[email protected]

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]


I'm using this post as a jumping-off point for a discussion I've wanted
to have with unschoolers for a long time:

How do we unschool kids with learning disabilities/differences, autism,
dyslexia, sensory integration problems, etc.? If it's the school which
often identifies these problems, and we never send our kids, how do we
know if they're just following their own timetable, or if they need
some kind of intervention? What happens if we miss a developmental
window? Are there truly such things?

I've worked on the edges of these issues for a few years now, in my
capacity as a volunteer with therapeutic horseback riding programs.
I've talked to lots of parents whose kids suffer in mainstream classes
or special ed., yet they often find the idea of homeschooling appalling
because they have enough trouble as it is. Unschooling is simply
beyond their capacity to consider, and frankly, I don't know if it
would be helpful for their kids.

FYI, I have no idea what, if anything, is "wrong" with the child
described above, and that's my point -- the parent who wrote doesn't,
either, and has chosen to ask this list. Can anyone here shed light on
the problem (other than suggesting we not view our unique children as
"problems" ;-) ? Would professional evaluation be helpful to the
child? Would that open the door to all kinds of problems, legal or
otherwise, for the family?

-=-=-=-=-

If you live your lives as if school did not exist, what would they look
like?

If there were no "standards" to judge children by, who would seem
abnormal?

Yes, some children are different---VERY different from the norm. But if
you treat EACH child as an individual ---each with his own strengths,
WHY would that be an issue? I have a "normal" (by all societal
measures---not ADHD, not autistic, not aspie, not ODD, not delayed in
any way) 11 year old son. Can't ride a bike and can't tie his shoes. He
fell trying to ride when he was four and has had zero interest since
them. Has always had velcro shoes or slip-ons. Is he developmentally
delayed? Because he doesn't ride a bike or tie bows?

I don't ride a bike. Used to, not any more. I only own one pair of
lace-up shoes. Problem?

Each and every one of us is unique. Some do things faster and/or better
than others. Some are slower and/or not as good as others. It's truly
ALL OK!

I definitely think that unschooling children who are considered
"behind" or "different" is ZILLIONZ times better than sending them to a
"life-in-a-box" existence where everything they say or do is criticized
or corrected by experts. At home with folks who love and honor
them---and most importantly, who accept them how and for who they
are!--- they will have many more opportunities to thrive and become
they best persons they can be!

Schools dont' want 'em---not really. I mean: the schools may love the
extra $$$, but these children can be extremely disruptive. They never
feel wanted there. How can you feel worthy if you don't even feel
wanted???

I can't imagine a BETTER place than with loving parents who understand
and work with your strengths. We ALL have something to share---even
those with "problems."



~Kelly

Kelly Lovejoy
Conference Coordinator
Live and Learn Unschooling Conference
http://www.LiveandLearnConference.org












________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free
from AOL at AOL.com.

Nancy Wooton

On Mar 20, 2007, at 11:19 AM, kbcdlovejo@... wrote:

> Each and every one of us is unique. Some do things faster and/or better
> than others. Some are slower and/or not as good as others. It's truly
> ALL OK!

That's a typical unschooler's response, one I've made myself many times.

>
> I definitely think that unschooling children who are considered
> "behind" or "different" is ZILLIONZ times better than sending them to a
> "life-in-a-box" existence where everything they say or do is criticized
> or corrected by experts. At home with folks who love and honor
> them---and most importantly, who accept them how and for who they
> are!--- they will have many more opportunities to thrive and become
> they best persons they can be!

What, though, can those folks do at home to help a child who may really
NEED help? Can we responsibly accept every indicator of a problem as
that child's unique way of being? There are therapies that help
dyslexia, for instance; if we ignore the fact a child is "behind" in
reading, are we going to miss the opportunity to intervene for that
child?

This is NOT to say the schools are the answer -- far from it. It's
just something that's rattled around in my head for a few years,
prompted by discussions with parents of kids in the riding programs.
Many of those kids are in very intensive therapies; for some, riding
was their one break in the week, and even that was done for therapeutic
reasons. The parents are convinced the kids need all of it, but is
there a home/unschooling alternative? (Of course, for some, the time
a child is with the "expert" is the only break they get from what can
be a very stressful relationship, and the thought of having that child
24/7 is appalling. The usual response I get when a parent learns I
homeschool is "Oh, my god, I could never do that! You're such a
saint!" or similar.)

FYI, I've worked with pretty extreme cases of autism, cerebral palsy,
fetal alcohol syndrome, etc., but also with kids whose reason for
admission to the program were primarily learning disabilities such as
dyslexia or ADHD. The former I would imagine were identified by their
pediatricians, and would have had appropriate intervention, but the
latter were most likely recognized by teachers or parents.

Nancy

riasplace3

--- In [email protected], Nancy Wooton <nancywooton@...>
wrote:

> What, though, can those folks do at home to help a child who may
really
> NEED help? Can we responsibly accept every indicator of a problem
as
> that child's unique way of being? There are therapies that help
> dyslexia, for instance; if we ignore the fact a child is "behind"
in
> reading, are we going to miss the opportunity to intervene for that
> child?

My youngest dd would be labeled dyslexic if she was in school. BUT,
since she's at home, with no pressure, no one making fun that she
is "diferent", she is relaxed and reads wonderfully. She has never
been "behind" in reading--she reads what she wants, when she wants.
Nothing to be behind.

I'd like to say more, but I'm watching Open Season, and having a hard
time thinking. : )


Ria

Gold Standard

> Each and every one of us is unique. Some do things faster and/or better
> than others. Some are slower and/or not as good as others. It's truly
> ALL OK!

>>That's a typical unschooler's response, one I've made myself many times.<<

>>What, though, can those folks do at home to help a child who may really
>>NEED help?<<

Wouldn't a perceptive and observant parent see the need and meet it to their
best ability? Are you asking at what point should one involve a
"professional"? I don't think that unschooling excludes outside
support/help...my then-8 yo decided to get speech therapy...at the local
public school no less. He decided...I didn't think he needed it myself. He
went for 6 months weekly, got some out of it, then was done. That was 5
years ago. We've involved all kinds of outside people in our lives based on
who are kids were...but never because we believed there was anything wrong
with our kids...only if the person enhanced their lives in some way.

>>Can we responsibly accept every indicator of a problem as
>>that child's unique way of being?<<

This is a tricky line to draw. It appears what you are saying (to me anyway)
is that there is "different" and then there is "problem". Who decides where
that line is drawn? And then if the line IS drawn, does that not create a
barrier, a "us" vs "them" scenario, a "he-who-is-not-quite-right" category?
And then how does that new category actually benefit the child?

>>There are therapies that help
>>dyslexia, for instance;<<

There are some who say that dyslexia is caused by forcing reading before the
brain is ready. Sudbury Valley School says they have never had a case of
dyslexia in 35 years of schooling 50 to 200 students each year. They never
even suggest learning to read. Kids decide everything in their day there,
and year after year kids just start to read when they're ready, and some
kids are 12 before they decide it is time. If all children were left to
their own devices, maybe dyslexia would never even exist. I think it is a
possibility.

>>if we ignore the fact a child is "behind" in
>>reading, are we going to miss the opportunity to intervene for that
>>child?<<

Behind what? Who decides what and when is "behind". These are the questions
that pop up for me when I read this sentence. I can assure you that the
standards set in most people's minds of when a child should be reading
originated from a person's best guess based on partial information. And from
there, suddenly all children who aren't reading by 8 are "behind".

>>Many of those kids are in very intensive therapies;<<

I have a child that some people would say I was negligent with for not
engaging in all these therapies. I thank God we didn't jump onto that
bandwagon!

>>for some, riding
>>was their one break in the week,<<

So sad.

>>The parents are convinced the kids need all of it, but is
>>there a home/unschooling alternative?<<

Even in the cases of children who are away from "the norm", the principles
of unschooling remain. Listen, engage with, support, enrich,
appreciate...know your children. And maybe an outside source of help really
does seem to be a good thing, as long as it is not a decision based on
parent anxiety. Start with what the child would love.

Jacki

Angela Shaw

<Listen, engage with, support, enrich,
appreciate...know your children.>



This is the point, in all of this, to me. In order for a parent to
unschool, they need to be tuned in with their child and doing all they can
to meet their needs. (not trying to catch them up with other kids but meet
them where they are, where ever that might be) There might be something a
parent can learn from professionals who have dealt with similar issues with
kids, but most often if the child isn't in the school setting and being
expected to be on the same level as the other kids his age, then where ever
he is shouldn't be an issue.



Some kids with differences are parented by parents who are very disconnected
from them. They have no idea what to do or how to engage them, or they just
choose not to. ?? I saw one example of this on a reality show (super nanny
or one similar) and sadly I've seen it in real life too in my own extended
family. They had a child with speech issues (and he was slightly autistic
too, I think) but they did nothing to engage him at all. The nanny had a
speech therapist come to help him but she also had the parents sit down and
play a board game with him and actually talk to him and this was the first
time the parents had ever played a board game with their 6 or 7 year old,
though he was quite capable and he really enjoyed it.



It seemed like (and who knows how they edited it) he was never engaged with
them in speech in a close and personal way in which he might naturally learn
to annunciate correctly. They did their adult thing and he played with his
siblings or alone. There was no personal interaction. It doesn't seem like
an unschooling parent would be in this position if they had their child's
best interests at heart. Hopefully they would have been engaging him since
he was a baby and he would have learned to annunciate correctly in time on
his own. Maybe not at the same speed as other 6 year olds but at the speed
that this child was capable of learning.



It's so hard to speculate when there isn't a real concern about a real child
though.





Angela Shaw

<mailto:game-enthusiast@...> game-enthusiast@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

riasplace3

--- In [email protected], "Gold Standard" <jacki@...>
wrote:

> >>There are therapies that help
> >>dyslexia, for instance;<<
>
> There are some who say that dyslexia is caused by forcing reading
before the
> brain is ready. Sudbury Valley School says they have never had a
case of
> dyslexia in 35 years of schooling 50 to 200 students each year.
<<snip>>If all children were left to
> their own devices, maybe dyslexia would never even exist. I think
it is a
> possibility.


Ahhh, THAT's what I was trying to think of last night while I was
watching tv...that'll teach me to try to do three things at once!
IF my youngest dd had been in ps...IF she had been forced to read
before she was ready...IF people had made fun of her before she could
read well...she would have been labeled dyslexic; they probably would
have actually succeeded in making her dyslexic.
Ria

Nancy Wooton

On Mar 21, 2007, at 12:25 AM, Gold Standard wrote:

>
>> Each and every one of us is unique. Some do things faster and/or
>> better
>> than others. Some are slower and/or not as good as others. It's truly
>> ALL OK!
>
>>> That's a typical unschooler's response, one I've made myself many
>>> times.<<
>
>>> What, though, can those folks do at home to help a child who may
>>> really
>>> NEED help?<<
>
> Wouldn't a perceptive and observant parent see the need and meet it to
> their
> best ability?

I don't know; without special training or a lot of research, how would
a parent know?

I'll give you an example from my own life: No one, not teachers or
parents, realized I was nearsighted. I started having trouble seeing
in third grade; for over a year, I was unable to read the blackboard.
I'd be asked to answer a math problem, for instance, and see an 8
instead of a 3, answer incorrectly, and be ridiculed by teacher and
class alike. It was about then that I gave up on school.

Even at home, when I'd scoot closer to the TV, I'd be admonished to
move back; my "but I can't see it" was ignored. It wasn't until we
were in the car one day and I couldn't see the billboard everyone else
had noticed that anyone began to consider I might really NOT be able to
see. When I got my first pair of glasses -- after the school did eye
tests in fourth grade -- my mom was properly mortified by my excitement
over seeing all those road signs I didn't know were there.

That's a simple thing, really, compared to some "disabilities."
Lately, I've wondered about a math related learning disability called
dyscalculia -- do I have some kind of LD, or am I just stupid, as I was
taught? Could some kind of intervention have helped -- and would that
intervention have started with removing me from the school environment?
Like the example below of dyslexia at Sudbury, would I have had
problems with math if I had never gone to school? (That, btw, was my
reason for not doing formal math with my kids at home. My 19 y.o.
daughter struggled through a college basic math class last fall and
passed; she also decided she hates school and refused to enroll for
another semester.)

> Are you asking at what point should one involve a
> "professional"?

I don't know that I'm asking anything in particular, except for an
enlightening discussion with people who no doubt have, collectively,
more experience than I. I'm happy to say I'm getting it :-) Thanks!

> I don't think that unschooling excludes outside
> support/help...my then-8 yo decided to get speech therapy...at the
> local
> public school no less. He decided...I didn't think he needed it
> myself. He
> went for 6 months weekly, got some out of it, then was done. That was 5
> years ago. We've involved all kinds of outside people in our lives
> based on
> who are kids were...but never because we believed there was anything
> wrong
> with our kids...only if the person enhanced their lives in some way.
>
>>> Can we responsibly accept every indicator of a problem as
>>> that child's unique way of being?<<
>
> This is a tricky line to draw. It appears what you are saying (to me
> anyway)
> is that there is "different" and then there is "problem". Who decides
> where
> that line is drawn? And then if the line IS drawn, does that not
> create a
> barrier, a "us" vs "them" scenario, a "he-who-is-not-quite-right"
> category?
> And then how does that new category actually benefit the child?

I guess I'm thinking the line is drawn by the child-as-adult; does that
child end up scarred and resentful because the parents neglected to
help in a timely fashion? What if the help is something as simple as
glasses? My parents weren't stupid or inattentive -- they had never
been nearsighted themselves, had never known a family member who was --
they just didn't know how to identify the problem.

>
>>> There are therapies that help
>>> dyslexia, for instance;<<
>
> There are some who say that dyslexia is caused by forcing reading
> before the
> brain is ready. Sudbury Valley School says they have never had a case
> of
> dyslexia in 35 years of schooling 50 to 200 students each year. They
> never
> even suggest learning to read. Kids decide everything in their day
> there,
> and year after year kids just start to read when they're ready, and
> some
> kids are 12 before they decide it is time. If all children were left to
> their own devices, maybe dyslexia would never even exist. I think it
> is a
> possibility.

That's certainly possible. The dyslexics I've worked with have been so
severe, though, that it impacted the rest of their lives, not just
reading. Difficulty reading was just a diagnostic tool with them. The
horseback riding helps greatly, as following directions while riding
provides immediate feedback in a fun way -- if the instructor says
"turn right, then weave the poles" and you go left and find no poles...
;-) These are kids who will never be able to drive, possibly never
live on their own, etc.

>
>>> if we ignore the fact a child is "behind" in
>>> reading, are we going to miss the opportunity to intervene for that
>>> child?<<
>
> Behind what? Who decides what and when is "behind". These are the
> questions
> that pop up for me when I read this sentence.

Oh, me too, trust me! I'm relaying the questions people have asked
*me.*

> I can assure you that the
> standards set in most people's minds of when a child should be reading
> originated from a person's best guess based on partial information.
> And from
> there, suddenly all children who aren't reading by 8 are "behind".
>
>>> Many of those kids are in very intensive therapies;<<
>
> I have a child that some people would say I was negligent with for not
> engaging in all these therapies. I thank God we didn't jump onto that
> bandwagon!
>
>>> for some, riding
>>> was their one break in the week,<<
>
> So sad.

No kidding. There was one boy who would show up, right from a full day
at school, so stressed out! We'd make sure he had a fun, relaxing
time. Another went from bowling to riding to tennis to baseball, all
on the same Saturday, every week. He was really competitive! He'd
lash out at his horse if he lost a game in class; it took quite a bit
to help him understand the rider's maxim: It's never the horse's fault.
That alone was worthwhile for him.

>
>>> The parents are convinced the kids need all of it, but is
>>> there a home/unschooling alternative?<<
>
> Even in the cases of children who are away from "the norm", the
> principles
> of unschooling remain. Listen, engage with, support, enrich,
> appreciate...know your children. And maybe an outside source of help
> really
> does seem to be a good thing, as long as it is not a decision based on
> parent anxiety. Start with what the child would love.
>
> Jacki
>

Thanks for the conversation :-)
Nancy

Chris

"Without special training or a lot of research, how would a parent
know?"

IMHO - There are no people more specially trained than those who
gestate (in the womb or heart) and raise their children. In our
faith, we call this the priesthood of motherhood. Consulting experts
and making use of their gifts is one thing. Letting an expert
institution define who our children are as human beings is quite
another. How a parent could not notice is beyond me.

"and be ridiculed by teacher and class alike"

I'm sorry about your vision and math experiences! It's SO unfair,
grrrr!! Perhaps if your parents and you had been taught to express
and investigate your discomforts and cognitive limits - rather than
rely on the experts in school to alert of problems - it would have
been different? Again, I don't know just ideas. You made it
different for your daughter though and that is laudable!

"for some, riding was their one break in the week"

I have pondered this since your post because I worked with horses for
years. When I was at the stable we had SO many mentally &
developmentally "disabled" clients (child and adult) that riding with
them was just a normal part of our day. I have seen many labels and
many ends of their respective spectrums but my experiences were
positive.

So it made me wonder - Was it because we just served caring people
who took their "disabled" children, parents, siblings, friends, etc.
riding because it brought them joy? Rather than putting them in a
a "therapy program"? I don't know..I'm not questioning your program,
I think what you do is so wonderful, horses are special creatures
with an uncanny ability to reach and comfort people in pain. I've
heard dolphins are the same way.

"primarily learning disabilities such as dyslexia or ADHD."

I have heard many contend that these disorders are grossly over-
diagnosed and even when the diagnosis is correct the institutional
method of treatment is innefective at best, damaging at worst.

Be well & thank you for the discussion, it is engaging!
Chris

Robyn L. Coburn

<<<<<> I'll give you an example from my own life: No one, not teachers or
> parents, realized I was nearsighted. I started having trouble seeing
> in third grade; for over a year, I was unable to read the blackboard.
> I'd be asked to answer a math problem, for instance, and see an 8
> instead of a 3, answer incorrectly, and be ridiculed by teacher and
> class alike. It was about then that I gave up on school.....

<<<<I guess I'm thinking the line is drawn by the child-as-adult; does that
> child end up scarred and resentful because the parents neglected to
> help in a timely fashion? What if the help is something as simple as
> glasses? My parents weren't stupid or inattentive -- they had never
> been nearsighted themselves, had never known a family member who was --
> they just didn't know how to identify the problem.>>>>>

The teachers who should have been trained to recognize this kind of problem
evidently didn't know how to identify your problem either!

I don't usually make sweeping generalized statements, but I feel reasonably
secure this time saying here are some things that Unschooling parents don't
do.

Unschooling parents don't ridicule their children.

Unschooling parents aren't waiting for school teachers or people outside of
the family to identify problems. I'm sorry your parents weren't
sufficiently observant or helpful and left you with some resentments. I
really think that this eyesight thing was something, especially in another
era, that parents did expect the schools to keep track of. This story of the
smart kid unable to see and thought to be dumb and then being saved by a
caring teacher is kind of folklore. There is even an episode of "The
Waltons" dealing with it - Mrs. Walton found the poverty stricken kid
glasses out of a pile at the second hand store and presto he became clever.
It is a shame you got stuck with a bad teacher.

It is comparing apples and oranges to use one's negative school experiences
as a template for how to Unschool, other than in a "won't do THAT" kind of
way.

In households where Unschooling is flourishing the parents are beyond merely
"attentive"; we are truly connected and engaged. Connected relationships are
the primary goal and result of Unschooling.

<<<<< > Even at home, when I'd scoot closer to the TV, I'd be admonished to
> move back; my "but I can't see it" was ignored. >>>>

Unschooling parents don't ignore their children's statements of discomfort!

<<<< > Lately, I've wondered about a math related learning disability called
> dyscalculia -- do I have some kind of LD, or am I just stupid, as I was
> taught? Could some kind of intervention have helped -- and would that
> intervention have started with removing me from the school environment?
> >>>>>

My heart goes out to you, having been told by school that you have a choice
of seeing yourself as either disabled or stupid. I am betting that you are
*neither*.

The information about different types of intelligences, that Sandra has
already posted the link to on her website, really is something that you
could read for your own comfort.
www.sandradodd.com/intelligences

When Unschoolers remove their children from the school environment, or never
put them in it in the first place, they do not stop there. School is inside
our heads and it requires active work to get it out of our thinking. It is a
hydra that will pop up just when we thought we had purged it utterly.

Also simply removing the child from one environment is not enough. The next
part of the work is making home and real life MORE than school - more fun,
more interesting, more peaceful, more engaging, more positively challenging,
more safe. It is not leaving a bad space and replacing it with a void or
with an equality.

<<<<<> Like the example below of dyslexia at Sudbury, would I have had
> problems with math if I had never gone to school? (That, btw, was my
> reason for not doing formal math with my kids at home. My 19 y.o.
> daughter struggled through a college basic math class last fall and
> passed; she also decided she hates school and refused to enroll for
> another semester.) >>>

This sounds like a really unfortunate example of passing on math anxiety all
unwittingly - or your dd could simply have more emphasis on some of the
other seven or eight intelligences that Gardner lists. It is also an example
of all-or-nothing thinking. One subject is difficult, so all of college is
hateful. She probably needs time to heal. "Refused" is an active verb that
suggests that someone is pushing her to do something she doesn't want to.

Perhaps your dd hasn't found her true calling. Why was she going to college
in the first place? I went to college initially straight from high school,
studying the wrong courses for the wrong reasons, and struggled eventually
leaving. However after several years I returned to study something I really
loved and it was a totally different and wonderful experience. Often the
admissions criteria for mature age students are different also, and maybe
some of the irrelevant basic classes will no longer be required.

<<<< > That's certainly possible. The dyslexics I've worked with have been
so
> severe, though, that it impacted the rest of their lives, not just
> reading. Difficulty reading was just a diagnostic tool with them. The
> horseback riding helps greatly, as following directions while riding
> provides immediate feedback in a fun way -- if the instructor says
> "turn right, then weave the poles" and you go left and find no poles...
> ;-) These are kids who will never be able to drive, possibly never
> live on their own, etc. >>>

One question that all Unschooling parents are likely to be asking is "how
can I help my unique child engage in their passions to be able to blossom to
their fullest potentials and live their happiest life TODAY?"

This question is asked regardless of any intellectual or physical challenges
the child might have, which is where the idea that the principles behind
Unschooling are the same regardless of the challenge (Happiness, Competence,
Success, Contentment, Passion). It is the kind of question that helps us
remove the idea of useful skills becoming "diagnostic tools" from our
thinking and interactions. I don't think Unschoolers recommend never helping
your children, or trying to be everything to your child. The key is finding
the help, including the people, who are willing to accept that the child is
in charge of their own journey by their parents' wish and design and with
their parents' blessing and facilitation. We can choose to empower our
children that way to the fullest extent of their abilities and developmental
level.

I suppose it is easy for me since my child is, AFAIK, completely ordinary
from a schooly POV. I suspect that in school she would be in the middle of
the pack average, with the things that she really adores being only
marginally valued. Or she might be tagged as discipline problem because she
resents correction fairly forcibly. Or they might decide she can't focus,
because she wants to be the person designating the worthiness of any
activity and prioritizing her own time.

Perhaps not using the word "dyslexics" as a kind of all encompassing
descriptor, as if that was the primary or only important characteristic,
would help you move closer to seeing how Unschooling could work beautifully
for some of these children. I know you are probably just using it as a kind
of shorthand. But one of the things that helps in moving towards Unschooling
is examining really closely the words we use habitually or as shorthand,
looking for the shadow assumptions behind them.

I don't like hypotheticals much, but in the spirit of analogy ..... I guess
if, as an Unschooler, Jayn found much of regular life difficult, but loved
and valued horseback riding, and we found that it was a conduit of the
pleasures of mastery and feelings of competence, we (dh and I) would do all
we could to ensure that she had the chance to do it all she wanted. Perhaps
we would find additional other ways for her to interact with horses, like
being at a stable. It might take sacrifice on our part (since this can be an
expensive undertaking) but we would prioritize it because Jayn loved it, not
because it was doing her good. We wouldn't feel the need to use this passion
as a tool for improving her or addressing perceived (ie by society at large)
deficits - even though I would expect that other parts of her life would
become better and fuller as a side effect and that she would feel better
about herself.

<<<< if we ignore the fact a child is "behind" in reading, are we going to
miss the opportunity to intervene for that child?>>>>

"The fact" is not a fact at all. It is a subjective judgement, an
evaluation, that is coming from schoolish thinking. This is also another
example of unexamined colloquialism.

I think it worth examining this "window of opportunity" idea, the idea that
outside of a certain window skills aquisition becomes at best very difficult
if not impossible.

I suspect that for most children this concept is one that is very schooly.
Schools have their schedules - for the "gifted", for the average, for the
"learning disabled". The idea that a child has missed the window could be
the very one that causes that child to give up on himself and feel bad about
herself and never try again. I don't like it. I think it is a barrier to
natural learning. See John Holt, "Never Too Late".

I recently listened to an NPR interview with a European man who in his 40's
(!) went to China to learn Chinese Opera - a hugely physically demanding
study despite no prior experience with gymnastics. He became expert and is
now bringing traditional Chinese Opera to his home country after some years
of great pain and detemination. Another is one of the young martial arts
stars on TV talks about how he discovered Karate in his late teens (again in
China) and then devoted himself to it every day for several years to
accelerate his development to expert status.

I think these are extreme examples and I suspect that most of our Unschooled
kids who discover a calling to a physically demanding vocation (eg dance,
athletics, ice skating) probably do so early enough to make their process
physically easier. Naturally we do all we can to help them with their goals.
My point is that even these physical development "windows" don't have to be
seen as closed. Even adults who are scarred by school experiences can learn
to read or do arithmetic, and may have a great many skills that demonstrate
their intellectual abilities that they just haven't realized are versions of
"smart".

Truth be told, I'm sorry for kids who are struggling in schools, or who have
to devote hours to school work that they would prefer to be spending on
their Joy. I would love it if every parent were ready and willing to fully
engage in Unschooling for however many years a full time parental presence
is needed - which may be longer in kids with intellectual challenges or
physical disabilities. However the world evidently isn't ready for that kind
of sweeping cultural alteration. I just can't give over my energy to talking
about everything that is wrong with how schools approach/create/exaccerbate
learning problems.

No one gets to "intervene" with my child. Granny can ask "Is she reading
yet?" and go on about how she read early til she turns blue; I am not going
to make one single change in how I interact with Jayn until/unless Jayn
shows me she wants something different.

Robyn L. Coburn

Nancy Wooton

On Mar 21, 2007, at 1:26 PM, Robyn L. Coburn wrote:

> <<<<<> I'll give you an example from my own life: No one, not
> teachers or
>> parents, realized I was nearsighted. I started having trouble seeing
>> in third grade; for over a year, I was unable to read the blackboard.
>> I'd be asked to answer a math problem, for instance, and see an 8
>> instead of a 3, answer incorrectly, and be ridiculed by teacher and
>> class alike. It was about then that I gave up on school.....
>
> <<<<I guess I'm thinking the line is drawn by the child-as-adult; does
> that
>> child end up scarred and resentful because the parents neglected to
>> help in a timely fashion? What if the help is something as simple as
>> glasses? My parents weren't stupid or inattentive -- they had never
>> been nearsighted themselves, had never known a family member who was
>> --
>> they just didn't know how to identify the problem.>>>>>
>
> The teachers who should have been trained to recognize this kind of
> problem
> evidently didn't know how to identify your problem either!

That's true, but what started me on this thread was the idea of a
home/unschooling parent asking for help from strangers on an email list
who've never met the child. The thought "What if there is something
seriously wrong with a child, but the home/unschooler never recognizes
it?" crosses my mind once in awhile, at park day among other
homeschoolers, or at work.

>
> I don't usually make sweeping generalized statements, but I feel
> reasonably
> secure this time saying here are some things that Unschooling parents
> don't
> do.
>
> Unschooling parents don't ridicule their children.
>
> Unschooling parents aren't waiting for school teachers or people
> outside of
> the family to identify problems. I'm sorry your parents weren't
> sufficiently observant or helpful and left you with some resentments. I
> really think that this eyesight thing was something, especially in
> another
> era, that parents did expect the schools to keep track of.

That's certainly true. Has that changed? (Not among homeschoolers,
but in general; it seems like parents expect the schools to do even
more, like provide breakfast.)

> This story of the
> smart kid unable to see and thought to be dumb and then being saved by
> a
> caring teacher is kind of folklore. There is even an episode of "The
> Waltons" dealing with it - Mrs. Walton found the poverty stricken kid
> glasses out of a pile at the second hand store and presto he became
> clever.

Well, I didn't become clever, just "four-eyes."

> It is a shame you got stuck with a bad teacher.

She wasn't the last, but she was the worst. Mrs. Gaunt, if you can
believe it.

>
> It is comparing apples and oranges to use one's negative school
> experiences
> as a template for how to Unschool, other than in a "won't do THAT"
> kind of
> way.

I think it can be a starting point, though; it was for me, when I gave
up on Calvert when my daughter started second grade. We've been
unschooling for 13 years.

>
> In households where Unschooling is flourishing the parents are beyond
> merely
> "attentive"; we are truly connected and engaged. Connected
> relationships are
> the primary goal and result of Unschooling.

And the primary goal of the type of schooling and therapy of these kids
I work with is independence from the family. The relationships are
often sacrificed for this goal -- many of the kids are placed in group
homes when they get older.

Thanks, I may be getting to the core of my question!

>
> <<<<< > Even at home, when I'd scoot closer to the TV, I'd be
> admonished to
>> move back; my "but I can't see it" was ignored. >>>>
>
> Unschooling parents don't ignore their children's statements of
> discomfort!
>
> <<<< > Lately, I've wondered about a math related learning disability
> called
>> dyscalculia -- do I have some kind of LD, or am I just stupid, as I
>> was
>> taught? Could some kind of intervention have helped -- and would that
>> intervention have started with removing me from the school
>> environment?
>>>>>>>
>
> My heart goes out to you, having been told by school that you have a
> choice
> of seeing yourself as either disabled or stupid. I am betting that you
> are
> *neither*.

No, I was always told I wasn't applying myself. Not stupid, not
disabled -- just lazy.

We had a student who frequently let her hands drop, instead of keeping
them up while holding the reins. The instructor would nag her about
"lazy hands," and you'd see her face fall; you just knew she was called
lazy all the time. I assisted this particular girl each week, and
discovered that if you praised even one thing she did, the rest
improved too. I convinced the instructor to stop correcting any faults
in favor of praising whatever she could that was good; it made all the
difference to this girl.

>
> The information about different types of intelligences, that Sandra has
> already posted the link to on her website, really is something that you
> could read for your own comfort.
> www.sandradodd.com/intelligences

Thanks. All these years of traveling the unschooling road, and I've
never picked up a Gardner book. I'll have to take a look. My parents
were into some guy that divided people up by "humours," like Sanguine
and Melancholic (not to mention their forays into astrology, or blood
types) so I shy from that kind of stuff. Hmm, maybe that's where my
concern about labels comes from...

>
> When Unschoolers remove their children from the school environment, or
> never
> put them in it in the first place, they do not stop there. School is
> inside
> our heads and it requires active work to get it out of our thinking.
> It is a
> hydra that will pop up just when we thought we had purged it utterly.

I like your analogy <g> I think you have to burn the stump after you
slice off a head ;-)

>
> Also simply removing the child from one environment is not enough. The
> next
> part of the work is making home and real life MORE than school - more
> fun,
> more interesting, more peaceful, more engaging, more positively
> challenging,
> more safe. It is not leaving a bad space and replacing it with a void
> or
> with an equality.

I think that would be a tough sell to a lot of these parents. Some of
these kids aren't even school age yet, so that's not the issue. Again,
though, it was conversations with parents already dealing with special
needs kids that got me thinking about it, but the question was really
about kids already in unschooling families.

> <<<<<> Like the example below of dyslexia at Sudbury, would I have had
>> problems with math if I had never gone to school? (That, btw, was my
>> reason for not doing formal math with my kids at home. My 19 y.o.
>> daughter struggled through a college basic math class last fall and
>> passed; she also decided she hates school and refused to enroll for
>> another semester.) >>>
>
> This sounds like a really unfortunate example of passing on math
> anxiety all
> unwittingly

She wasn't anxious; she just didn't like school. She liked her other
classes, got A's and B's, but still didn't want to go.

> - or your dd could simply have more emphasis on some of the
> other seven or eight intelligences that Gardner lists. It is also an
> example
> of all-or-nothing thinking. One subject is difficult, so all of
> college is
> hateful. She probably needs time to heal. "Refused" is an active verb
> that
> suggests that someone is pushing her to do something she doesn't want
> to.
>
> Perhaps your dd hasn't found her true calling. Why was she going to
> college
> in the first place?

Health insurance. She's really scared about being without it, and the
only way to stay on dad's plan was to go to school. Now, she's
applying to jobs that provide it. She doesn't know what she wants to
do yet, and the idea that she could get the general ed. credits out of
the way while living at home and having her insurance covered while she
gains some perspective isn't motivation enough at the moment.

> I went to college initially straight from high school,
> studying the wrong courses for the wrong reasons, and struggled
> eventually
> leaving. However after several years I returned to study something I
> really
> loved and it was a totally different and wonderful experience. Often
> the
> admissions criteria for mature age students are different also, and
> maybe
> some of the irrelevant basic classes will no longer be required.
>
> <<<< > That's certainly possible. The dyslexics I've worked with have
> been
> so
>> severe, though, that it impacted the rest of their lives, not just
>> reading. Difficulty reading was just a diagnostic tool with them.
>> The
>> horseback riding helps greatly, as following directions while riding
>> provides immediate feedback in a fun way -- if the instructor says
>> "turn right, then weave the poles" and you go left and find no
>> poles...
>> ;-) These are kids who will never be able to drive, possibly never
>> live on their own, etc. >>>
>
> One question that all Unschooling parents are likely to be asking is
> "how
> can I help my unique child engage in their passions to be able to
> blossom to
> their fullest potentials and live their happiest life TODAY?"

Again, that gets to the core of my question. I think, though, that
parents of special needs kids don't have that luxury; they are immersed
in a world focused on the future.

>
> This question is asked regardless of any intellectual or physical
> challenges
> the child might have, which is where the idea that the principles
> behind
> Unschooling are the same regardless of the challenge (Happiness,
> Competence,
> Success, Contentment, Passion). It is the kind of question that helps
> us
> remove the idea of useful skills becoming "diagnostic tools" from our
> thinking and interactions.

But how else would someone know a child's brain is not functioning or
developing "normally," except by observing what the child does? What
else do these kind, supportive, loving unschooling parents, who don't
send the child to school, observe, if not the child's skills? Yes,
kids develop on their own timetable -- that's not to say that
development doesn't exist, right?

Here's another example from my experience: My daughter didn't use the
potty until she was almost four. There was nothing physically wrong
with her; she wasn't interested. *I* finally had had it -- two kids in
diapers, one nearly old enough to change the other, was just too much
(we had no washer or dryer, either). I stepped in and *trained* her,
using positive reinforcement, in about two hours' time. I had people
around me suggesting, as gently as they could, that maybe she should
use the potty; I really didn't know how old kids usually were when they
did this, that there was anything "abnormal," just that I was really
tired and going broke buying Huggies ;-)


> I don't think Unschoolers recommend never helping
> your children, or trying to be everything to your child. The key is
> finding
> the help, including the people, who are willing to accept that the
> child is
> in charge of their own journey by their parents' wish and design and
> with
> their parents' blessing and facilitation. We can choose to empower our
> children that way to the fullest extent of their abilities and
> developmental
> level.

Where would a parent find such a facilitator, though? It seems many
are very set in their (schooly) ways, and would find an unschooling
approach tantamount to abuse.

>
> I suppose it is easy for me since my child is, AFAIK, completely
> ordinary
> from a schooly POV. I suspect that in school she would be in the
> middle of
> the pack average, with the things that she really adores being only
> marginally valued. Or she might be tagged as discipline problem
> because she
> resents correction fairly forcibly. Or they might decide she can't
> focus,
> because she wants to be the person designating the worthiness of any
> activity and prioritizing her own time.
>
> Perhaps not using the word "dyslexics" as a kind of all encompassing
> descriptor, as if that was the primary or only important
> characteristic,
> would help you move closer to seeing how Unschooling could work
> beautifully
> for some of these children. I know you are probably just using it as a
> kind
> of shorthand.

Catch-all for brain-related dysfunctions that effect learning, yes. I
mean, there are other kids I've worked with that have much more obvious
issues, like Down's Syndrome, cerebral palsy, etc. I would imagine any
unschooling family with a Down's child would know it; they wouldn't be
writing to an email list trying to figure it out.

> But one of the things that helps in moving towards Unschooling
> is examining really closely the words we use habitually or as
> shorthand,
> looking for the shadow assumptions behind them.

Of course. I've been unschooling a long time, but I talk to people who
can't even begin to think outside the special ed box. The
conversations between parents at the barn always focus on the latest
drug or diagnosis or therapy; it's sad, but that's their world. The
first thing we hear when they arrive is how the child did at school
that week, or what discipline issue we might need to cope with because
this or that med has been changed.

> I don't like hypotheticals much, but in the spirit of analogy ..... I
> guess
> if, as an Unschooler, Jayn found much of regular life difficult, but
> loved
> and valued horseback riding, and we found that it was a conduit of the
> pleasures of mastery and feelings of competence, we (dh and I) would
> do all
> we could to ensure that she had the chance to do it all she wanted.
> Perhaps
> we would find additional other ways for her to interact with horses,
> like
> being at a stable. It might take sacrifice on our part (since this can
> be an
> expensive undertaking)

But if she had a diagnosed difficulty, she could ride at a program like
ours for little or no cost; it's all volunteer-run :-)

> but we would prioritize it because Jayn loved it, not
> because it was doing her good. We wouldn't feel the need to use this
> passion
> as a tool for improving her or addressing perceived (ie by society at
> large)
> deficits - even though I would expect that other parts of her life
> would
> become better and fuller as a side effect and that she would feel
> better
> about herself.

Well, depending on the child's problem, riding can work miracles. I've
seen kids with CP walk for the first time, and heard an autistic boy
say his first sentence -- to the horse: "Walk on."
>
> <<<< if we ignore the fact a child is "behind" in reading, are we
> going to
> miss the opportunity to intervene for that child?>>>>
>
> "The fact" is not a fact at all. It is a subjective judgement, an
> evaluation, that is coming from schoolish thinking. This is also
> another
> example of unexamined colloquialism.

You're right. What about potty training, then? Should I have
continued to ignore the fact that my kid wore diapers at three years,
ten months of age? The two hours of training resulted in a child who
felt competent and happy about her new skill, though she started out
screaming at me.

>
> I think it worth examining this "window of opportunity" idea, the idea
> that
> outside of a certain window skills aquisition becomes at best very
> difficult
> if not impossible.

I was thinking of brain development, which the experts identify by
their skills timetable, not the skills themselves. If something like
rocking a baby is good for baby brain development, will it do any good
to rock a fourteen year old if that kid missed out on rocking? (I
know, I know -- these ideas come and go, and what one generation
thought was great turns out to be bull, etc. Trust me, I've had this
discussion in my head enough times!)


> I suspect that for most children this concept is one that is very
> schooly.
> Schools have their schedules - for the "gifted", for the average, for
> the
> "learning disabled". The idea that a child has missed the window could
> be
> the very one that causes that child to give up on himself and feel bad
> about
> herself and never try again. I don't like it. I think it is a barrier
> to
> natural learning. See John Holt, "Never Too Late".

I read that. I also tried to learn to play the cello as an adult --
ROFL! I didn't get very far, but I did enjoy it. (I broke a finger on
my left hand which healed bent, so I can't play anymore.)

>
> I recently listened to an NPR interview with a European man who in his
> 40's
> (!) went to China to learn Chinese Opera - a hugely physically
> demanding
> study despite no prior experience with gymnastics. He became expert
> and is
> now bringing traditional Chinese Opera to his home country after some
> years
> of great pain and detemination. Another is one of the young martial
> arts
> stars on TV talks about how he discovered Karate in his late teens
> (again in
> China) and then devoted himself to it every day for several years to
> accelerate his development to expert status.
>
> I think these are extreme examples and I suspect that most of our
> Unschooled
> kids who discover a calling to a physically demanding vocation (eg
> dance,
> athletics, ice skating) probably do so early enough to make their
> process
> physically easier. Naturally we do all we can to help them with their
> goals.
> My point is that even these physical development "windows" don't have
> to be
> seen as closed. Even adults who are scarred by school experiences can
> learn
> to read or do arithmetic, and may have a great many skills that
> demonstrate
> their intellectual abilities that they just haven't realized are
> versions of
> "smart".
>
> Truth be told, I'm sorry for kids who are struggling in schools, or
> who have
> to devote hours to school work that they would prefer to be spending on
> their Joy. I would love it if every parent were ready and willing to
> fully
> engage in Unschooling for however many years a full time parental
> presence
> is needed - which may be longer in kids with intellectual challenges or
> physical disabilities. However the world evidently isn't ready for
> that kind
> of sweeping cultural alteration. I just can't give over my energy to
> talking
> about everything that is wrong with how schools
> approach/create/exaccerbate
> learning problems.

I hear you. Thanks for what you have contributed -- it's very helpful.
>
> No one gets to "intervene" with my child. Granny can ask "Is she
> reading
> yet?" and go on about how she read early til she turns blue; I am not
> going
> to make one single change in how I interact with Jayn until/unless Jayn
> shows me she wants something different.
>

My son wanted me to "teach" him a couple of times over the years; I
asked him what he wanted to learn, but he couldn't come up with
anything <g> So we went back to reading, playing games, watching TV...
the usual. He's quite fine now, at nearly 17.

Nancy

Pamela Sorooshian

Relay for Life
http://www.acsevents.org/relay/ca/longbeach/pamsoroosh


On Mar 21, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Nancy Wooton wrote:

> My parents weren't stupid or inattentive -- they had never
> been nearsighted themselves, had never known a family member who
> was --
> they just didn't know how to identify the problem.


They didn't notice you scooting up close to the tv? They didn't
notice all the many other times that you probably had to move closer
than others in order to see things? So - that is pretty much a
definition of inattentive - they didn't notice.

So - unschooling is a big responsibility in the sense that we can't
count on outside experts (using the term "expert" very loosely) to
notice such things for us.

About the math - I am firmly and absolutely and totally completely
(strong enough words?) convinced that nearly all math "problems" -
what is called dyscalculia or any other kinds of math-related
learning problems, are entirely due to schooling - whether schooling
at school or schooling at home - it is the teaching methods that
create it. I can't prove it, but I've worked with hundreds, actually
thousands, of high school and college students and adults and I truly
have no doubt at all about the cause of most people's math problems.
While it is true that most people aren't born to be math geniuses,
they are pretty much all born with the ability to do all arithmetic
and mathematics up to and including calculus. Most people aren't born
to be musical geniuses, either, and yet most people have the ability
to learn to sing or play piano, if they have the interest in doing
so. Same with math. The difference is that most kids are not forced
to "do music" every day for most of their childhood years - taught
music using horribly ridiculous teaching methods that introduce
abstract notation before the child's brain is capable of
understanding it, and most kids aren't shamed and made to feel stupid
about music on an almost-daily basis. Oh yeah, and we don't expect
kids to learn music without actually being exposed to any real music.

No, I don't think math learning disabilities are inevitable, natural,
or in-born, and I fully believe it when Sudbury claims they've never
had a kid with a learning disability.

However, because so many of us parents DO have math anxieties, we
have a problem in that we can so easily pass those along to our kids.
I think lots of the time our math anxieties are passed along to our
kids because of how we avoid math as well as because of our negative
attitude toward it. So - I encourage unschooling parents to face up
to their math anxieties, for the sake of their kids, and get
themselves over it enough that they can (at least) put on a good show
of loving learning things that have to do with math.

-pam

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gold Standard

>>what started me on this thread was the idea of a
>>home/unschooling parent asking for help from strangers on an email list
>>who've never met the child.<<

I still get the feeling from your posts that there is the ever-so-slight
differentiation of "normal" and "abnormal" and the importance of designating
the two. It seems to be a remnant of school-think.

>>The thought "What if there is something
>>seriously wrong with a child, but the home/unschooler never recognizes
>>it?"<<

Seriously wrong, imho, is something life-threatening. Ds was born with a
severe congenital heart defect that has required three open-heart surgeries
over 15 years, and the last surgery caused him to bleed out and lose his
life for a bit. He sustained long-term neurological damage that he lives
with daily. In all of these situations, this unschooling parent recognized
"it" that was seriously wrong.

Outside of that, if you live life with what brings joy to you and your
children, what difference does the differences between you matter?

It wasn't until we connected with schoolers that the first label of "autism"
was mentioned in regards to ds. How important was it for this unschooling
parent to have that information from "experts"? Eh. It helped some with my
own reading here and there, but ultimately, my son was who he was and I
could only know who he was by being an attentive parent. I could see what
gave him joy and what didn't. I could see what helped him be successful and
what didn't. I was pretty shocked to read the recommendations by the
"experts"...have a rigid schedule, make the child do things so that they
learn to do them, etc. I do believe ds has had a much more fulfilling life
unschooling than any of that mumbo jumbo would have brought.

>>I think, though, that
>>parents of special needs kids don't have that luxury; they are immersed
>>in a world focused on the future.<<

That's their choice and they don't have to be. It is perfectly possible to
live joyfully in this moment day after day with kids who have different
issues. It is not mandated that anyone be immersed in a world focused on the
future.


>>But how else would someone know a child's brain is not functioning or
>>developing "normally," except by observing what the child does?<<

Again, what is normal and why is it important to designate?

>>My daughter didn't use the
>>potty until she was almost four. *I* finally had had it -- two kids in
>>diapers, one nearly old enough to change the other, was just too much
>>(we had no washer or dryer, either). I stepped in and *trained* her<<

It is impossible to know what would have happened if you continued to let
her choose. But I have not met anyone whose child went too much over 5 in
diapers. Does it matter if it is 5 or 3 or 2 when a child uses the toilet?
The whole "potty-trained by 3" is again, someone's opinion, with limited
information (doesn't know every individual child in the world). It is
understood that you made this decision because of your financial situation,
but that doesn't mean that it was the best thing for your child.

At the same time, some kids learn from immediate reinforcement, particularly
kids with neurological issues, and when you are talking about something that
will be very useful in life, like using a bathroom, this kind of approach
may be best. But it would be VERY rare it seems, and at a later age rather
than an earlier age.


>>Where would a parent find such a facilitator, though? It seems many
>>are very set in their (schooly) ways, and would find an unschooling
>>approach tantamount to abuse.<<

For us this has been another life-learning thing. We have had many, many
people in our lives for different reasons/hobbies/lessons/support, etc, and
all of us have learned what we each like and don't like with people. We've
learned to ask specifically for what we want (right down to "if you want me
to do something differently, please ask me courteously") and when to let go
of people/relationships because they don't work for us. We have also somehow
attracted many very cool and flexible people in our lives and have formed
special relationships, individually and collectively. I think people have
been attracted to us as well because of our lifestyle and attitudes. People
have changed their thinking and learned from being around us as much as
vice-versa.

So put out there what you want, be watchful of who is around you. Ask for
exactly what you want. That's how we found the people we needed.

Jacki

Pamela Sorooshian

On Mar 21, 2007, at 3:35 PM, Nancy Wooton wrote:

> Where would a parent find such a facilitator, though? It seems many
> are very set in their (schooly) ways, and would find an unschooling
> approach tantamount to abuse.


Ask on unschooling lists <g>.

Roxana had a lisp and I wasn't sure about whether to "do something"
about it, or not. I talked to people on AOL's Homeschool Connection
and an unschooling mom who was a speech therapist responded and we
talked back and forth and she told me some stuff that they'd be doing
in speech therapy for it. I didn't do speech therapy, per se, at
home, but I realized that just by doing what we did (lots of reading,
playing with sounds and rhymes and with a strong interest in words
and music/songs, we were pretty much doing way more than could have
been done in once or twice per week speech therapy, anyway.

(She got over the lisp and is now known for her clear articulation -
she's a singer and an actress. Today she's been working on her
Yorkshire accent - playing Martha in "The Secret Garden." )

-pam
Relay for Life
http://www.acsevents.org/relay/ca/longbeach/pamsoroosh



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

carelia

On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:32 AM, Pamela Sorooshian wrote:

> Roxana had a lisp and I wasn't sure about whether to "do something"
> about it, or not.


My youngest is 7, and still has problems with L and R (oddly tho he
can do the Japanese "LR" accurately). He's still within "normal" but
my other two had speech therapy so I (playfully) tried some of those
things with him.

He ignored it all of course. :) (which was fine)

He recorded himself talking the other day and said "I sound funny
when I talk. My L's and R's are wrong." And he's been practicing on
his own since.

**********
carelia ~ C. Norton
carelia@...
http://www.mckca.org/carelia

Mom to Katherine (19), Christopher (16) and Aaron (7)





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Gold Standard

>>Today she's been working on her
>>Yorkshire accent - playing Martha in "The Secret Garden." )<<

Cool!!

Jacki

Sandra Dodd

-=-IMHO - There are no people more specially trained than those who
gestate (in the womb or heart) and raise their children. In our
faith, we call this the priesthood of motherhood.-=-

This sounds really pretty, but it doesn't begin to explain the
neglect, abuse and ignorance babies can suffer from mothers who are
just doing what their own mothers did, or what they think their
neighbors are doing, or what they read in a magazine.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Chris

--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:

"This sounds really pretty"

Why thank you, prose really is my passion :)

"but it doesn't begin to explain"

Very true...It wasn't meant to. How easily parents will tune out their
own sense and intuition and tune in the popparenting, popeducating
message of the moment flabbergasts me. How you stay so active in this
movement without having your head pop off and burst into flames is
beyond me....

Chris

Nancy Wooton

On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:12 AM, Pamela Sorooshian wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Nancy Wooton wrote:
>
>> My parents weren't stupid or inattentive -- they had never
>> been nearsighted themselves, had never known a family member who
>> was --
>> they just didn't know how to identify the problem.
>
>
> They didn't notice you scooting up close to the tv? They didn't
> notice all the many other times that you probably had to move closer
> than others in order to see things? So - that is pretty much a
> definition of inattentive - they didn't notice.

Yes, they did notice -- they'd nag me to move further back. *I* didn't
know I couldn't see as well as anyone else. I was really shocked when
I got my first glasses and things were suddenly in focus. Becoming
nearsighted was gradual.

>
> So - unschooling is a big responsibility in the sense that we can't
> count on outside experts (using the term "expert" very loosely) to
> notice such things for us.
>
> About the math - I am firmly and absolutely and totally completely
> (strong enough words?) convinced that nearly all math "problems" -
> what is called dyscalculia or any other kinds of math-related
> learning problems, are entirely due to schooling - whether schooling
> at school or schooling at home - it is the teaching methods that
> create it. I can't prove it, but I've worked with hundreds, actually
> thousands, of high school and college students and adults and I truly
> have no doubt at all about the cause of most people's math problems.

So why don't the schools do something about it?

I'll answer that -- politics. There was a move years ago in my area to
introduce new math teaching methods (sorry I don't know what they were,
but there was some organization of math teachers behind it); it was
overridden by the Back to Basics types who thought drilling and more
drilling was the way to go, and they had more power. They also had the
test scores to "prove" it. You've got one camp pushing one method,
another something else, everyone on the school boards remembering the
New Math debacle (or at least the Tom Lehrer song ridiculing it) and,
not wanting to repeat that...

> While it is true that most people aren't born to be math geniuses,
> they are pretty much all born with the ability to do all arithmetic
> and mathematics up to and including calculus.

I thought mathematics and arithmetic weren't the same thing? That
people get screwed up because arithmetic is taught too early, bad
feelings get associated with it, and any possibility of doing well in
mathematics is ruined. I could certainly be wrong, though.

> Most people aren't born
> to be musical geniuses, either, and yet most people have the ability
> to learn to sing or play piano, if they have the interest in doing
> so. Same with math. The difference is that most kids are not forced
> to "do music" every day for most of their childhood years - taught
> music using horribly ridiculous teaching methods that introduce
> abstract notation before the child's brain is capable of
> understanding it,

One thing that really messed me up was that third grade was the year we
had to learn cursive writing, after starting with printing. At the
same time, we started times tables and division. I don't think my
brain could cope with all the new symbols. (I was half a year younger
than my class, too, and much smaller. That didn't help.)

I've read Frank Smith's "The Glass Wall: Why Mathematics Can Seem
Difficult," btw; what I remember of it is that verbal language and math
language don't translate well. One of the other things about math
education that boggled my mind was when the symbols started changing --
X for times was replaced by a dot, then by a number next to a
parenthesis, then X started meaning "fill in the blank" instead of
times... (Hey, I've even read "Overcoming Math Anxiety" <ggg>)

> and most kids aren't shamed and made to feel stupid
> about music on an almost-daily basis.

I had a piano teacher who did that. Guess how? By writing COUNT! in
inch-high letters across the first page of my practice book. I still
can't count time, but I can tap it.

> Oh yeah, and we don't expect
> kids to learn music without actually being exposed to any real music.

Well, what's "real math" then? It's not balancing a checkbook,
counting change, figuring percentages in a store, reading a clock?

>
> No, I don't think math learning disabilities are inevitable, natural,
> or in-born, and I fully believe it when Sudbury claims they've never
> had a kid with a learning disability.
>
> However, because so many of us parents DO have math anxieties, we
> have a problem in that we can so easily pass those along to our kids.
> I think lots of the time our math anxieties are passed along to our
> kids because of how we avoid math as well as because of our negative
> attitude toward it. So - I encourage unschooling parents to face up
> to their math anxieties, for the sake of their kids, and get
> themselves over it enough that they can (at least) put on a good show
> of loving learning things that have to do with math.
>

I used to play Set with my kids all the time; bought tesselating
puzzles, pattern blocks, tangrams at homeschool conferences, which I
think I played with more than they did. (I don't do these any longer
because the kids started having their own lives <g>) Alex couldn't
possibly be math anxious and still play Pokemon cards at the level he
does; a tournament means spending 8 to 10 hours doing mental math. I
never tried to teach him Pokemon, of course ;-) He's never tried to
teach me, either!

Nancy (sorry to be so angsty :-)

Nancy Wooton

On Mar 22, 2007, at 12:21 AM, Gold Standard wrote:

>
>
>>> what started me on this thread was the idea of a
>>> home/unschooling parent asking for help from strangers on an email
>>> list
>>> who've never met the child.<<
>
> I still get the feeling from your posts that there is the
> ever-so-slight
> differentiation of "normal" and "abnormal" and the importance of
> designating
> the two. It seems to be a remnant of school-think.

Well, yes, that's true. Does unschooling mean we live isolated from
the rest of the world? Do we just redefine everything? Freedom is
slavery, illiteracy is reading?

>
>>> The thought "What if there is something
>>> seriously wrong with a child, but the home/unschooler never
>>> recognizes
>>> it?"<<
>
> Seriously wrong, imho, is something life-threatening. Ds was born with
> a
> severe congenital heart defect that has required three open-heart
> surgeries
> over 15 years, and the last surgery caused him to bleed out and lose
> his
> life for a bit. He sustained long-term neurological damage that he
> lives
> with daily. In all of these situations, this unschooling parent
> recognized
> "it" that was seriously wrong.

Your obstetrician and pediatrician knew about the congenital heart, and
the cardiac surgeon no doubt knew that neurological damage could occur
with surgical complications. You didn't recognize (diagnose) these
things all on your own.

I would define seriously as not life-threatening; chronic, perhaps, but
not critical.

>
> Outside of that, if you live life with what brings joy to you and your
> children, what difference does the differences between you matter?
>
> It wasn't until we connected with schoolers that the first label of
> "autism"
> was mentioned in regards to ds. How important was it for this
> unschooling
> parent to have that information from "experts"? Eh. It helped some
> with my
> own reading here and there, but ultimately, my son was who he was and I
> could only know who he was by being an attentive parent. I could see
> what
> gave him joy and what didn't. I could see what helped him be
> successful and
> what didn't. I was pretty shocked to read the recommendations by the
> "experts"...have a rigid schedule, make the child do things so that
> they
> learn to do them, etc. I do believe ds has had a much more fulfilling
> life
> unschooling than any of that mumbo jumbo would have brought.

Thank you, that's helpful. I've seen families really struggling to do
what they've been told is necessary, who can't imagine giving it all up
because they don't want to harm their child.

>
>>> I think, though, that
>>> parents of special needs kids don't have that luxury; they are
>>> immersed
>>> in a world focused on the future.<<
>
> That's their choice and they don't have to be. It is perfectly
> possible to
> live joyfully in this moment day after day with kids who have different
> issues. It is not mandated that anyone be immersed in a world focused
> on the
> future.

I hear you, but boy, does that go against the "norm"!! ;-) I used to
have a quote pinned to my bulletin board: We crucify ourselves between
two thieves: Regret for the past, and fear of the future.

>
>
>>> But how else would someone know a child's brain is not functioning or
>>> developing "normally," except by observing what the child does?<<
>
> Again, what is normal and why is it important to designate?

A old person suddenly has slurred speech. Do we say, oh, that's
normal, that's his unique way of being, or do we suspect he's having a
stroke and call 911? Immediate intervention can prevent further
damage, right?

Are there no situations when a child's behavior might be a clue that
intervention of some kind is needed?

>
>>> My daughter didn't use the
>>> potty until she was almost four. *I* finally had had it -- two kids
>>> in
>>> diapers, one nearly old enough to change the other, was just too much
>>> (we had no washer or dryer, either). I stepped in and *trained* her<<
>
> It is impossible to know what would have happened if you continued to
> let
> her choose.

I could have chosen to stop changing her, I guess.

> But I have not met anyone whose child went too much over 5 in
> diapers. Does it matter if it is 5 or 3 or 2 when a child uses the
> toilet?
> The whole "potty-trained by 3"

3? I was being ragged about it when she was 2.

> is again, someone's opinion, with limited
> information (doesn't know every individual child in the world). It is
> understood that you made this decision because of your financial
> situation,

No, I was tired of the guilt from killing so many trees. I never used
a cloth diaper on either baby.

> but that doesn't mean that it was the best thing for your child.

Except it was. She was *thrilled* to have that mastery, and never once
wet her pants. I think she didn't want to "grow up" in that way, while
little brother was still getting changed. Without me saying so, she
began to call herself a big girl, announcing she was no longer a baby.
(Now that I think about it, it could be a helpful grandma had made that
distinction while trying to get her to use the potty at her
house...hmmm.)

>
> At the same time, some kids learn from immediate reinforcement,
> particularly
> kids with neurological issues,

Okay -- so there ARE situations where some kind of intervention is
needed? Something a physical therapist or other "expert" might
recommend?

> and when you are talking about something that
> will be very useful in life, like using a bathroom, this kind of
> approach
> may be best. But it would be VERY rare it seems, and at a later age
> rather
> than an earlier age.

Well, at nearly four, the possibility that my daughter might start
kindergarten in Pampers was rattling round in a few family members'
heads...

...We didn't start out as unschoolers, after all :-)

Thanks for the input,
Nancy

Pamela Sorooshian

Relay for Life
http://www.acsevents.org/relay/ca/longbeach/pamsoroosh


On Mar 22, 2007, at 11:27 AM, Nancy Wooton wrote:

> So why don't the schools do something about it?
>
> I'll answer that -- politics.

Or economics.

And - that is combined with massive ignorance in the k-12 education
community about how children's brains really work, how learning
really happens. Brain researchers/educational psychologists know a
lot, but almost none of it gets utilized in schools because, of
course, it isn't easy, in a classroom environment, to break away from
a predetermined one-size-fits-all curriculum and it isn't easy to
just stop grading children and stop testing and stop trying to
manipulate them into learning what, how, and when, all based on the
opinions of some appointed committee of adults who don't even know
the child and have little to no awareness of the reality of the
child's life.

Math facility is key to many careers - most high-paying careers
require significant math skills. Math grades are used as a "filter" -
it reduces the supply of "qualified" new entrants to lucrative fields
and thereby keeps those fields lucrative. Another way to put it: it
keeps the riffraff out.

I'm not saying that the math teachers have this in mind when they
engage in teaching methods that systematically destroy young
children's early love of math and then go on to create significant
and often debilitating math anxiety in most older kids and teens.
They're usually doing what they believe is right for the kids. EVEN
though most elementary school teachers THEMSELVES have significant
math anxiety, they usually blame the teaching methods used on them
and they teach differently in response. What they don't see is that
the aspect of their teaching approach that causes the most problems
is still the same - introduction of too much material, too soon, with
too much formal notation and abstract thinking required before the
child has had enough chance to "play around" with materials, become
motivated to understand mathematical relationships, grasp the purpose
of math techniques, and so on.

In the U.S., at least, it is like we're all constantly swimming in an
ocean of negative influences around math. Kids absorb this and even
those lucky kids who aren't schooled (at home or at school) often
pick up on their parents' negative feelings about math. I really
encourage parents of young children to start now to change their OWN
relationship with math - start by snuggling up with your little ones
and reading math-related stories - don't shy away from them, revel in
them, instead. There are wonderful math-related picture books - just
start with those and then move on to having fun together in natural
ways, as things come up. I'm pretty convinced that most of us have a
certain amount of handicap to overcome in this area and so it is
worth it to make a conscious effort to compensate for any tendency we
may have to avoid math. If this sounds to people like it goes against
unschooling principles - (like it is dividing the world into
artificial subjects or it is overly "parent-initiated") then I think
you should reconsider. Think of other phobias you might have that you
wouldn't want to pass along to your child. If you're terrified of
water, scared of swimming, then you can either cringe and gasp and
grab your child back every time he gets near water, and pretty soon
your child will be afraid of water, too, or you can find ways to give
your child enjoyable and relaxed exposure to water and swimming and
you can, for your child's sake, hide your own fear or at least make
it clear that your child doesn't need to share it.

-pam

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pamela Sorooshian

Roya wore diapers all the time until she was 6 or so. Pull-ups just
came out when she was about 5, so she was lucky to be able to wear
those to kindergarten. She still wore them to sleep in for a long
time. We'd only used cloth diapers before that. We treated the pull-
ups just like wearing regular underwear and there was no reason for
anybody else to even know.

-pam

On Mar 22, 2007, at 1:15 PM, Nancy Wooton wrote:

>
>>
>>>> My daughter didn't use the
>>>> potty until she was almost four. *I* finally had had it -- two kids
>>>> in
>>>> diapers, one nearly old enough to change the other, was just too
>>>> much
>>>> (we had no washer or dryer, either). I stepped in and *trained*
>>>> her<<
>>
>> It is impossible to know what would have happened if you continued to
>> let
>> her choose.
>
> I could have chosen to stop changing her, I guess.
>
>> But I have not met anyone whose child went too much over 5 in
>> diapers. Does it matter if it is 5 or 3 or 2 when a child uses the
>> toilet?
>> The whole "potty-trained by 3"
>
> 3? I was being ragged about it when she was 2.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Pamela Sorooshian

On Mar 22, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Pamela Sorooshian wrote:

> In the U.S., at least, it is like we're all constantly swimming in an
> ocean of negative influences around math. Kids absorb this and even
> those lucky kids who aren't schooled (at home or at school) often
> pick up on their parents' negative feelings about math.

Oh - I meant to add that even kids whose parents exhibit absolutely
no math anxiety, who enjoy math, react to it in as natural a way as
they do to all other kinds of learning, can still develop math
anxiety because they are exposed to all kinds of negative influences,
as well. As parents we can hope not to contribute to it, but we might
not be able to prevent it.

We saw Bill Cosby perform a couple of years ago. He called kids out
of the audience and talked them. He asked a little girl, "Do you like
school?"
"Yes."
"REALLY? What's WRONG with you?" (everybody laughs) "Just wait,
you'll grow out of it." (laugh laugh laugh)
"What is your favorite subject in school?"
She replies, "Math."
He very quickly pushes her back to her seat, "Go sit down." Acts like
he's disgusted by her or something. People ROAR with laughter.

Pretty strong message, don't you think?

-pam

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nancy Wooton

On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:23 PM, Pamela Sorooshian wrote:

>
>
> On Mar 22, 2007, at 1:34 PM, Pamela Sorooshian wrote:
>
>> In the U.S., at least, it is like we're all constantly swimming in an
>> ocean of negative influences around math. Kids absorb this and even
>> those lucky kids who aren't schooled (at home or at school) often
>> pick up on their parents' negative feelings about math.
>
> Oh - I meant to add that even kids whose parents exhibit absolutely
> no math anxiety, who enjoy math, react to it in as natural a way as
> they do to all other kinds of learning, can still develop math
> anxiety because they are exposed to all kinds of negative influences,
> as well. As parents we can hope not to contribute to it, but we might
> not be able to prevent it.
>
> We saw Bill Cosby perform a couple of years ago. He called kids out
> of the audience and talked them. He asked a little girl, "Do you like
> school?"
> "Yes."
> "REALLY? What's WRONG with you?" (everybody laughs) "Just wait,
> you'll grow out of it." (laugh laugh laugh)
> "What is your favorite subject in school?"
> She replies, "Math."
> He very quickly pushes her back to her seat, "Go sit down." Acts like
> he's disgusted by her or something. People ROAR with laughter.
>
> Pretty strong message, don't you think?
>

Can you help me understand what *is* enjoyable about math? I've heard
people talk about it in terms of pleasure, beauty, etc., for years, but
honestly, I don't get it. I know my dd liked the certainty of
arithmetic when we were still doing school at home, of getting the One
Right Answer. (This is the kid who asked for math workbooks for
Christmas.) Later, she hated the math book I'd heard recommended,
"Problem Solving in Mathematics," that was more ambiguous.

Nancy

Pamela Sorooshian

On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Nancy Wooton wrote:

> Can you help me understand what *is* enjoyable about math? I've heard
> people talk about it in terms of pleasure, beauty, etc., for years,
> but
> honestly, I don't get it.

SUCH a good question. I can't figure out how to explain it because I
don't get not getting it, to be honest. But, it is really worth
thinking about - a really good challenge.

Can you explain what is enjoyable or pleasurable about music? I'm
wondering if that might help me think more clearly about enjoying math.

I have an urge to start talking about mystery novels, detective
stories, spy movies - something like that. They seem related to what
is pleasurable about math. Same with the pleasure of playing chess or
other strategy games. A good riddle, a clever play on words,
provides a similar pleasure.

-pam
Relay for Life
http://www.acsevents.org/relay/ca/longbeach/pamsoroosh



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sandra Dodd

-=-Can you explain what is enjoyable or pleasurable about music? I'm
wondering if that might help me think more clearly about enjoying
math.-=-

I'm hoping to collect some of the math stories, but I can tell some
music stories.

I play baroque music on the piano, because I like the mechanicalness
of it. It's like clockwork, with patterns that go together very
intricately. It's fun to see how far I can get sightreading without
making a mistake, and then on pieces I know, it's fun to see how far
I can get without getting my fingers stuck in an awkward place.

With partsongs and madrigals, it's like building a sculpture of sound
in the air. And it takes three or four people--sometimes five or
six, and while it can be done with more, it can't be done without
several people, doing their parts at the same time. And when it
works, it makes something that cannot exist otherwise. It's not
what's on the paper--it's only in the air.

I've seen two live productions of West Side Story in the past few
weeks. I shivered. I got physical shivers a couple of times from
Maria's songs (both singers did it for me/to me). I cried. The
music moved my nervous system in real, physical, intense ways.

I have a friend learning to play recorder by ear. He's learning so
fast it awes me. Then we thought we'd teach him one page of a
madrigal we're going to teach a group tomorrow night. He learned two
pages of the bass part super fast, and remembered it four days
later. That was exciting, to see someone learn something so quickly.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Nancy Wooton

On Mar 22, 2007, at 5:19 PM, Sandra Dodd wrote:

> -=-Can you explain what is enjoyable or pleasurable about music? I'm
> wondering if that might help me think more clearly about enjoying
> math.-=-
>
> I'm hoping to collect some of the math stories, but I can tell some
> music stories.
>
> I play baroque music on the piano, because I like the mechanicalness
> of it. It's like clockwork, with patterns that go together very
> intricately.

I took piano lessons for four years, and never saw -- or is it heard?
-- patterns. Music reading was and is a struggle. I bought a book
classical works produced by William F. Buckley, which uses the method
he found worked for him: every black-key note is printed in red. That
helped some.

> It's fun to see how far I can get sightreading without
> making a mistake, and then on pieces I know, it's fun to see how far
> I can get without getting my fingers stuck in an awkward place.
>
> With partsongs and madrigals, it's like building a sculpture of sound
> in the air. And it takes three or four people--sometimes five or
> six, and while it can be done with more, it can't be done without
> several people, doing their parts at the same time. And when it
> works, it makes something that cannot exist otherwise. It's not
> what's on the paper--it's only in the air.
>
> I've seen two live productions of West Side Story in the past few
> weeks. I shivered. I got physical shivers a couple of times from
> Maria's songs (both singers did it for me/to me). I cried. The
> music moved my nervous system in real, physical, intense ways.

That happened to me when I saw the Cirque du Soleil / Beatles show,
"Love." The opening number represents their last concert, on the roof
of their office building, and starts with Because, then Get Back, then
Glass Onion; while the people are dancing, the set begins to come
apart, ending in bombed ruins for Eleanor Rigby. Overhead screens
display text about the Beatles having been born during WWII.
Separately, those songs don't have that effect (although there are a
few songs that will always make me cry).

>
> I have a friend learning to play recorder by ear. He's learning so
> fast it awes me. Then we thought we'd teach him one page of a
> madrigal we're going to teach a group tomorrow night. He learned two
> pages of the bass part super fast, and remembered it four days
> later. That was exciting, to see someone learn something so quickly.
>

I played recorder, but could never improvise or play by ear. Symbols
like trills were bothersome.

When I was about 7, our next-door neighbor would let me play her piano.
I *loved* to "bang" as she called it -- it sounded like music to me!
She got tired of it, though, and, being a school teacher, brought out a
beginning piano book. She gave me some basic instruction, then told me
I could continue to play, but ONLY what was written on the page. I'm
surprised she didn't get sick of "yertle the turtle" sooner than I did.
That lesson stuck, though; I still can't memorize music, not even the
next measure on a page that needs turning.

I'm happy to report that our piano was banged daily by my kids. Alex
liked to have music in front of him, though, so he'd write his own.
He'd occasionally ask me to play it, though, which was a problem ;-)
We had a cool duet once, with me on cello; he described what the music
represented, and we improvised accordingly; I think it involved tigers
in the jungle.

Nancy

Nancy Wooton

On Mar 22, 2007, at 5:12 PM, Pamela Sorooshian wrote:

>
> On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Nancy Wooton wrote:
>
>> Can you help me understand what *is* enjoyable about math? I've heard
>> people talk about it in terms of pleasure, beauty, etc., for years,
>> but
>> honestly, I don't get it.
>
> SUCH a good question. I can't figure out how to explain it because I
> don't get not getting it, to be honest. But, it is really worth
> thinking about - a really good challenge.
>
> Can you explain what is enjoyable or pleasurable about music?

Playing it, or listening to it? Neither one may be a good example to a
math phobic.

> I'm
> wondering if that might help me think more clearly about enjoying math.
>
> I have an urge to start talking about mystery novels, detective
> stories, spy movies - something like that. They seem related to what
> is pleasurable about math. Same with the pleasure of playing chess or
> other strategy games. A good riddle, a clever play on words,
> provides a similar pleasure.

So you're not talking about doing pages of story problems for fun, or
that solving equations in textbooks is pleasurable? When I hear people
say math is beautiful, I see pages of problems, which is, er,
problemathic.

eww.
Nancy

cyrusnmayasmama

> >> Can you help me understand what *is* enjoyable about math? I've heard
> >> people talk about it in terms of pleasure, beauty, etc., for years,
> >> but
> >> honestly, I don't get it.
>


My experiences in playing with numbers is similar in many ways to Sandra's experience
with music. I experience number patterns and combinations as 3 dimensional sculptures.
They have different "feelings". Some are all angles and points. Others are rounded or
spiral - some even bulbous. I have always enjoyed playing with numbers in my head
finding how they relate in different combinations and how the patterns feel as they form. I
have always counted things like steps I take or as the water fills a cup - those 2 things are
really different. The steps are regulated and methodical. The water is usually cyclical and
synchopated. I am a dancer and my dances are often physical expressions of number
combinations - not in a counting way though - more as complex combinations and
patterns.

Here's the other part of the story: I was a miserable failure with "math" in school! In the
3rd grade I still loved #'s until we had to learn the times tables by a specific date. I
"understood" the times table- I had been using #s in that way for a long time. I couldn't
seem to get them to pop into my head at random the way they wanted us to, however.
There was no way for me to connect 6x9 to anything real when someone else wanted an
answer. I needed it to be poetry or motion. The stress was physical for me and even today
I can remember the panic feeling of "I'm never going to pull this out of thin air before the
time is up!" When the date to have them memorized came the class was "rewarded" with
an ice cream party while I sat in the library as the only kid who didn't know my
multiplication tables!

My Dad has a PhD in math and science education. He sees #s as brilliant possiblity. I saw
myself as his daughter the math failure. Even he, the most patient and loving man in the
world, seemed not to be able to understand how I would just become paralyzed by my
basic high school algebra book open before me. I loved the beauty and simplicity of
geometry. There was something I could feast my eyes on! - but expressing it all in
mathmatical formulas on paper brought back that physical stress from 3rd grade. I truly
understood geometry - in my bones- if you had asked me to dance it I could have done so
with such depth it would have blown your mind, but that wouldn't have worked in high
school or on the SAT! I got a C in geometry and still consider that my big school math
success.

In spite of my school math misery I still love the possibilities of #s and the ways they go
together. I still dance them. My Dh and DS can get positively fired up and giddy over a
good math puzzler in ways I don't get at all! Some people don't "get " absract art. Some
don't "get" the poetry of baseball. There is no "failure" there - it's just not their thing. The
beauty or fun of math just may not be your thing. The way I see it as long as you don't
dismiss that it can be magical for someone else just because it isn't for you than there is
no harm.

Alyse

Sandra Dodd

-=-I loved the beauty and simplicity of
geometry. There was something I could feast my eyes on! - -=-

Me too. I loved the things that could be done with a compass (six-
pointed star, my favorite compass-thing) without even THINKING of a
numeral.

And still I can do things with cloth that I understand geometrically
without any numbers.

-=-Some people don't "get " absract art. Some
don't "get" the poetry of baseball.-=-

I don't.

I also don't get jazz, and sci-fi/fantasy usually irritates the hell
out of me. Yet most of my smartest friends love fantasy and jazz.
Lots of my smartest friends love football and I can't get it and
don't want to. So I feel stupid when I'm around them so I just get
away from the jazz and football and fantasy-author discussions.

But math "counts." Not liking jazz doesn't make someone retarded.
So there's stress with math.

Sandra

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Eric and Jules

On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Nancy Wooton wrote:

>
> Can you help me understand what *is* enjoyable about math? I've heard
> people talk about it in terms of pleasure, beauty, etc., for years, but
> honestly, I don't get it. I know my dd liked the certainty of
> arithmetic when we were still doing school at home, of getting the One
> Right Answer. (This is the kid who asked for math workbooks for
> Christmas.) Later, she hated the math book I'd heard recommended,
> "Problem Solving in Mathematics," that was more ambiguous.
>
> Nancy
>

I like math, it makes sense to me. I get a lot of information from
numbers, more so than just being a written numeral, a number represents
something real. When I think about a problem which includes number
values, I see images, colors, patterns and spatial relationships in my
head. It feels magical.

My 11yr old son Shea doesn't enjoy numbers, he and I have very
different feelings about math. I don't push him to practice math, I'll
bring it up later if we used math to cook or play a game, or I'll tell
him the Schoolhouse Rock song he is singing is about math and he
doesn't believe it until I write out the numbers.

I remember once he tried figure out a math problem and he got really
frustrated and said "I hate numbers!". I told him to count kittens not
numbers, and that changed his perspective. Since he really loves cats,
he feels it is worth counting kittens, being off by just one kitten is
a big deal. I don't know if this kid will ever enjoy math and that's
okay with me. He is completely capable as a math utilitarian.

Jules.