to see kids held by the
hand and escorted everywhere and screamed at not to touch. But at the
same time the "wild monkeys" aren't my cup of tea either.
I'm guessing it's the wild monkey atmosphere at Summerhill that is
causing the problems: the children haven't been guided at all---just
let loose.
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://liveandlearnconference.org
"The hardest problem for the brain is not learning, but forgetting. No
matter how hard we try, we can't deliberately forget something we have
learned, and that is catastrophic if we learn that we can't learn."
~Frank Smith
Kerrin Taylor
Yeah it's like that with us too. Our kids actually like us and enjoy our
company. The feeling is mutual of course, which is just as unusual in our
society. I've learned, since I've been unschooling that teens are great
people, not the inevitably angry, confrontational, unhappy people I used to
think they were. My teens still go through some difficult stuff about
finding their way in the world, but having a good relationship with them
allows for communication and real help and support.
I used to feel so powerless and scared when my first 2 kids (now 24 & 22)
were teenagers. I just hung in there and waited for it to be over! Now I
have 3 teens (17, 16 & 13) and life is sweet! I'm starting to organise
activities for teens in our homeschool group, with the kids choosing what
they want to do. And they all want the adults to join in. Super cool.
Kerrin.
company. The feeling is mutual of course, which is just as unusual in our
society. I've learned, since I've been unschooling that teens are great
people, not the inevitably angry, confrontational, unhappy people I used to
think they were. My teens still go through some difficult stuff about
finding their way in the world, but having a good relationship with them
allows for communication and real help and support.
I used to feel so powerless and scared when my first 2 kids (now 24 & 22)
were teenagers. I just hung in there and waited for it to be over! Now I
have 3 teens (17, 16 & 13) and life is sweet! I'm starting to organise
activities for teens in our homeschool group, with the kids choosing what
they want to do. And they all want the adults to join in. Super cool.
Kerrin.
>
> On Jun 4, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Sandra Dodd wrote:
>
> > And here's the big success part. They asked Keith if he wanted to
> > go. I didn't know they had, when Marty came and asked me if I wanted
> > to go. So they would have taken me, or Keith, or both of us, with
> > them.
> >
> > We separately thanked them and declined and found out later they had
> > asked us both. Pretty sweet!
> >
> > We didn't "teach them" to invite their parents to the movies. <g>
Sandra Dodd
-=-But my rambling point is that at some level if parents are unable to
learn at home how to be considerate of others, and to take "no" for
an answer about other people's personal stuff and boundaries, their
children will have to learn that somewhere else. -=-
That point needed more words.
If parents are unable to help their children learn at home...
(But the way it was worked too, sadly.)
learn at home how to be considerate of others, and to take "no" for
an answer about other people's personal stuff and boundaries, their
children will have to learn that somewhere else. -=-
That point needed more words.
If parents are unable to help their children learn at home...
(But the way it was worked too, sadly.)
Kim H
When I first read Summerhill I thought it sounded great. but almost straight away I got an irky feeling about the whole thing. Neill set up a free school and that's fantastic in an 'education' based society but how disconnecting it is for the family unit? Send them off to boarding school! I can't see that there's anything good about that. Educating parents about a better way to parent and a better way for harmonious living is surely a better thing to do. Then educate them about education and schools and how unschooling is a way of life and a peaceful, joyful existence.
What sort of parents send their children away to school? They must already be so disconnected - damage then is already done to these children.
Just my slant on Summerhill. I just don' t think it's ever been all it's cracked up to be.
Kim
What sort of parents send their children away to school? They must already be so disconnected - damage then is already done to these children.
Just my slant on Summerhill. I just don' t think it's ever been all it's cracked up to be.
Kim
----- Original Message -----
From: kbcdlovejo@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 8:01 AM
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] summerhill
This mirrors the "unparenting" we were talking about at UB & at the
NEunschooling Conference.
It's as if there are NO boundaries sometimes. Too *much* hands-off or
something.
Icky.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
School with no rules is forced to lay down law because of spoilt pupils
By Richard Garner, Education Editor
Published: 03 June 2006
For years, Summerhill, the "free" school founded by the philosopher A S
Neill in the 1920s, gained notoriety for its pupils skipping lessons,
outdoor bathing in the nude and voting for their own school rules. It
was,
in fact, the very epitome of the kind of liberal progressive school so
frowned upon by education traditionalists such as Chris Woodhead, the
former
schools inspector.
Now, in a new book, its current head, Zoe Neill Redhead, the founder's
daughter, reveals the school is having to adopt a more disciplinarian
tone
towards its current pupils, who have been so pampered by their parents,
she
says, that they no longer know the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.
"We see the results of parental interference and over-indulgence all the
time," she says in the book Summerhill and A S Neill, previewed in this
week's Times Educational Supplement and published by the Open
University.
"In modern society, parents seem to be unable to leave their kids alone
for
more than a short while. At Summerhill, we now see many children who
are in
constant search of adult influence and stimulation, unable to quietly
get
along with their own lives without the need for admiration and
attention."
The result has been that - while the school still adopts its liberal
approach with pupils able to make their own rules - it has had also to
adopt
the role of a disciplinarian towards them, because they know no rules.
In
Mrs Neill Redhead's words, it has had to start "teaching kids that they
can't do what they like, that they have to have regard to other people's
rights and feelings - a bit of a role reversal that Neill would have
found
interesting".
The philosophy of Summerhill, which is in Leiston in Suffolk, has always
been that the individual has control over his or her own life. Hence the
policy that pupils are allowed to decide for themselves which lessons
they
want to attend - a policy criticised by Ofsted, the education standards
watchdog, in the late Nineties, which led the then education secretary
David
Blunkett issuing a notice of complaint against the school which could
have
led to its closure.
He was insistent that pupils should be compelled to attend lessons - but
ultimately lost a court battle with the school.
So Summerhill continued with its ideal that "you don't have to be
answerable
to your parents or any adult; you can just get on with your life and
learn
or make mistakes".
"You can be lonely, you can be bored, you can take risks, you can be
really
nice or you can be quite horrible," says Mrs Neill Redhead. "So long as
what
you do doesn't upset or hurt anybody else, you can be completely
yourself."
Unfortunately, she argues, this philosophy does not fit in with modern
parenting. "The new parenting trend makes parents feel they have to be
part
of their children's childhood at every turn," she writes. "Parents rush
home
from work or pick up the children from school and are immediately
involved
in the pattern of providing a stimulating environment for the children.
We
must not let them watch too much television, play computer games or play
outside in the street ... Talk to them at home and make sure that we are
always on hand to inspire and encourage them.
"This in itself causes many tensions within the family for the obvious
reason that parents find it extremely difficult and tiring to provide
this
constant stream of enthusiasm and that the children are more often that
not
reluctant participants."
As for Summerhill, it is thriving again with 84 pupils (its average was
60
while A S Neill was head), after winning its legal showdown with the
Government.
<http://red.as-eu.falkag.net/red?cmd=url&flg=0&&rdm=94074268&dlv=1028,300
28,
386161,177088,660284&kid=177088&ucl=111111A&dmn=.mia.bellsouth.net&scx=80
0&s
cy=600&scc=32&sta=,,,1,,,,,,,0,6,0,27330,27228,14659,1642,528&iid=386161&
bid
=660284&dat=>
~Kelly
Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://liveandlearnconference.org
"The hardest problem for the brain is not learning, but forgetting. No
matter how hard we try, we can't deliberately forget something we have
learned, and that is catastrophic if we learn that we can't learn."
~Frank Smith
SPONSORED LINKS Unschooling Attachment parenting John holt
Parenting magazine Single parenting
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "AlwaysLearning" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 2/06/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Willa Ryan
> "In modern society, parents seem to be unable to leave their kids aloneThis reminds me of an article I read online by Jean Liedloff who wrote the
> for > more than a short while. At Summerhill, we now see many children who
> are in > constant search of adult influence and stimulation, unable to
> quietly
> get > along with their own lives without the need for admiration and
> attention."
Continuum Concept. She said that sometimes, parents seem to go too far
and become child-centred to the point where the child gets the feeling that
the parents are expecting him to lead
http://www.continuum-concept.org/reading/whosInControl.html
I also think that kids who are shuttled from one thing to another -- ALWAYS
adult-directed and managed -- don't learn to use their own resources.
It's hard for me to put into words without sounding like I'm advocating
parent selfishness, but I can see it when it's happening either in my family
or in other families -- when the child is feeling stifled and panicky by
having all this adult energy focused on him, and so reacts by getting
resistant or spacey when left alone.
Maybe it's better for the kids to do the "leaning on a truck" parallel play
or work kind of thing that Sandra mentioned in her article
http://sandradodd.com/truck. I would imagine that was the original idea
behind Summerhill since I know it's a big part of what John Holt wrote
about. .... doing serious satisfying things and letting the kids be part of
that real world.
Willa
Sandra Dodd
-=-
What sort of parents send their children away to school? They must
already be so disconnected - damage then is already done to these
children-=-
A couple of unschooling families have sent a kid (both times a
teenaged girl) to Summerhill. One has been and gone home, I think;
one is going to go next year.
If a kid wants to live in England for a while, it doesn't seem like a
bad idea! Holly got to spend a month in England last spring, with
another family. Not the same as boarding school.
But in England there's a big tradition of boarding school, and if I
were a kid there and had a choice between a traditional school and a
progressive school, I'd like progressive.
There was a boarding school in southern Colorado in the 60's called
the Rocky Mountain School. Someone a little older than I was named
Peyton Dew went there. Her dad was a rich Wyoming ranger with a
winter house in Santa Fe and a couple of years she went to that
school. She was there the first year, when the students built a
couple of buildings so they didn't have to live AND have classes in
the barn. It was on some old ranchland, and they raised chickens and
planted food. A hippie school. John Holt taught there a while. I
don't know how long it lasted.
Then and for a while after (and honestly, I think STILL) there was
the Santa Fe Alternative school, which was a day school and not
boarding, but attendance wasn't compulsory. I know a couple of
people a little younger than I am who went there.
Those schools have long served the purpose of negating claims of
mainstream educators (as unschooling success stories do now), and the
additional purpose of being thinktanks and laboratories for those
interested in alternative education and school reform.
Sandra
What sort of parents send their children away to school? They must
already be so disconnected - damage then is already done to these
children-=-
A couple of unschooling families have sent a kid (both times a
teenaged girl) to Summerhill. One has been and gone home, I think;
one is going to go next year.
If a kid wants to live in England for a while, it doesn't seem like a
bad idea! Holly got to spend a month in England last spring, with
another family. Not the same as boarding school.
But in England there's a big tradition of boarding school, and if I
were a kid there and had a choice between a traditional school and a
progressive school, I'd like progressive.
There was a boarding school in southern Colorado in the 60's called
the Rocky Mountain School. Someone a little older than I was named
Peyton Dew went there. Her dad was a rich Wyoming ranger with a
winter house in Santa Fe and a couple of years she went to that
school. She was there the first year, when the students built a
couple of buildings so they didn't have to live AND have classes in
the barn. It was on some old ranchland, and they raised chickens and
planted food. A hippie school. John Holt taught there a while. I
don't know how long it lasted.
Then and for a while after (and honestly, I think STILL) there was
the Santa Fe Alternative school, which was a day school and not
boarding, but attendance wasn't compulsory. I know a couple of
people a little younger than I am who went there.
Those schools have long served the purpose of negating claims of
mainstream educators (as unschooling success stories do now), and the
additional purpose of being thinktanks and laboratories for those
interested in alternative education and school reform.
Sandra
queenjane555
>I'm guessing it's the wild monkey atmosphere at Summerhill that isI wonder if it could also be a case of kids suddenly having freedom
> causing the problems: the children haven't been guided at all---just
> let loose.
and not knowing what to do with it. We talk on here all the time about
how if a child is restricted in what they can eat, when they must go
to bed, or how much tv/videogames they can watch, that if those
restrictions are suddenly lifted they may go way overboard with the
freedom of it at first.
I dont know if the majority of kids at Summerhill come from more
restrictive households, or are more unschooly-type families. In
*either* case i would hope that there would be some level of adult
involvement, that it wouldnt just be assumed that the children will
behave well since they are entrusted with freedom. They probably still
need to get feedback from adults on appropriate behavior, on a regular
basis.
Katherine
queenjane555
> What sort of parents send their children away to school? They mustEnglish people. Well not the English people on this list, but its
>already be so disconnected - damage then is already done to these
>children.
apparently a very ingrained thing (boarding school)for English kids of
a certain social standing. I remember watching an interview with a
British actor (can't remember which one, maybe Jeremy Irons. Or maybe
it was Sting. I dunno...)and he said he couldnt imagine sending his
little one off to school like that, but when he was growing up, even
though the school was walking distance from his house, he had to go
live there. At six years old.
I don't think the Harry Potter books wouldve worked as well without
boarding school either. <g>
Katherine
Kim H
> What sort of parents send their children away to school? They mustEnglish people>>
>already be so disconnected - damage then is already done to these
>children.
And Aussies. My husband is from a family of 7 kids and they all (bar the last 2 - one of which is him) went to boarding school. Both the boys and the girls schools were in Sydney which was 8 hours drive by car to their home. That family is totally disconnected (but for many other reasons too) and no wonder. They really don't know each other and it's so sad. Lots of rural people ove3r here, on western properties etc send their kids to boarding school. It's a cultural thing for them - their parents went, their grandparents and so on. i guess, for them, it's what's normal.
Kim
----- Original Message -----
From: queenjane555
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 12:48 PM
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Re: summerhill
> What sort of parents send their children away to school? They must
>already be so disconnected - damage then is already done to these
>children.
English people. Well not the English people on this list, but its
apparently a very ingrained thing (boarding school)for English kids of
a certain social standing. I remember watching an interview with a
British actor (can't remember which one, maybe Jeremy Irons. Or maybe
it was Sting. I dunno...)and he said he couldnt imagine sending his
little one off to school like that, but when he was growing up, even
though the school was walking distance from his house, he had to go
live there. At six years old.
I don't think the Harry Potter books wouldve worked as well without
boarding school either. <g>
Katherine
SPONSORED LINKS Unschooling Attachment parenting John holt
Parenting magazine Single parenting
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
a.. Visit your group "AlwaysLearning" on the web.
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.8.1/355 - Release Date: 2/06/2006
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Shultz
On Jun 4, 2006, at 3:01 PM, kbcdlovejo@... wrote:
someone forwarded to me recently, which I will try to find and link
to, but can't at the moment.
The title was something to the effect of "schools crack down on
millennium parents", and the gist was, that parents now (in the US),
are becoming so involved in their children's lives, that they are
trying to control the outcomes of EVERYTHING their children do.
Almost like they care so much that they are trying to micromanage
every little detail of their children's lives, from infancy on up. I
think it results in situations where the children develop a unique
sense of entitlement due to their parents stepping in at all times to
manage their lives, particularly when things go "wrong". This could
contribute to negatively perceived behavior down the road, perhaps.
All from parents who really DO care, but are somehow getting it wrong
through an excessive amount of controlling involvement (in the
school's estimation).
Apparently school systems are having entire conferences around how to
manage these types of parents.
Kelly in Chicago
> To me it's not so much about being with the kids too much as it isI just happened on this topic and it reminded me of an article that
> about being with the kids and not caring, not guiding. Not helping
> them
> to understand others' personal boundaries and what's socially
> acceptable in different situations.
someone forwarded to me recently, which I will try to find and link
to, but can't at the moment.
The title was something to the effect of "schools crack down on
millennium parents", and the gist was, that parents now (in the US),
are becoming so involved in their children's lives, that they are
trying to control the outcomes of EVERYTHING their children do.
Almost like they care so much that they are trying to micromanage
every little detail of their children's lives, from infancy on up. I
think it results in situations where the children develop a unique
sense of entitlement due to their parents stepping in at all times to
manage their lives, particularly when things go "wrong". This could
contribute to negatively perceived behavior down the road, perhaps.
All from parents who really DO care, but are somehow getting it wrong
through an excessive amount of controlling involvement (in the
school's estimation).
Apparently school systems are having entire conferences around how to
manage these types of parents.
Kelly in Chicago
Sandra Dodd
-=-The title was something to the effect of "schools crack down on
millennium parents", and the gist was, that parents now (in the US),
are becoming so involved in their children's lives, that they are
trying to control the outcomes of EVERYTHING their children do.
Almost like they care so much that they are trying to micromanage
every little detail of their children's lives, from infancy on up. -=-
Oh!
Even when I was in school in the 1960s there were a few parents who
came and told the teachers how to be, after they had already chosen
the teachers their kids would have.
When I went to college, my first roommate's mom had come with her for
the first week. Her mom was sitting and filling out her schedule for
her totally, while the roommate was arranging her lotions and
shampoos and underwear. That seemed to me at the time to be too much
mothering, but probably I was partly just jealous that neither of my
parents knew enough to advise me at all, and had basically left me
off at the curb and waved goodbye.
When Kirby took some community college classes I did help him with
his schedule. Those schedules are really hard to read, but I did try
to show him what all the little codes meant about what building and
what days and hours. We were trying to work around his work schedule
and karate, too, so it was complicated. Still... <g>
Schools have for years said "parents need to be more involved" but as
soon as a parent does get involved, the teachers and administrators
get defensive and feel crowded. In the case of charter schools,
locally, some of them become SO infested with parental input that
they don't even last the year. A friend of mine started last fall at
a new charter school being based on some system that had just gone
out of print, so they were kinda winging it, and only two teachers
had been trained in it (whatever it was, I forget), and by October
parental pressure was turning the school into a Waldorf school. In
summer when the school was advertised nobody said "Waldorf," and by
October some kids were pulled out because of disorganization, and by
Christmas anyone who didn't like Waldorf was gone. I seriously doubt
that the school lasted all year. Another charter school in town here
was closed in late winter for financial mismanagement. It's
interesting to see even public schools coming apart from within.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
millennium parents", and the gist was, that parents now (in the US),
are becoming so involved in their children's lives, that they are
trying to control the outcomes of EVERYTHING their children do.
Almost like they care so much that they are trying to micromanage
every little detail of their children's lives, from infancy on up. -=-
Oh!
Even when I was in school in the 1960s there were a few parents who
came and told the teachers how to be, after they had already chosen
the teachers their kids would have.
When I went to college, my first roommate's mom had come with her for
the first week. Her mom was sitting and filling out her schedule for
her totally, while the roommate was arranging her lotions and
shampoos and underwear. That seemed to me at the time to be too much
mothering, but probably I was partly just jealous that neither of my
parents knew enough to advise me at all, and had basically left me
off at the curb and waved goodbye.
When Kirby took some community college classes I did help him with
his schedule. Those schedules are really hard to read, but I did try
to show him what all the little codes meant about what building and
what days and hours. We were trying to work around his work schedule
and karate, too, so it was complicated. Still... <g>
Schools have for years said "parents need to be more involved" but as
soon as a parent does get involved, the teachers and administrators
get defensive and feel crowded. In the case of charter schools,
locally, some of them become SO infested with parental input that
they don't even last the year. A friend of mine started last fall at
a new charter school being based on some system that had just gone
out of print, so they were kinda winging it, and only two teachers
had been trained in it (whatever it was, I forget), and by October
parental pressure was turning the school into a Waldorf school. In
summer when the school was advertised nobody said "Waldorf," and by
October some kids were pulled out because of disorganization, and by
Christmas anyone who didn't like Waldorf was gone. I seriously doubt
that the school lasted all year. Another charter school in town here
was closed in late winter for financial mismanagement. It's
interesting to see even public schools coming apart from within.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Judy Chamberlain
I'd be interested in reading that article and know a few parents who
might benefit from reading it, so if you do find it, please pass it
along!
Thanks
judy chamberlain
judycha@...
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kelly Shultz
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] summerhill
On Jun 4, 2006, at 3:01 PM, kbcdlovejo@aol.
<mailto:kbcdlovejo%40aol.com> com wrote:
someone forwarded to me recently, which I will try to find and link
to, but can't at the moment.
The title was something to the effect of "schools crack down on
millennium parents", and the gist was, that parents now (in the US),
are becoming so involved in their children's lives, that they are
trying to control the outcomes of EVERYTHING their children do.
Almost like they care so much that they are trying to micromanage
every little detail of their children's lives, from infancy on up. I
think it results in situations where the children develop a unique
sense of entitlement due to their parents stepping in at all times to
manage their lives, particularly when things go "wrong". This could
contribute to negatively perceived behavior down the road, perhaps.
All from parents who really DO care, but are somehow getting it wrong
through an excessive amount of controlling involvement (in the
school's estimation).
Apparently school systems are having entire conferences around how to
manage these types of parents.
Kelly in Chicago
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
might benefit from reading it, so if you do find it, please pass it
along!
Thanks
judy chamberlain
judycha@...
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Kelly Shultz
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] summerhill
On Jun 4, 2006, at 3:01 PM, kbcdlovejo@aol.
<mailto:kbcdlovejo%40aol.com> com wrote:
> To me it's not so much about being with the kids too much as it isI just happened on this topic and it reminded me of an article that
> about being with the kids and not caring, not guiding. Not helping
> them
> to understand others' personal boundaries and what's socially
> acceptable in different situations.
someone forwarded to me recently, which I will try to find and link
to, but can't at the moment.
The title was something to the effect of "schools crack down on
millennium parents", and the gist was, that parents now (in the US),
are becoming so involved in their children's lives, that they are
trying to control the outcomes of EVERYTHING their children do.
Almost like they care so much that they are trying to micromanage
every little detail of their children's lives, from infancy on up. I
think it results in situations where the children develop a unique
sense of entitlement due to their parents stepping in at all times to
manage their lives, particularly when things go "wrong". This could
contribute to negatively perceived behavior down the road, perhaps.
All from parents who really DO care, but are somehow getting it wrong
through an excessive amount of controlling involvement (in the
school's estimation).
Apparently school systems are having entire conferences around how to
manage these types of parents.
Kelly in Chicago
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]