[email protected]

We saw a huge, orange-pink tinted moon last night VERY low in the sky. Wyl
asked why the moon looked so big, so we looked it up today. Maybe the sky will
be clear enough for you all to see it as well. Here's a good (though out of
date) page to explain the "why":
_http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/20jun_moonillusion.htm_
(http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/20jun_moonillusion.htm)

Peace,
De




**************Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.
(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)


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

Angela Shaw

My always unschooled girls, ages 11 and 13, are very capable readers. They
almost never read fiction. They do read non-fiction books and magazines for
information when they want to know something in particular but that is
really it when it comes to printed material. In the past I always read to
them a lot and I think they got their fill of stories from my reading to
them but lately we aren't even doing that. However, their world is filled
with the written word and stories. They play on-line games a lot and they
watch TV. They also still use their vivid imaginations in their play. My
younger dd goes through periods of story writing. My oldest likes to make
lists. I have always been a voracious reader but in the last few years I
haven't read many books either. I am however, still reading all the time.
I read many of these lists. I read during the on-line games I play. I read
a lot of magazines. I read cereal boxes and Ketchup bottles. There is just
so much more information available on-line and on TV now that you can spend
the whole day reading, writing, listening, and thinking and never pick up a
book. I really think it's just a sign of the times.



Angela Shaw

game-enthusiast@...









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

Sandra Dodd

When we're travelling and I see the sun come up on flatlands, I'm
surprised every time at how BIG it is. But the time the sun clears
the mountains here, it's pretty high in the sky. When I was growing
up we had mountains to the east too.

Here's what the moon looked like from my house for a moment this
morning:
http://sandradodd.blogspot.com

Sandra

Sandra Dodd

Good quote. I don't know where to save it, but I like it:

There is just
so much more information available on-line and on TV now that you can
spend
the whole day reading, writing, listening, and thinking and never
pick up a
book. I really think it's just a sign of the times. --Angela Shaw



The whole post was good, but that's especially good, Angela.



Sandra

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

Joylyn

I totally agree that reading books, the way I do (with passionate consumption) is not necessary for life or learning.

But reading at a literate level (and that level is of much debate) is necessary for life and learning.

Yes, of course, kids can learn without reading. Janene did, until she read at 8. Others have. I know some kids don't read until 12 or older. Robert Frost didn't read until 14. But I think a literate level of reading is very important.

Choosing not to read, I get that... But I think it's sad when someone is illiterate, and therefore it's not a choice.

Joylyn
---- Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> Good quote. I don't know where to save it, but I like it:
>
> There is just
> so much more information available on-line and on TV now that you can
> spend
> the whole day reading, writing, listening, and thinking and never
> pick up a
> book. I really think it's just a sign of the times. --Angela Shaw
>
>
>
> The whole post was good, but that's especially good, Angela.
>
>
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

Sandra Dodd

-=-Choosing not to read, I get that... But I think it's sad when
someone is illiterate, and therefore it's not a choice. -=-

But you're a big reader. I think it's sad when someone's not musical
at all. I have a friend with a huge, deep voice. He'll stand up in
public and make announcements and give speeches. He's English. I
asked him to sing the hymn about Jerusalem, and though he knows it
thoroughly, he was too embarrassed to sing a single phrase.

From my point of view, that's debilitating. There are people who
never sing in front of others, though, who lead rich, full lives.

-=-But reading at a literate level (and that level is of much debate)
is necessary for life and learning. -=-

It's not as necessary as it once was.

I don't know any illiterate unschoolers (not grown or teens).

Sandra

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

Joylyn

---- Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> -=-Choosing not to read, I get that... But I think it's sad when
> someone is illiterate, and therefore it's not a choice. -=-
>
> But you're a big reader. I think it's sad when someone's not musical
> at all. I have a friend with a huge, deep voice. He'll stand up in
> public and make announcements and give speeches. He's English. I
> asked him to sing the hymn about Jerusalem, and though he knows it
> thoroughly, he was too embarrassed to sing a single phrase.

Yeah, I think that's sad too. I'm that way.

I will sing to my children. I will even sing to my students. There are a few books that I read each year that have songs in them and I will sing the songs when I am reading the book out loud in shared reading. But if an adult comes into the room, I freeze up. I would not sing in public. It is sad. I'm working on this issue of mine...
>
> From my point of view, that's debilitating. There are people who
> never sing in front of others, though, who lead rich, full lives.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure my life is full and rich, but I wish I could

sing in public--even if I'm off key
create art, draw, paint, and not worry about my art.. public school really taught me that I am not an artist, and that is sad. I want to be an artist, I tie dye as that is a way i can be an artist and a pretty good one, without the fear that what I am doing is not good enough.
>
> -=-But reading at a literate level (and that level is of much debate)
> is necessary for life and learning. -=-
>
> It's not as necessary as it once was.
I don't agree. Actually, I think it's more necessary. My grandfather could be very successful with a 4th grade education and being barely literate. He was very good with math, but he could not read. Now, I think there are few jobs that one can do without a level of literacy and education. Not formal education, but education.
>
> I don't know any illiterate unschoolers (not grown or teens).
>
That is very true. I don't either. But sadly, I know a whole bunch of schooled teens who are not literate.

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

[email protected]

Sunday night we travelled into the city to the lakefront for the full moon
jam - Full moon over Lake Michigan, drums and bells and even some brass, and a
couple of hours of fire spinners. It was quite possibly a perfect night.

http://www.spunn.org/

Deborah in IL




**************
Need a new ride? Check out the largest site for U.S. used car
listings at AOL Autos.

(http://autos.aol.com/used?NCID=aolcmp00300000002851)


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

Kim Musolff

*** > -=-But reading at a literate level (and that level is of much debate)
> is necessary for life and learning. -=-
>
> It's not as necessary as it once was.
I don't agree. Actually, I think it's more necessary. My grandfather could
be very successful with a 4th grade education and being barely literate. He
was very good with math, but he could not read. Now, I think there are few
jobs that one can do without a level of literacy and education. Not formal
education, but education.***

I totally agree with Joylyn here. I think our children would be at a
serious disadvantage in both learning and in living if they did not learn to
read. I've known two adults who never learned to read. Neither were
unschooled, but they weren't schooled either. They kind of "escaped"
society and hid themselves away in a tiny little "hippie" town. Both were
very depressed individuals with low self-esteem. They sold drugs as a
living, because no one would hire them because they couldn't read.

Kim


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

Joyce Fetteroll

On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:51 AM, Kim Musolff wrote:

> I think our children would be at a
> serious disadvantage in both learning and in living if they did not
> learn to
> read. I've known two adults who never learned to read.

But in what universe are unschooled children not learning to read?

While the fear makes sense because it's possible to be illiterate,
does it have any basis in reality in an unschooling home?

If not then "our children" won't be at a disadvantage.

Joyce

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

Joylyn

I'm not Kim, but I was talking theoretically and not really about our kids.

In fact, i was probably talking about my students, many who are, at 12, illiterate, and sadly some of them will remain so as they have been so turned off of reading by the schools.

Joylyn
---- Joyce Fetteroll <jfetteroll@...> wrote:
>
> On Apr 22, 2008, at 4:51 AM, Kim Musolff wrote:
>
> > I think our children would be at a
> > serious disadvantage in both learning and in living if they did not
> > learn to
> > read. I've known two adults who never learned to read.
>
> But in what universe are unschooled children not learning to read?
>
> While the fear makes sense because it's possible to be illiterate,
> does it have any basis in reality in an unschooling home?
>
> If not then "our children" won't be at a disadvantage.
>
> Joyce
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

graberamy

> In fact, i was probably talking about my students, many who are, at
12, illiterate, and sadly some of them will remain so as they have been
so turned off of reading by the schools.>>


A friend of mine and I got in a pretty big argument about this topic.
She's a public school teacher (I was) and we were arguing about weather
or not children need to be taught to read. Her final statement to me
was something to the effect of the literacy problem and I said it is
caused by "teaching" kids to read (imo)!!!

Anyway, I usually follow these threads closely. My 8 yo is not reading
independently and I know that is ok (fine, perfectly normal), but I
still occasionally worry. I've just learned to keep it to myself and
read all I can when I'm having one of those moments. One difference I
can tell you about Graham is he doesn't hate reading and he believes
that he just can't yet. [:)] His world his surrounded by written words
and he doesn't fear them or hate them, he has no problem asking for help
when playing games, his ds, playstation or a magazine, etc. I think
that people who end up illiterate somehow feel like there is something
wrong with them and even hide the fact that they can't.

amy g
iowa




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

Sandra Dodd

-=-I totally agree with Joylyn here. I think our children would be at a
serious disadvantage in both learning and in living if they did not
learn to
read. I've known two adults who never learned to read.-=-



But we're talking about unschooling.

Has ANYone here talked about kids who can't read???



NObody. What they were talking about is kids who don't sit and read
novels for hours on end.



Sandra

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

Sandra Dodd

-=-I'm not Kim, but I was talking theoretically and not really about
our kids.

In fact, i was probably talking about my students, many who are, at
12, illiterate, and sadly some of them will remain so as they have
been so turned off of reading by the schools.

Joylyn-=-



Joylyn,

Anyone here could run a line of depressing what-if or sad story about
people in prison or shelters or schools.

It's an unschooling list. Please stick to the topic. We're trying
to cheer people up and on, not depress them and scare them.



Sandra

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

Ren Allen

~~In fact, i was probably talking about my students, many who are, at
12, illiterate, and sadly some of them will remain so as they have
been so turned off of reading by the schools.~~

But being illiterate at 12 is not the problem. It's being judged and
compared and being called "illiterate" that is the problem. Jared
learned to read at the age of 12 without any of that baggage and is a
happy, confident reader today at almost 15.

Ren
learninginfreedom.com

Kim Musolff

*** But being illiterate at 12 is not the problem. It's being judged and
compared and being called "illiterate" that is the problem. Jared
learned to read at the age of 12 without any of that baggage and is a
happy, confident reader today at almost 15.***

I do believe that unschoolers will ever be illiterate. But do any of you,
who have had children who don't read until 11, 12, 13 + feel that they could
have grasped the concept of reading had they read earlier? The reason I ask
is that I've read (as a teacher, so who knows how unbiiased my readings
were) that if a child learns to speak or learn music after the age of 12,
they will not learn it as well as a child who learns at an earlier age.
Something about brain development. I wonder if this pertains to reading, as
well.

Now, I don't know if this "brain development" theory is just false, or if we
are talking about schooled vs. unschooled kids here. Even if it is true,
you also have to factor in the fact that forcing a child to read can totally
turn him off to reading. So is it really beneficial to "push" reading even
if this happens to be ture? (I think I just answered my own question!)

I'm curious to see what others here think about this "brain development"
theory?
Kim


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

Sandra Dodd

-=-But do any of you,
who have had children who don't read until 11, 12, 13 + feel that
they could
have grasped the concept of reading had they read earlier-=-

??

They read when they read. They couldn't have grasped reading before
they could read.



-=-I do believe that unschoolers will ever be illiterate.-=-

I don't think that's what you mean to write.



-=-Even if it is true,

you also have to factor in the fact that forcing a child to read can
totally
turn him off to reading. -=-



No one can "force a child to read." It cannot be done.



Sandra

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

Joanna Murphy

But do any of you,
> who have had children who don't read until 11, 12, 13 + feel that they could
> have grasped the concept of reading had they read earlier?

But they didn't read earlier, so the question seems like a catch 22 to me. Wouldn't those
kids in school have been the ones identified as the remedial kids? Isn't it likely that they
would have really started to "get it" at around 11, 12, 13 + anyway? But then the reading
specialists could claim credit. Or worse, they may have managed it earlier, but at what
cost to their creativity, imagination, joy & happiness or physical well-being?


The reason I ask
> is that I've read (as a teacher, so who knows how unbiiased my readings
> were) that if a child learns to speak or learn music after the age of 12,
> they will not learn it as well as a child who learns at an earlier age.
> Something about brain development. I wonder if this pertains to reading, as
> well.

I don't buy it at all. I was 12 when I began to play the flute. I loved it. I played and
played--even in the car because I couldn't wait until I got home! I improved rapidly,
began taking private lessons, auditioned for a local youth orchestra and got in, took
lessons with a better teacher, got into another youth symphony, made state honor band,
and was basically on a track to do it professionally. Then other factors came into play and
I didn't end up pursuing it, but that had nothing to do with the inability of my brain to
"learn it as well." It was all about drive and desire. I remember John Holt addressing this
very topic--I'm sure someone else will remember which book/s are pertinent.

With all the cutting edge research going on in the field of brain plasticity, I think that this
is a very outdated concept. We've all heard the "window of opportunity" theory, but think
about how much easier some concepts are to just grasp now, as an adult, than they were
when presented in school when we weren't ready for them or interested enough in them
to actively engage them.

>
> Now, I don't know if this "brain development" theory is just false, or if we
> are talking about schooled vs. unschooled kids here. Even if it is true,
> you also have to factor in the fact that forcing a child to read can totally
> turn him off to reading. So is it really beneficial to "push" reading even
> if this happens to be ture? (I think I just answered my own question!)
>

I think that letting go of the brain development theory, like many preconceptions that
aren't based on actual experience, can help parents to connect more fully in the present
with their children, and holding on to it can create fear and anxiety that inhibits that
relationship.

My personal theory is that there may be windows where kids are putting together their
understanding of certain things like language, mathematical stuff/patterns, music, rhythm,
etc., but if they are in a rich, supportive environment they will have what they need, or can
get what they need to assimilate those things to the degree to which it makes sense to the
child. I think that people like to muck about in natural processes as if we should, and we
have great potential to do harm and to dishonor that process if we try to "take over" and
use those windows as an excuse to force someone to learn according to an external
agenda. Those processes are completely internal and can be messed up by an external
focus.

My thoughts--Joanna

Nancy Machaj

Hey Deb! I havent been able to make it to a full moon jam in a while
due to kids sleeping routines, but I keep wanting to go! I post about
it on my local lists, cuz it is such a cool happening. Actually, on
one of my local homeschooling lists, someone complained to the
moderator that they shouldnt allow me to promote my "pagan"
activities. They do let me post, though :)

There have also been dancers with flags and the whole thing is just
so amazing.

fellow moon jam lover,
nancy in chicago

*****
blogging at:
http://happychildhood.homeschooljournal.net


Deb wrote:
**Sunday night we travelled into the city to the lakefront for the
full moon
jam - Full moon over Lake Michigan, drums and bells and even some
brass, and a
couple of hours of fire spinners. It was quite possibly a perfect night.

http://www.spunn.org/

Deborah in IL
***




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

Bob Collier

--- In [email protected], "Joanna Murphy" <ridingmom@...>
wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The reason I ask
> > is that I've read (as a teacher, so who knows how unbiiased my
readings
> > were) that if a child learns to speak or learn music after the age
of 12,
> > they will not learn it as well as a child who learns at an earlier
age.
> > Something about brain development. I wonder if this pertains to
reading, as
> > well.
>
> I don't buy it at all. I was 12 when I began to play the flute. I
loved it. I played and
> played--even in the car because I couldn't wait until I got home! I
improved rapidly,
> began taking private lessons, auditioned for a local youth orchestra
and got in, took
> lessons with a better teacher, got into another youth symphony, made
state honor band,
> and was basically on a track to do it professionally. Then other
factors came into play and
> I didn't end up pursuing it, but that had nothing to do with the
inability of my brain to
> "learn it as well." It was all about drive and desire. I remember
John Holt addressing this
> very topic--I'm sure someone else will remember which book/s are
pertinent.
>
> With all the cutting edge research going on in the field of brain
plasticity, I think that this
> is a very outdated concept. We've all heard the "window of
opportunity" theory, but think
> about how much easier some concepts are to just grasp now, as an
adult, than they were
> when presented in school when we weren't ready for them or
interested enough in them
> to actively engage them.
>
>


The realisation of the plasticity of the brain has shown that we don't
become *incapable* of learning new skills. My understanding is that
it's more to do with the way new information coming into the brain is
interpreted in terms of existing information.

How that often works out with children is that an adult who doesn't
appreciate that "careless talk costs lives" (as those WW2 posters used
to say) will write them off as a failure for all time on the basis of
their failure to achieve something on a specific occasion. Tell a five
or six year old who isn't reading now that they "can't read" and they
might well still believe it ten years from now.

I learned to play the violin when I was 21. Actually, I was a fiddle
player, not as challenging as becoming a violinist perhaps, but still
it was a skill I didn't know I had the ability to acquire until I made
the decision to acquire it.

One time, I read an article by a professional bodybulider in which he
wrote that if you haven't built a muscular physique by the time you're
20, you'll never do it. Some years later, I read a story about a
former thin guy who took up bodybuilding when he was 50 and two years
later won the National title (I think that was in the UK).

"Self-improvement" techniques such as visualization, hypnosis, NLP,
Think Right Now, and so on, are primarily to do with changing patterns
of thought, and thus our beliefs, so that they become more helpful -
"empowering" I think is the popular word. The point is, though, that
the change requires an intention to change - beliefs usually don't
change themselves. Patterns of thought tend to become more rigid over
time as we tend to notice evidence that supports them and disregard
evidence that doesn't. So it may well be that people who believe we
can't learn new skills once we're out of our childhood are people
who've never actually tried.

Bob

Cindy Fox

--- In [email protected], "Joanna Murphy" <ridingmom@...>
wrote:
> We've all heard the "window of opportunity" theory, but think
> about how much easier some concepts are to just grasp now, as an
> adult, than they were when presented in school when we weren't ready
> for them or interested enough in them to actively engage them.

Haha, not just brains, but bodies! Sports anyone? I was a genuine
klutz as a kid and my only hope to get through gym was to befriend the
teacher. :) I sat and regaled my high school gym teacher with stories
and held his clipboard and ran errands - ANYTHING to stay off that
field, court, track, whatever! Any time I couldn't talk him out of
keeping me out of the game, it was like a mile long disconnect with
what my brain saw, told my body, and my body reacting! The ball was
always long gone when I swung at it.

When I later worked at a college and my boss wanted everyone on the
faculty volleyball and softball team, I dreaded it but figured I could
enjoy the sunshine, take up space and maybe block a ball or two. But
despite his disappointment in my less than stellar performance, I
impressed myself when I realized that I had actually developed some
coordination! I could actually see the ball and hit it. :) Not that
it went where I wanted, but I had improved by doing nothing... It was
just when my body was ready...

If only there were a little league for twenty-somethings! :( Well,
there wasn't, so I went on to non-competitve sports, like SCUBA and
Skiing. I never became an expert, but I finally got enjoyment out of
something physical... Something I had learned to accept that I
was 'bad' at and had stopped trying until that fluke. BTW, thanks
also in part to him, I later became a SCUBA instructor and certified
that boss to dive after starting a program at the college. :)

I never got very good at eye-hand coordination at activities requiring
speed. :) My body still primarily serves as the vehicle to cart my
brain around, but I can get in a batting cage and hit some, which
would be a miracle to my 16 year old self. :) Practice might improve
my performance, but I'm satisfied with my abilities in that area.

My 8 year old asked why I liked to read so much the other day and I
explained, but almost everything I heard myself saying could have been
also said about movies, tv, games, roleplaying, etc. Even my favorite
part, which is that books are at my time, my speed can be done with
DVR/Tivo these days.

One things books still have over electronics is that they are easier
to replace when they fall in the bathtub and they don't need
batteries, so they work well on long airplane trips and on beaches,
but I see my son self entertain non-electronically by drawing -
something that has never interested me.

I realized when I was answering him that escapism was always one of my
main reasons and I read far fewer books today than years ago both
because I don't have such a strong need to escape and because I can
read online and watch movies instead.

Okay, I'm almost done with my long post. One last thought...

One thing I have tried to avoid is comparisons, but right after he
asked me why I liked to read, he said he didn't think he was smart. :(

After we talked about the difference of smart vs. knowing vs. ability
vs. practice and what exactly he is good at and why that might be, he
specifically brought up reading. So I told him about older kids he
knows who didn't learn to read until they were 10 or 12. One was an
unschooler and one is schooled. He seemed surprised and then looked a
bit relieved. I've always tried to be positive, but he gets other
messages about comparisons to age based abilities from family, friends
and tv.

I reminded him that he can read some things, so it's not that he
*can't* read, but that he's learning to read. I see him developing
need based and practice based (username/passwords frequently entered)
abilities and I trust that he will continue that path to meet his
needs in reading. He's very proud of how fast he can type his
password on runescape (not an easy word, but I can't tell) and I told
him my story of typing - another slowly developed physical skill that
I'm now excellent at, but only by time and practice, like many
things. And that he's probably a better typer than many his age.

This is also the boy who could hit a baseball at age two and asked us
to take off the training wheels on his bike when he was ready at age 4
and did a perfect ride the very first time. He didn't get that from
me. :) (I'll spare you the story of my riding a bike into a tree at
age 12).

Some people develop coordination at a young age. Some don't. Some
read at a young age. Some don't. :)

c.

cathy

We always read a lot of books in our house; and my son loved his evening
reading times with Dad. The concept of reading was quite clear to him, I
think, and he definitely recognised its value. However, he did not read
himself until he was 12. Another daughter, 11, is now working hard on her
reading skills; she was not that interested before.



I notice that kids, left to decide when to learn to read for themselves,
often leave it till later - there is so much that is more important to them
in their childhood. Reading is a bit abstract, a bit removed from real life.
They want to grasp hold of real life and experience it for themselves, and
only when they are full up and contented with this are they interested in
receiving it second-hand, through books.



People say that a child is losing out if he cannot read. I don't think so.
Left to decide for himself, a child is busy all day long - living and
learning. And then there are those lovely quiet snugly times when you read a
book together - if he can't read it for himself yet, there is no reason at
all why he should lose out - you can give him the gift of your reading skill
to use.



When we lived in South Africa, we had a housekeeper in her 30's who could
not read. She did want to learn, and while working for me, did an adult
reading course. However, although being able to read did add value to her
life, she had successfully functioned for all those years without the skill.
She was a nurturing mother of 8 children, a wonderful housekeeper, a super
person. She knew a lot about her environment, nature, folk remedies etc. She
could do her shopping, get from point A to point B, bake and cook... one is
inclined to see illiteracy as a great handicap. However, she made a huge
difference to my life in the days when my children were little and my
husband was working far too hard, out of the country more than he was in it.



Yes, I do feel that reading is important, and yes, I do want my kids to
learn to read. But I think we place far too much value on the skill as
compared with other skills...



Thus say I, a confirmed book-aholic, who learned to read when I was 4!!!



Regards

Cathy

.


<http://geo.yahoo.com/serv?s=97359714/grpId=4410250/grpspId=1705542111/msgId
=34464/stime=1208926968/nc1=4025373/nc2=3848640/nc3=4763758>




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

Schuyler

======================

People say that a child is losing out if he cannot read. I don't think so.
Left to decide for himself, a child is busy all day long - living and
learning. And then there are those lovely quiet snugly times when you read a
book together - if he can't read it for himself yet, there is no reason at
all why he should lose out - you can give him the gift of your reading skill
to use.

=========================


I would argue that my son, who at 11 is not yet a reader, is seeing things that all of the rest of the readers in the household are missing out on. Often Simon will notice something that my word-centric perspective completely misses. When we lived in Japan, where I was completely illiterate, I found I looked for many different arenas for information. And Japan is amazingly well setup for the non-literate. In restaurants there are often models of the food that's on offer in the window so you can lead the waitress outside to point at what you want to eat (amid much giggling). The most difficult request I had to negotiate was for tampons. The poor woman was so embarrassed when I finally communicated to her my need. But that isn't the point. The point is that there is much that Simon sees that I don't see.

Speaking of snuggling, this morning Simon and I had a lovely time reading through his Yugioh cards. It is amazing to listen to him take in the information. I didn't notice alot of the details of what I was reading aloud. But he would comment on the cards and tell me which decks he thought they would be good with and how. It was wonderful.

Schuyler
www.waynforth.blogspot.com







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

Joyce Fetteroll

On Apr 22, 2008, at 11:02 PM, Kim Musolff wrote:

> But do any of you,
> who have had children who don't read until 11, 12, 13 + feel that
> they could
> have grasped the concept of reading had they read earlier?

Do you think that a child who doesn't walk until 20 mos could have
grasped walking sooner?

What would be the purpose of walking lessons for a nonwalker?

> The reason I ask
> is that I've read (as a teacher, so who knows how unbiiased my
> readings
> were) that if a child learns to speak or learn music after the age
> of 12,
> they will not learn it as well as a child who learns at an earlier
> age.

If that were true, then wouldn't unschoolers have noticed that their
later readers didn't read as well as their earlier readers? I've
never heard anyone say so. All I've heard is that they're
indistinguishable in their ability.

Joyce

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

Paula Sjogerman

On Apr 22, 2008, at 10:02 PM, Kim Musolff wrote:
> Now, I don't know if this "brain development" theory is just false,

I do. It is.


> But do any of you,
> who have had children who don't read until 11, 12, 13 + feel that
> they could
> have grasped the concept of reading had they read earlier? The
> reason I ask
> is that I've read (as a teacher, so who knows how unbiiased my
> readings
> were) that if a child learns to speak or learn music after the age
> of 12,
> they will not learn it as well as a child who learns at an earlier
> age.
> Something about brain development. I wonder if this pertains to
> reading, as
> well.
>
>


It does not pertain to reading - and I doubt it really pertains to
music either. I have two kids, one who read at 6, one who read at 11,
now 5 years later, it matters not at all when they started.

I'm pretty sure that in school my kid would have learned to read
somewhat earlier and probably at the price of hating reading and
feeling bad about himself. Clearly not worth it.

Paula

Gold Standard

>>Even if it is true,
>>you also have to factor in the fact that forcing a child to read can
>>totally
>>turn him off to reading.<<

Not to mention potentially causing physiological harm. Sudbury Valley
School, a private open school with no curriculum or educational guidelines,
kids do what they want every day (within the "laws" which have to do with
behavior, respect, etc.), has never had a case of dyslexia in their entire
35+ years of existence. Their theory is that they've never even asked a
child if they wanted to learn to read...just responded when kids asked...and
since no pressure was put on them, the kids were allowed to follow exactly
what their brains needed. Some of their kids didn't read until they were
older (used to be that they said 12 was their oldest). But they read at "age
level" (whatever that means) within months, and often weeks, of their start.
Last I heard, studies were being performed based on their information to see
if we can actually cause dyslexia by forcing the brain to do something it's
not ready for.

Jacki

graberamy

<<<Simon and I had a lovely time reading
through his Yugioh cards. It is amazing to listen to him take in the
information. I didn't notice alot of the details of what I was reading
aloud.
But he would comment on the cards and tell me which decks he thought
they would
be good with and how.>>>>

Interesting, my son does this same thing. My daughter will sit and
listen to me read and just listen and listen and about all she says is
"read another chapter!"(she was an "earlier reader" btw). But Graham
will ask soooo many questions! Every couple sentences, yes, noticing
details that I really don't pay attention to, learning things, telling
me things! Bringing up earlier ideas from pages and chapters past.

I wonder, if this is a pattern with later readers? If maybe they're so
busy taking in so much information that reading is just too mudane or
slow for them at this time???

He even stuttered as a tot when he would get excited talking or have a
bunch of information to share. He would get frustrated and I would
always say, don't worry your brain just moving faster than the words are
ready to come out. Both grandmas were getting worried that there might
be something wrong, but I never did because I really knew he would work
it out in his own time.

He's really good at contraptions, building things and video games
(problem solving type things), I'm mean really good. I look at this
contraption computer game
(http://www.gamespot.com/pc/puzzle/returnoftheimc/index.html) he plays
and am like "DUHHHHHH" but he solves these puzzles in seconds! He sees
so much further ahead then my brain seems to work (and I consider myself
fairly smart...bwg!)!!

Just some thoughts!

amy g
iowa




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

Gold Standard

>>I notice that kids, left to decide when to learn to read for themselves,
>>often leave it till later<<

It sounds like that may have been the case for the poster's children, but I
have heard lots about kids picking up reading at young ages...my four were
each different, from ages 4 to 9. Just depends on the person.

Jacki

Sandra Dodd

-=-It does not pertain to reading - and I doubt it really pertains to
music either.-=-
I've thought of what it pertains to (or pertained to once), with music.

Before the days of Victrolas and before the days of mechanical music
boxes, for a while the HUGE fad, which they thought was natural and
inevitable, was to have ladies (not so often men) who played the
pianoforte. And women of a certain class needed to be good enough at
it by marriage-age to get a good husband. It was part of the not-yet-
faded tradition of dowry, practically. The girls needed to know
music and French or Italian and poetry and needlework. They didn't
need to know how to cook; they would have a cook.

Years passed and there were wars and a big depression and people
could buy recorded music and then there were radios, but that was all
considered inferior.

The ideal of breeding and culture included music, and it's not that
one would lose cognitive function later, it's that there was a
looming window of marriagability and the parents had a duty to get
her all spiffed up.

It's just too complicated and embarrassing for people to admit that
such factors have anything on earth to do with the urge to have a
child in Suzuki violin or playing recorder Waldorf-style right on
schedule. That justification of a window has more to do with
organization and with consistency (and visual conformity) than with
learning itself. I noticed as I was writing this that we're talking
Japan and Germany. They both have reputations for being humorless
with and controlling of children. Perhaps it's an unfair stereotype;
perhaps it's as real as any genetic realities can be. If it's not at
all genetic, perhaps there are traditions in those cultures that
others find somewhat inflexible but they're accepted by those who
grew up with it.

The press to have young girls play piano is with us still, even in
Japan now.

I think there are some reasonable concerns with grown women
(especially young wives) being in the company of male teachers
(especially piano teachers who sit right next to them with all those
vibrations coming from the large, hard-bodied instrument).
Seriously. Electronic pianos are much more safely unsexy.

The prejudice about "if you don't learn it when you're little you're
not going to learn it at all" is reinforced by compulsory attendance
(to 18 in many places; John Holt must be fidgeting in his grave, as
he thought 15 and 16 were too late to hold young men down like
children).

The realities are different now, as to opportunities for learning, I
think. Life is easier for us than for great grandmothers who had to
haul water and heat it over a fire to do laundry for men and teen
sons who were working in other people's fields all week. That
would be my own maternal grandmother, but I'm older than most of
you. And some of you might never have had grandmothers who had to
haul water to wash clothes. I just have to get my clothes to the
washing machine. I don't even have to make my own soap. I can play
piano all through the rinse cycle and never even get my hands wet.

So as usual, when considering questions like these, consider as much
as you can historically and geographically and socially to try to see
where the messages come from, and how the landscape is changing.

Sandra

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

Schuyler

Oh, wonderful! My mind went to the 60's and 70's and Noam Chomsky's stuff on the window of language acquisition and how so much of what people believe (including the neural pathway stuff) seems to be some extension of that. But I like the idea that it is about some parental desire to increase their children's value on the mating market.

Schuyler


----- Original Message ----
From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 23 April, 2008 4:33:28 PM
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Re: not choosing books

-=-It does not pertain to reading - and I doubt it really pertains to
music either.-=-
I've thought of what it pertains to (or pertained to once), with music.

Before the days of Victrolas and before the days of mechanical music
boxes, for a while the HUGE fad, which they thought was natural and
inevitable, was to have ladies (not so often men) who played the
pianoforte. And women of a certain class needed to be good enough at
it by marriage-age to get a good husband. It was part of the not-yet-
faded tradition of dowry, practically. The girls needed to know
music and French or Italian and poetry and needlework. They didn't
need to know how to cook; they would have a cook.







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