So, what do you tell people? Was: to bathe or not to bathe?
Shira Rocklin
---I think it is a big mistake to go around telling people you unschool
and that your kids
don't have bed times, don't have to bathe and can eat whatever they want
and play video games all day.
Even people that call themselves unschoolers have very hard time
understand and saying things like that do not help them
or your children.---
So, what are the ways that everyone DOES describe what they do? So
far, I've been mostly just talking about homeschooling, and sometimes
unschooling, but haven't mentioned the 'radical' much at all. I've been
thinking about saying 'eclectic homeschooling' as the least threatening,
but also least structured sounding option. Talking about what I do
believe in, rather than what I don't believe in, also seems like a
productive communication of our intended practices (she's only 3.5, so
we're not officially schooling or not schooling yet). And also that
we're just seeing how it goes.
and that your kids
don't have bed times, don't have to bathe and can eat whatever they want
and play video games all day.
Even people that call themselves unschoolers have very hard time
understand and saying things like that do not help them
or your children.---
So, what are the ways that everyone DOES describe what they do? So
far, I've been mostly just talking about homeschooling, and sometimes
unschooling, but haven't mentioned the 'radical' much at all. I've been
thinking about saying 'eclectic homeschooling' as the least threatening,
but also least structured sounding option. Talking about what I do
believe in, rather than what I don't believe in, also seems like a
productive communication of our intended practices (she's only 3.5, so
we're not officially schooling or not schooling yet). And also that
we're just seeing how it goes.
wtexans
---So, what are the ways that everyone DOES describe what they do?---
It depends on who's asking and how interested they truly appear to be in the answer. It also depends on what level of trust I feel towards them.
When we used to be out and about during school hours (we aren't too often anymore because Andrew keeps more vampire-ish hours nowadays), when people would ask if Andrew was out sick or if it was a school holiday, I'd just smile and say, "no, we homeschool". Sometimes people will go on to ask Andrew what his favorite subject is -- he'll usually give them a schoolish answer ("reading"), they'll be happy to hear that, then the subject will change to something else -- the random kind of chit-chat that happens with strangers.
When he or I are asked what grade he's in, sometimes I'll reply with "oh, we homeschool and don't do things by grade level" -- I've never had anyone go beyond that (maybe because I answer with a smile and don't make a challenge out of it). When he's going to be in a situation where he might be asked what grade he's in, I figure that out beforehand and give him the answer and then he can choose if he wants to just give that answer or mention that he homeschools.
The age he is now (11), he understands that pretty much any kid he's going to meet locally is more traditionally schooled and parented than he is. He's seen that even kids he's grown up with all his life (his cousins) and their parents (his aunts and uncles) don't necessarily grasp our lifestyle and they've been exposed to it a great deal. (Fortunately, they don't judge it and it's never been an issue.) He's protective of how we live, so he's cautious about what kind of info he gives out. If he doesn't want to tell someone he homeschools, or specifically that he unschools, that's his choice.
When he was younger, his first pediatrician is someone I had concerns might contact CPS about us -- she and I had butted heads about vaccinations and when she began to question (before he was even legally required to be in school) which homeschooling curriculum we would be using, I switched to another pediatrician pretty quickly. We've been with that pediatrician for 6 years now and he's never batted an eye about us homeschooling.
My stepmom can't wrap her brain around the concept of unschooling. In her mind, everything is in school terms. That used to frustrate me and I wanted her to "get it" about unschooling. Now, though, I understand that she's genuinely concerned that Andrew's learning basic skills and that he's getting socialization, so I answer her questions honestly. It's never been a source of tension between us, and she doesn't grill Andrew like some grandparents might. I've given her and my dad info about unschooling, and I'm pretty sure my dad's read it (he's like me, he'll read anything!), but he's never questioned us about unschooling -- he enjoys Andrew for who he is and seems to have a great level of trust that my husband and I wouldn't do something that would put Andrew at a disadvantage. (My mom is this way also, but she lives nearby and gets to see Andrew often; my dad and stepmom live farther away and only see him several times a year.) When we visited my dad and stepmom in December, when my stepmom and I were alone, she asked how Andrew had learned to read and if he liked to read -- she was genuinely curious and I was happy to have an answer that seemed to give her some level of comfort. She had to drop out of high school to care for her dying mother, so I think that may perhaps be why school is so important to her -- not having a degree was a disadvantage for her, and she wants to be sure Andrew is not disadvantaged by not having a degree.
Glenda
It depends on who's asking and how interested they truly appear to be in the answer. It also depends on what level of trust I feel towards them.
When we used to be out and about during school hours (we aren't too often anymore because Andrew keeps more vampire-ish hours nowadays), when people would ask if Andrew was out sick or if it was a school holiday, I'd just smile and say, "no, we homeschool". Sometimes people will go on to ask Andrew what his favorite subject is -- he'll usually give them a schoolish answer ("reading"), they'll be happy to hear that, then the subject will change to something else -- the random kind of chit-chat that happens with strangers.
When he or I are asked what grade he's in, sometimes I'll reply with "oh, we homeschool and don't do things by grade level" -- I've never had anyone go beyond that (maybe because I answer with a smile and don't make a challenge out of it). When he's going to be in a situation where he might be asked what grade he's in, I figure that out beforehand and give him the answer and then he can choose if he wants to just give that answer or mention that he homeschools.
The age he is now (11), he understands that pretty much any kid he's going to meet locally is more traditionally schooled and parented than he is. He's seen that even kids he's grown up with all his life (his cousins) and their parents (his aunts and uncles) don't necessarily grasp our lifestyle and they've been exposed to it a great deal. (Fortunately, they don't judge it and it's never been an issue.) He's protective of how we live, so he's cautious about what kind of info he gives out. If he doesn't want to tell someone he homeschools, or specifically that he unschools, that's his choice.
When he was younger, his first pediatrician is someone I had concerns might contact CPS about us -- she and I had butted heads about vaccinations and when she began to question (before he was even legally required to be in school) which homeschooling curriculum we would be using, I switched to another pediatrician pretty quickly. We've been with that pediatrician for 6 years now and he's never batted an eye about us homeschooling.
My stepmom can't wrap her brain around the concept of unschooling. In her mind, everything is in school terms. That used to frustrate me and I wanted her to "get it" about unschooling. Now, though, I understand that she's genuinely concerned that Andrew's learning basic skills and that he's getting socialization, so I answer her questions honestly. It's never been a source of tension between us, and she doesn't grill Andrew like some grandparents might. I've given her and my dad info about unschooling, and I'm pretty sure my dad's read it (he's like me, he'll read anything!), but he's never questioned us about unschooling -- he enjoys Andrew for who he is and seems to have a great level of trust that my husband and I wouldn't do something that would put Andrew at a disadvantage. (My mom is this way also, but she lives nearby and gets to see Andrew often; my dad and stepmom live farther away and only see him several times a year.) When we visited my dad and stepmom in December, when my stepmom and I were alone, she asked how Andrew had learned to read and if he liked to read -- she was genuinely curious and I was happy to have an answer that seemed to give her some level of comfort. She had to drop out of high school to care for her dying mother, so I think that may perhaps be why school is so important to her -- not having a degree was a disadvantage for her, and she wants to be sure Andrew is not disadvantaged by not having a degree.
Glenda
Robin Bentley
> So, what are the ways that everyone DOES describe what they do? SoUnless I'm talking to fellow unschoolers (or even homeschoolers), I
> far, I've been mostly just talking about homeschooling, and sometimes
> unschooling, but haven't mentioned the 'radical' much at all. I've
> been
> thinking about saying 'eclectic homeschooling' as the least
> threatening,
> but also least structured sounding option. Talking about what I do
> believe in, rather than what I don't believe in, also seems like a
> productive communication of our intended practices (she's only 3.5, so
> we're not officially schooling or not schooling yet). And also that
> we're just seeing how it goes.
don't find any need to describe what we do. If someone asks what
school my daughter goes to or what grade she's in, I say "we
homeschool." Which is the truth. Unschooling is just a type of
homeschooling.
People can make their own assumptions from there, and most of them
assume we do school-at-home, I think. If they have more questions, I
answer them in very general terms. I talk about the subjects we are
required to cover and testing we are required to do in our state, so
they know I'm knowledgeable about those things. I will sometimes talk
about learning happening through all things we do each day.
If someone asks something like "What about chemistry?" I would say
that we'll address it as we need to (which may be never, in terms of
formal classes in chemistry, unless that's something my daughter wants
to do). If people ask "What about high school?" I'll say that if she
wants to go, we'll consider it. Stuff like that. Deflection, mostly <g>.
I think keeping it simple invites fewer questions and fewer
opportunities to feel like you have to explain. Would anyone know what
"eclectic homeschooling" (or "radical unschooling" for that matter)
means? If not, you'll be expected to elaborate, I think. And unless
someone is really interested or following a similar path, there's
really not much to talk about.
I will describe to family members and close friends what my daughter
knows and how she learned it. If they aren't close, I target my
words. With people who are open to gaming, I talk about that. With
others who are anti-gaming, I don't talk about that aspect of my
daughter's life (though it's a big one). I tend to discuss her
reading, her love of animals, her horse riding and her clay sculpting.
I don't try to change anyone's mind or appear to question what they
do, unless they're looking for ideas for themselves.
With a 3 1/2 year old, though, I wouldn't talk about homeschooling
much at all (unless she's required to be in school at that age).
Parents of toddlers usually have plenty of time to feel solid in their
unschooling convictions by the time their children are of school age.
If one has to describe anything, maybe "attachment parenting" would
do. People have heard more about that in the last few years.
Robin B.
Schuyler
It doesn't come up a lot. If someone asks either Simon or Linnaea why they aren't in school, they say they are home-educated. Usually the adult will then turn to me for explanation if they want more information. But it never goes very far. People are just making conversation.
Among the home-educators we know it also doesn't come up a lot. The people we know well know what we do and the people we don't know well don't query that much. With the people who are aware of our approach to home-education I think it was probably through a series of conversations more than through one big bombshell and then a duck and run. My parents know what we do, but don't really understand it. And when I talk about the kids and their education to my parents it is the stuff that most looks like schooling that I discuss and not the littler stuff. My mom loved telling her step-son-in-law about our discovery of the life cycle of an ichneumon wasp just through observation. He is a chemistry teacher who didn't think that science was something that could be learned outside of school.
I suppose I bend my conversation to the bias of the person I'm talking to, a bit. If someone truly wants to know how what we do might be predicted to be an effective educational tool, I'll absolutely talk about it, otherwise, not so much.
Schuyler
________________________________
From: Shira Rocklin <shirarocklin@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 March, 2010 3:55:41
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] So, what do you tell people? Was: to bathe or not to bathe?
---I think it is a big mistake to go around telling people you unschool
and that your kids
don't have bed times, don't have to bathe and can eat whatever they want
and play video games all day.
Even people that call themselves unschoolers have very hard time
understand and saying things like that do not help them
or your children.---
So, what are the ways that everyone DOES describe what they do? So
far, I've been mostly just talking about homeschooling, and sometimes
unschooling, but haven't mentioned the 'radical' much at all. I've been
thinking about saying 'eclectic homeschooling' as the least threatening,
but also least structured sounding option. Talking about what I do
believe in, rather than what I don't believe in, also seems like a
productive communication of our intended practices (she's only 3.5, so
we're not officially schooling or not schooling yet). And also that
we're just seeing how it goes.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Among the home-educators we know it also doesn't come up a lot. The people we know well know what we do and the people we don't know well don't query that much. With the people who are aware of our approach to home-education I think it was probably through a series of conversations more than through one big bombshell and then a duck and run. My parents know what we do, but don't really understand it. And when I talk about the kids and their education to my parents it is the stuff that most looks like schooling that I discuss and not the littler stuff. My mom loved telling her step-son-in-law about our discovery of the life cycle of an ichneumon wasp just through observation. He is a chemistry teacher who didn't think that science was something that could be learned outside of school.
I suppose I bend my conversation to the bias of the person I'm talking to, a bit. If someone truly wants to know how what we do might be predicted to be an effective educational tool, I'll absolutely talk about it, otherwise, not so much.
Schuyler
________________________________
From: Shira Rocklin <shirarocklin@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, 3 March, 2010 3:55:41
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] So, what do you tell people? Was: to bathe or not to bathe?
---I think it is a big mistake to go around telling people you unschool
and that your kids
don't have bed times, don't have to bathe and can eat whatever they want
and play video games all day.
Even people that call themselves unschoolers have very hard time
understand and saying things like that do not help them
or your children.---
So, what are the ways that everyone DOES describe what they do? So
far, I've been mostly just talking about homeschooling, and sometimes
unschooling, but haven't mentioned the 'radical' much at all. I've been
thinking about saying 'eclectic homeschooling' as the least threatening,
but also least structured sounding option. Talking about what I do
believe in, rather than what I don't believe in, also seems like a
productive communication of our intended practices (she's only 3.5, so
we're not officially schooling or not schooling yet). And also that
we're just seeing how it goes.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-= I've been
thinking about saying 'eclectic homeschooling' as the least threatening,
but also least structured sounding option.-=-
Depends who you're talking to. If it's a stranger "eclectic
homeschooling" won't help. Just say "homeschooling."
If they know enough to ask which curriculum you use, say you don't use
one, and smile.
That's not threatening.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
thinking about saying 'eclectic homeschooling' as the least threatening,
but also least structured sounding option.-=-
Depends who you're talking to. If it's a stranger "eclectic
homeschooling" won't help. Just say "homeschooling."
If they know enough to ask which curriculum you use, say you don't use
one, and smile.
That's not threatening.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Shira Rocklin
---With a 3 1/2 year old, though, I wouldn't talk about homeschooling
much at all (unless she's required to be in school at that age).
Parents of toddlers usually have plenty of time to feel solid in their
unschooling convictions by the time their children are of school age.
If one has to describe anything, maybe "attachment parenting" would
do. People have heard more about that in the last few years. ---
Perhaps its the community we live in (Jewish, very traditional, very
'school' oriented), but once toddlers hit 2-2 1/2, we start getting
questioned about whether they are in daycare/preschool/nursery, and if
not yet, when?, and if not ever, then "how are they going to be
socialized?". I've had it happen to me, anytime I meet someone new or
even just see someone I haven't in a while. And I've seen it happen to
many other parents around here with the same age kids. "Which school
are you planning to send her to?" is a common question, starting at age
3. Its not mandatory school age until 5 or 6, I'm fairly certain, but
there is a social aspect to this as well. If someone (generally me, in
this group), mentions homeschooling, all those myths and fears come up
(socialization, how will they learn, curriculums, how will you teach
them if you aren't a teacher, etc).
But I get where everyone is going. If someone asks me why she isn't in
'gan' (nursery school) yet, I'll just say we like having her around.
And if they question socialization, I'll just mention the community
centre art/dance/creative playtime classes she's in, and all her
friends, and park days, etc. And if they ask where we are planning to
send her to school next year (age of junior kindergarten here, but I'm
sure its not mandatory), I'll just say we are still researching our
options. And when she's 4, I'll say she didn't seem interested, or
things are working so well with the community center classes. And when
school age actually starts, I can mention homeschooling.
But it does still come up with our closer friends... but actually, now
that I think about it, after their initial questioning, they've
generally sort of accepted it or let it be.
Shira
much at all (unless she's required to be in school at that age).
Parents of toddlers usually have plenty of time to feel solid in their
unschooling convictions by the time their children are of school age.
If one has to describe anything, maybe "attachment parenting" would
do. People have heard more about that in the last few years. ---
Perhaps its the community we live in (Jewish, very traditional, very
'school' oriented), but once toddlers hit 2-2 1/2, we start getting
questioned about whether they are in daycare/preschool/nursery, and if
not yet, when?, and if not ever, then "how are they going to be
socialized?". I've had it happen to me, anytime I meet someone new or
even just see someone I haven't in a while. And I've seen it happen to
many other parents around here with the same age kids. "Which school
are you planning to send her to?" is a common question, starting at age
3. Its not mandatory school age until 5 or 6, I'm fairly certain, but
there is a social aspect to this as well. If someone (generally me, in
this group), mentions homeschooling, all those myths and fears come up
(socialization, how will they learn, curriculums, how will you teach
them if you aren't a teacher, etc).
But I get where everyone is going. If someone asks me why she isn't in
'gan' (nursery school) yet, I'll just say we like having her around.
And if they question socialization, I'll just mention the community
centre art/dance/creative playtime classes she's in, and all her
friends, and park days, etc. And if they ask where we are planning to
send her to school next year (age of junior kindergarten here, but I'm
sure its not mandatory), I'll just say we are still researching our
options. And when she's 4, I'll say she didn't seem interested, or
things are working so well with the community center classes. And when
school age actually starts, I can mention homeschooling.
But it does still come up with our closer friends... but actually, now
that I think about it, after their initial questioning, they've
generally sort of accepted it or let it be.
Shira
Ana Maria Bruce
When I lived overseas in a village setting it was interesting to see what mothers did with their children. They didn't have books on how to parent. They spent alot of time cleaning their children, whether it was picking things out of their ears, wiping their bare bottoms...they always bathed their children unless they didn't have any water....in those cases they used their spit to wash faces or comb back hair. They did this until the child was old enough to hold the water bowl and the Mom taught them how to clean themselves, but I don't think she was even aware of the teaching part. Sometimes the children would object but the Mom would just hold them there and the child learned to see this as a natural process of life. Are we calling this natural process forcing a child to do something?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robyn L. Coburn
<<< Are we calling this natural process forcing a child to do something?
Grooming like apes do it, the touching - that would be the natural part.
The urge to tweak your husband's tie - that stems from the grooming
instinct.
Washing in a bowl is a cultural process. Washing at all is a cultural
imperative. Holding a child somewhere until they give up objecting - yeah
that sounds like forcing. Learning that their desires are secondary to
mother's.
Spit to wash faces. Well I guess there have been times when many of us have
used our own spit to clean a mark off a cheek when our kids were too young
to object. But I don't think it is very hygenic in general to be washing the
whole face. I immediately jump to things like eye infections, and the
expedited transmission of rhinovirus, not to mention the pathogens that
cause tooth decay. But I suppose these folks didn't get sick much.
<<< Sometimes the children would object but the Mom would just hold them
there and the child learned to see this as a natural process of life.>>>
How do these practices apply to unschooling in non-tribal non-village
settings with lots of colds and stuff, where live the vast majority of list
members? Are you suggesting that we should be holding our little ones down
until they quit objecting and see their own subjugation as the natural
process of life? Sounds pretty conventional.
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com
>>>>But it's not a natural process. It's a cultural process.
Grooming like apes do it, the touching - that would be the natural part.
The urge to tweak your husband's tie - that stems from the grooming
instinct.
Washing in a bowl is a cultural process. Washing at all is a cultural
imperative. Holding a child somewhere until they give up objecting - yeah
that sounds like forcing. Learning that their desires are secondary to
mother's.
Spit to wash faces. Well I guess there have been times when many of us have
used our own spit to clean a mark off a cheek when our kids were too young
to object. But I don't think it is very hygenic in general to be washing the
whole face. I immediately jump to things like eye infections, and the
expedited transmission of rhinovirus, not to mention the pathogens that
cause tooth decay. But I suppose these folks didn't get sick much.
<<< Sometimes the children would object but the Mom would just hold them
there and the child learned to see this as a natural process of life.>>>
How do these practices apply to unschooling in non-tribal non-village
settings with lots of colds and stuff, where live the vast majority of list
members? Are you suggesting that we should be holding our little ones down
until they quit objecting and see their own subjugation as the natural
process of life? Sounds pretty conventional.
Robyn L. Coburn
www.Iggyjingles.etsy.com
www.iggyjingles.blogspot.com
www.allthingsdoll.blogspot.com
Bernadette Lynn
On 4 March 2010 02:12, Ana Maria Bruce <bittersweetanamaria@...>wrote:
books, they used to feed very small children - a year old, or even younger -
the local staple, a food containing very hot chillies. They would hold their
children's noses until they opened their mouths to breathe, then force a
handful of food into their mouths, then hold the child's jaw closed with a
hand clamped over their mouths to stop the food coming out until the child
swallowed. Then when the baby started screaming from the pain they'd shove
more food into their mouths. After a few weeks the children would stop
resisting and would eat the food; possibly they could no longer feel the
heat.
To those mothers that process was entirely 'natural', it was what they all
did, but I have never once been tempted to follow their lead. It seemed to
me cruel and definitely involved force. In a way it was necessary, since
they'd be eating that food daily for the rest of their lives and they needed
to get used to eating it but there were certainly kinder methods.
Bernadette.
--
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/U15459
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> When I lived overseas in a village setting it was interesting to see whatWhen I lived overseas in a village setting where parents had no parenting
> mothers did with their children...... Sometimes the children would object
> but the Mom would just hold them there and the child learned to see this as
> a natural process of life. Are we calling this natural process forcing a
> child to do something?
>
books, they used to feed very small children - a year old, or even younger -
the local staple, a food containing very hot chillies. They would hold their
children's noses until they opened their mouths to breathe, then force a
handful of food into their mouths, then hold the child's jaw closed with a
hand clamped over their mouths to stop the food coming out until the child
swallowed. Then when the baby started screaming from the pain they'd shove
more food into their mouths. After a few weeks the children would stop
resisting and would eat the food; possibly they could no longer feel the
heat.
To those mothers that process was entirely 'natural', it was what they all
did, but I have never once been tempted to follow their lead. It seemed to
me cruel and definitely involved force. In a way it was necessary, since
they'd be eating that food daily for the rest of their lives and they needed
to get used to eating it but there were certainly kinder methods.
Bernadette.
--
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/U15459
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-<<< Are we calling this natural process forcing a child to do
something?
I'm unwilling to suggest that unschooling involves only natural
processes. Every family lives somewhere. Either they "own their
land" (not by force or gift, but by living within a culture that will
defend their "ownership") or they rent (so the place belongs to
someone else).
If we picture "cave man" culture, would they ever force a child to do
something? Quite likely to stay between adults at night, and to be
quiet when the adults signal "quiet." But if the parents were
sensible and not making up all kinds of rules, why wouldn't the
children WANT to stay between adults for safety, and be quiet for
safety?
With unschooling and more peaceful parenting, people are trying to
deconstruct from odd cultural add-ons, and sometimes people go too far.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
something?
>>>>-=-But it's not a natural process. It's a cultural process.-=-
I'm unwilling to suggest that unschooling involves only natural
processes. Every family lives somewhere. Either they "own their
land" (not by force or gift, but by living within a culture that will
defend their "ownership") or they rent (so the place belongs to
someone else).
If we picture "cave man" culture, would they ever force a child to do
something? Quite likely to stay between adults at night, and to be
quiet when the adults signal "quiet." But if the parents were
sensible and not making up all kinds of rules, why wouldn't the
children WANT to stay between adults for safety, and be quiet for
safety?
With unschooling and more peaceful parenting, people are trying to
deconstruct from odd cultural add-ons, and sometimes people go too far.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sheeboo2
-=-<<< Are we calling this natural process forcing a child to do
The paradigm shift we're making with unschooling is not, in my opinion *natural.* It goes against the very grain of *natural* to most of the dominant culture. *Natural* is for children to be subservient to adults.
Which is why the other point re: be very, very careful how you publicize your practices, is so important for people to hear.
When people ask, we are "homeschoolers." When they ask about curriculum, I say I write my own. End of story.
When we go to a museum or other public event, it is "clean up time." This means hair is brushed, clothes are clean (my dd loves to bathe, just not to wash her hair--she does, however, LOVE getting her hair washed at a salon, and it only costs $3, so we do this once a week--every two weeks. Well worth it!). My reason: we are representing the homeschool community! She is too young to smell bad, so I don't see her less-than-godliness <g> as an affront to others. But I do think it is important that people don't get the *wrong* idea about homeschoolers. We already live in one of the most heavily regulated states, and I don't want to see it get any worse (home visits, like they're proposing in the UK, anyone?)
The same goes for behavior. We recently attended a homeschoolers day at the aquarium. The tickets they sent had a notice about the "Rules"--they were definitely aimed at school groups, but I thought it was important to read them to dd. They included: "No running; No yelling; No climbing."
Some might say: "How un-unschooly of you to make your daughter walk, speak in a low voice and restrain from climbing on things." Have at it. I actually use the this very phrase before we enter situations like this: "remember, we're representin'"--she gets it, and I'm not actually *making* her do anything. It is a choice she's made herself.
We're currently attending a series of workshops for homeschoolers at a museum. Both of us are amazed at some of the young people's behavior. It is as if no one has ever talked to them about what is expected in these situations. These are not young children--some are 10 and older--they throw toys, climb on instillations, etc.....
*******
I watched the Discovery show last night on the unschooling family--anyone else? I guess they did as well as can be expected in the situation (editing, setting them up as "radical"), but I'm still confused why they would, as Alex suggested, willing let themselves be portrayed in a show framed by the phrase "radical Parenting"....cue dramatic music.....
I think Sandra, Alex, and the rest are absolutely correct in cautioning us all to be careful--this lifestyle is not a right--it is a privilege--and a very tenuous one at that.
> something?Thanks, Sandra, for pointing this out. One of the things that bothers me about the attachment parenting--unshooling continuum is the verbiage that this is the *natural* way. Many like to cite the primitive cultures from which they've appropriated the conventions (EC, babywearing, etc) that define their parenting styles as if this alone makes them worthy. I'm not saying that there is little value in looking at age-old ways of raising young, but the cherry picking is annoying and, a tad dangerous, perhaps. How come these same people never mention that at a certain age (if memory serves, around 5), young males are forcefully pushed away from the mother--if they try to return to her for comfort, they are slapped (I'll try to find the source I'm referring to).
>
> -=-But it's not a natural process. It's a cultural process.-=-
The paradigm shift we're making with unschooling is not, in my opinion *natural.* It goes against the very grain of *natural* to most of the dominant culture. *Natural* is for children to be subservient to adults.
Which is why the other point re: be very, very careful how you publicize your practices, is so important for people to hear.
When people ask, we are "homeschoolers." When they ask about curriculum, I say I write my own. End of story.
When we go to a museum or other public event, it is "clean up time." This means hair is brushed, clothes are clean (my dd loves to bathe, just not to wash her hair--she does, however, LOVE getting her hair washed at a salon, and it only costs $3, so we do this once a week--every two weeks. Well worth it!). My reason: we are representing the homeschool community! She is too young to smell bad, so I don't see her less-than-godliness <g> as an affront to others. But I do think it is important that people don't get the *wrong* idea about homeschoolers. We already live in one of the most heavily regulated states, and I don't want to see it get any worse (home visits, like they're proposing in the UK, anyone?)
The same goes for behavior. We recently attended a homeschoolers day at the aquarium. The tickets they sent had a notice about the "Rules"--they were definitely aimed at school groups, but I thought it was important to read them to dd. They included: "No running; No yelling; No climbing."
Some might say: "How un-unschooly of you to make your daughter walk, speak in a low voice and restrain from climbing on things." Have at it. I actually use the this very phrase before we enter situations like this: "remember, we're representin'"--she gets it, and I'm not actually *making* her do anything. It is a choice she's made herself.
We're currently attending a series of workshops for homeschoolers at a museum. Both of us are amazed at some of the young people's behavior. It is as if no one has ever talked to them about what is expected in these situations. These are not young children--some are 10 and older--they throw toys, climb on instillations, etc.....
*******
I watched the Discovery show last night on the unschooling family--anyone else? I guess they did as well as can be expected in the situation (editing, setting them up as "radical"), but I'm still confused why they would, as Alex suggested, willing let themselves be portrayed in a show framed by the phrase "radical Parenting"....cue dramatic music.....
I think Sandra, Alex, and the rest are absolutely correct in cautioning us all to be careful--this lifestyle is not a right--it is a privilege--and a very tenuous one at that.
Sandra Dodd
-=-> -=-But it's not a natural process. It's a cultural process.-=-
-=-Thanks, Sandra, for pointing this out. -=-
I don't think that was me, but if it was, you're welcome. <G>
-=-The paradigm shift we're making with unschooling is not, in my
opinion *natural.* It goes against the very grain of *natural* to most
of the dominant culture. *Natural* is for children to be subservient
to adults.-=-
What's natural in our culture is that kids go to school.
The "natural" I like to try to look at involves biology. Instinct. A
kind of knowledge and perception that our school-culture denies we
have. I don't spend all my life feeling around inside myself for
that. It's one small part of what I consider. But if a baby cries
and my whole mind and body want to pick that baby up and rock it, by
GOD I'm doing that no matter if five or five hundred books threaten me.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-=-Thanks, Sandra, for pointing this out. -=-
I don't think that was me, but if it was, you're welcome. <G>
-=-The paradigm shift we're making with unschooling is not, in my
opinion *natural.* It goes against the very grain of *natural* to most
of the dominant culture. *Natural* is for children to be subservient
to adults.-=-
What's natural in our culture is that kids go to school.
The "natural" I like to try to look at involves biology. Instinct. A
kind of knowledge and perception that our school-culture denies we
have. I don't spend all my life feeling around inside myself for
that. It's one small part of what I consider. But if a baby cries
and my whole mind and body want to pick that baby up and rock it, by
GOD I'm doing that no matter if five or five hundred books threaten me.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robin Bentley
>I watched it. I thought the family did pretty well. They didnʻt sound
> I watched the Discovery show last night on the unschooling family--
> anyone else? I guess they did as well as can be expected in the
> situation (editing, setting them up as "radical"), but I'm still
> confused why they would, as Alex suggested, willing let themselves
> be portrayed in a show framed by the phrase "radical
> Parenting"....cue dramatic music.....
>
> I think Sandra, Alex, and the rest are absolutely correct in
> cautioning us all to be careful--this lifestyle is not a right--it
> is a privilege--and a very tenuous one at that.
>
like the wackos the producers seemed to want to display - the parents
were well-spoken and were obviously thoughtful about what they were
doing. None of it seemed too "out there" to me. (I didnʻt watch the
following two segments).
However, these shows seem to require talking head experts to give the
usual dire warnings. This one was no exception. Though I could easily
dismiss what they were saying, millions wouldnʻt.
I really would have preferred them to show Pamʻs, Joyceʻs and
Sandraʻs families. All those "warnings" would have dissolved in the
reality. But I donʻt think any of those families would have agreed to
do such a show. Itʻs not possible to control the environment; a
showʻs producers do that. I wonder about the possible consequences to
the children in the show (who apparently signed their own contracts).
I wonder why anyone would agree to do it, actually. I know I wouldnʻt,
however strongly I feel about my life.
I have been followed by cameras. My husband was a professional race
car driver at the time and a regional TV station was doing one of
their "A Day in the Life" programs. It was fine, because they didnʻt
have a point to prove nor an angle to exploit. We didnʻt have a child
at the time. I would definitely have said no if Michelle had been with
us.
It does make me wonder about the motivation of families who allow
their children to be exposed in this way. Was it for the money? Was it
to promote a lifestyle? What would make it worth it to do this?
Robin B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
BRIAN POLIKOWSKY
Exactly Robin,
I do think they did pretty well but I would have never exposed my children to
something like that. I am sure people that watched it are saying those kids are
been neglected and will never get anywhere without education and that they
will be social misfits like the experts suggested.
I understand they were there 12 hours a day for 3 days and of course they show used the scenes they wanted to with
no input from the parents. THat is too much gambling to do with your kids life.
They seemed like involved parents, in a beautiful immaculate house with adorable kids
but unschooling is just too much for people to get it and I cannot imagined anyone that
has really benefited from it.
Even most Attachment parents I know don't get unschooling at all.
I am not out to convert people to unschooling , neither I think unschooling needs advertising.
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I do think they did pretty well but I would have never exposed my children to
something like that. I am sure people that watched it are saying those kids are
been neglected and will never get anywhere without education and that they
will be social misfits like the experts suggested.
I understand they were there 12 hours a day for 3 days and of course they show used the scenes they wanted to with
no input from the parents. THat is too much gambling to do with your kids life.
They seemed like involved parents, in a beautiful immaculate house with adorable kids
but unschooling is just too much for people to get it and I cannot imagined anyone that
has really benefited from it.
Even most Attachment parents I know don't get unschooling at all.
I am not out to convert people to unschooling , neither I think unschooling needs advertising.
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***Sometimes the children would object but the Mom would just hold them there and the child learned to see this as a natural process of life. Are we calling this natural process forcing a child to do something?***
What I've seen are kids that object a little and mom or dad pushes them through it. If a child is extremely resistant, though, I think I'd let it go. Here's the thing, I've rarely seen or met a kid so resistant that they react with that kind of violent reaction. I imagine the kids that do, are being ignored or whose parents are inattentive in other ways and it's a build up of objections that get a kid to the point where they'll react with that kind of aversion to something. So I guess the long and short of the answer to that question is, "it depends". It depends on the relationship in general and how that's been fostered. I'm guessing that the moms in the example were attentive moms who gently cleaned their children, or gently held them, even with a minor protest. I KNOW that there are parents that pin their kids down forcibly to brush their teeth... big difference there!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
What I've seen are kids that object a little and mom or dad pushes them through it. If a child is extremely resistant, though, I think I'd let it go. Here's the thing, I've rarely seen or met a kid so resistant that they react with that kind of violent reaction. I imagine the kids that do, are being ignored or whose parents are inattentive in other ways and it's a build up of objections that get a kid to the point where they'll react with that kind of aversion to something. So I guess the long and short of the answer to that question is, "it depends". It depends on the relationship in general and how that's been fostered. I'm guessing that the moms in the example were attentive moms who gently cleaned their children, or gently held them, even with a minor protest. I KNOW that there are parents that pin their kids down forcibly to brush their teeth... big difference there!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ana Maria Bruce
I was trying to convey that bathing is a part of caring for our children......
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I was trying to convey that bathing is a part of caring for our
children......-=-
Yes. It is.
But please do remember that on this list when an idea is thrown out
there, other people will bounce it around. You can grab your ball and
go home, but you can't tell other people on the list how to play with
the ideas they read here.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
children......-=-
Yes. It is.
But please do remember that on this list when an idea is thrown out
there, other people will bounce it around. You can grab your ball and
go home, but you can't tell other people on the list how to play with
the ideas they read here.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
casouthworth
>>>Here's the thing, I've rarely seen or met a kid so resistant that they react with that kind of violent reaction. I imagine the kids that do, are being ignored or whose parents are inattentive in other ways and it's a build up of objections that get a kid to the point where they'll react with that kind of aversion to something.<<<Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Are you trying to say that kids have bad reactions due to bad parenting?
Connie
Schuyler
I think it depends on how old the child is. Younger children may be less willing to cut their parents some slack or to see a situation as a minor moment of going along in a stream of moments of a more accomodating parent-child relationship than older children who have had a lifetime of generousity. I think other than that, yes, a child who is balking at going along is most likely doing so because of built up resentment to the parent.
Schuyler
________________________________
From: casouthworth <otherstar@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 6 March, 2010 12:07:01
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Re: So, what do you tell people? Was: to bathe or not to bathe?
Connie
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
________________________________
From: casouthworth <otherstar@...>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, 6 March, 2010 12:07:01
Subject: [AlwaysLearning] Re: So, what do you tell people? Was: to bathe or not to bathe?
>>>Here's the thing, I've rarely seen or met a kid so resistant that they react with that kind of violent reaction. I imagine the kids that do, are being ignored or whose parents are inattentive in other ways and it's a build up of objections that get a kid to the point where they'll react with that kind of aversion to something.<<<Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Are you trying to say that kids have bad reactions due to bad parenting?
Connie
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Su Penn
On Mar 6, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Schuyler wrote:
I wrote about it on my blog recently (I seem to be saying that a lot), but here's a recent story from 8yo Eric (quoted from my blog entry on the book "The Explosive Child"):
I have a kid with so much "counter-will" that recently when I suggested--gently--he do something, he said to me, "Aww, Mom, I was about to do that, but now that you told me to, I can't! [huffs and sits down with arms crossed] Now I have to sit here until I forget you told me to do it and it can be my idea again."
I'll add here that the thing I suggested he might want to do was a fun thing I thought he'd enjoy, not even something like, "put your plate on the kitchen counter" or "hang your jacket on the hook."
Su (still giggling weakly)
mom of Eric, 8; Carl, almost 6; Yehva, 2.5
http://tapeflags.blogspot.com
> I think it depends on how old the child is. Younger children may be less willing to cut their parents some slack or to see a situation as a minor moment of going along in a stream of moments of a more accomodating parent-child relationship than older children who have had a lifetime of generousity. I think other than that, yes, a child who is balking at going along is most likely doing so because of built up resentment to the parent.As a parent of a child who seems to have been born with 10 children's worth of counter-will, when I read this I can only say, "Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha...Hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo *wipes tear* ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha *snort* he he he he he..."
I wrote about it on my blog recently (I seem to be saying that a lot), but here's a recent story from 8yo Eric (quoted from my blog entry on the book "The Explosive Child"):
I have a kid with so much "counter-will" that recently when I suggested--gently--he do something, he said to me, "Aww, Mom, I was about to do that, but now that you told me to, I can't! [huffs and sits down with arms crossed] Now I have to sit here until I forget you told me to do it and it can be my idea again."
I'll add here that the thing I suggested he might want to do was a fun thing I thought he'd enjoy, not even something like, "put your plate on the kitchen counter" or "hang your jacket on the hook."
Su (still giggling weakly)
mom of Eric, 8; Carl, almost 6; Yehva, 2.5
http://tapeflags.blogspot.com
Sandra Dodd
-=-Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it doesn't
exist. Are you trying to say that kids have bad reactions due to bad
parenting? -=-
She (and I don't even know where the quote came from, so I'm guessing
"she") did not say she had never seen it. She said:
-=-Here's the thing, I've rarely seen or met a kid so resistant that
they react with that kind of violent reaction.-=-
And as to "Are you trying to say..." what she DID say was:
"I imagine the kids that do, are being ignored or whose parents are
inattentive in other ways and it's a build up of objections that get a
kid to the point where they'll react with that kind of aversion to
something."
"I imagine..."
Are you suggesting that when a child has bad reactions it is NOT due
to "bad parenting"?
Some kids are genetically inconvenienced. Some kids might be mentally
ill, or reacting to abuse or neglect not the parent's fault. But MOST
kids, even if their parents had genetic handicaps or if the child
isn't as whole as he might be, STILL then the parents can make it
better or worse. EASILY better or worse.
If I wanted to demonstrate this, I could set out today to really piss
my kids off and by evening (if they were still here) they would be
FURIOUS and reckless and yelling at me. I KNOW I could do that. I
would start by waking them up loudly and embarrassingly RIGHT now. I
could tell Marty's girlfriend to get her butt up and get OUT of our
house. I could take all the car keys and hide them. Marty only
"owns" his own jeep because he's making payments. The title is in my
name. That is MY jeep. Yesterday we got Marty a new phone. I could
take it away, take it back to TMobile and get a refund. That would
only take me five minutes. I'd have HOURS to go to make things
worse. There's nothing on that list that parents aren't doing all
over the world, today, to real children of theirs.
Not many of them are on this list, though. Few. Rarely.
Actually, if I did that, my kids would go and get their dad, assuming
I had gone crazy. Or they would call my friend Jeff, or any number of
parents of friends of theirs who have known me for many years, to come
and see what was wrong with me and whether they should call an
ambulance, because it would be so unlike me.
The parents who really are that way, if the kid called for backup or
considered calling an ambulance would probably be slapped a good one.
I do want to talk about bad parenting. And "support." And neglect.
And the magic that people seem to think unschooling will be.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
exist. Are you trying to say that kids have bad reactions due to bad
parenting? -=-
She (and I don't even know where the quote came from, so I'm guessing
"she") did not say she had never seen it. She said:
-=-Here's the thing, I've rarely seen or met a kid so resistant that
they react with that kind of violent reaction.-=-
And as to "Are you trying to say..." what she DID say was:
"I imagine the kids that do, are being ignored or whose parents are
inattentive in other ways and it's a build up of objections that get a
kid to the point where they'll react with that kind of aversion to
something."
"I imagine..."
Are you suggesting that when a child has bad reactions it is NOT due
to "bad parenting"?
Some kids are genetically inconvenienced. Some kids might be mentally
ill, or reacting to abuse or neglect not the parent's fault. But MOST
kids, even if their parents had genetic handicaps or if the child
isn't as whole as he might be, STILL then the parents can make it
better or worse. EASILY better or worse.
If I wanted to demonstrate this, I could set out today to really piss
my kids off and by evening (if they were still here) they would be
FURIOUS and reckless and yelling at me. I KNOW I could do that. I
would start by waking them up loudly and embarrassingly RIGHT now. I
could tell Marty's girlfriend to get her butt up and get OUT of our
house. I could take all the car keys and hide them. Marty only
"owns" his own jeep because he's making payments. The title is in my
name. That is MY jeep. Yesterday we got Marty a new phone. I could
take it away, take it back to TMobile and get a refund. That would
only take me five minutes. I'd have HOURS to go to make things
worse. There's nothing on that list that parents aren't doing all
over the world, today, to real children of theirs.
Not many of them are on this list, though. Few. Rarely.
Actually, if I did that, my kids would go and get their dad, assuming
I had gone crazy. Or they would call my friend Jeff, or any number of
parents of friends of theirs who have known me for many years, to come
and see what was wrong with me and whether they should call an
ambulance, because it would be so unlike me.
The parents who really are that way, if the kid called for backup or
considered calling an ambulance would probably be slapped a good one.
I do want to talk about bad parenting. And "support." And neglect.
And the magic that people seem to think unschooling will be.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
Here's a list of things to avoid that people on this group came up
with a few years ago:
http://sandradodd.com/screwitup
I'm planning to make a list kinda like that for a talk I'm giving next
February at a marriage-improvement conference, of ways to screw up a
marriage.
Sandra
with a few years ago:
http://sandradodd.com/screwitup
I'm planning to make a list kinda like that for a talk I'm giving next
February at a marriage-improvement conference, of ways to screw up a
marriage.
Sandra
Lyla Wolfenstein
*******************
As a parent of a child who seems to have been born with 10 children's worth of counter-will, when I read this I can only say, "Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha...Hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo *wipes tear* ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha *snort* he he he he he..."
************
su i was JUST now coming on to compose a post about counterwill and those on the more, er, spirited end of the (dare i say spectrum).
i also have a kid with such a huge amount of counterwill, and he has also said stuff like eric:
***I have a kid with so much "counter-will" that recently when I suggested--gently--he do something, he said to me, "Aww, Mom, I was about to do that, but now that you told me to, I can't! [huffs and sits down with arms crossed] Now I have to sit here until I forget you told me to do it and it can be my idea again."
*********
there really, truly, really, truly are kids who *need* a "collaborative problem solving" approach for a itsy bitsy number of subjects (that would, in the explosive child language, be put into 'plan b' - things to work on together/negotiate - and then they need a VAST number of things to be in 'plan c' - not worth confronting/addressing - need to let it go - and pretty much nothing in plan A (commands). At first glance, i think that sounds a lot like unschooling, for most kids, because unschoolers don't tend to say no without trying to find a way to "yes" first, we don't tend to order our kids around, and we let a lot of stuff that doesn't really matter, go. however, when i say nothing can be in plan A with some kids - i mean even the occasional "if you want to go to the aquarium with grandma, you need to take a shower", said kindly and compassionately. and it *certainly* wouldn't work to say it firmly, or yell about it. and when i say "can't" be in plan A, i mean without HUGE repercussions/explosions.
i am also very aware while i am typing, that my kids have not been lifelong unschoolers, so that could be interpreted as enough off a reason for the explosivity - but, my older daughter, who was in school longer, and actually suffered more and struggled with me more, while she was in school, has come to the point, after only 1.5 years of unschooling (to her brother's >2) where those "methods" are just not necessary - we can talk about stuff in a respectful way, as i would with any other human, and she can listen to "no" with not much reason, once in a while, she can respond compassionately to MY needs sometimes, and we have a great relationship. my son has *always* been explosive and intense, even well before he was in school, and even though he was in school, i was very much his partner in a vast number of other ways when he was younger, supporting him through his "quirky" needs, and intense reactions to seemingly little things. so to me it's pretty obvious that while i know he would have been WAY better off not ever being in school, his level of "counterwill" and intensity and sensitivity are temperament traits for him, and really supporting him and helping him requires *seeing* that and accepting it and working with it, rather than trying to change it. he has told me that straight out, in several ways.
i also know many lifelong unschooling families with kids who were quite intense and resistant, even through older stages, 9, 10, 11... (my daughter is nearly 15 and my son is 11.5). i have generally seen super intense kids mellow a TON, with supportive parenting, around age 12-14 (which is what i am hoping for for my son, and have actually seen a lot of even in the last few months.)
i think there is a very painful culture of parent blaming out there, from almost every camp - "natural parenting", unschooling, traditional parenting (they blame "permissive parenting"), etc. and while i think it's so important to own our own mistakes and that parenting is important, of course, (and i do believe there are better and worse ways to address each situation that arises in parenting, contrary to the 'everyone needs to do what works for them' mantra-ists), i also think blaming everything on parenting removes a level of respect from our kids too, as whole people, who are living NOW. sometimes kids are quirky, less capable of managing their emotions in intense situations, or shy, or fearful and anxious, or super sensitive, etc. and blaming these differences on parenting is not fair, or helpful. it IS helpful to help parents see how they can HELP their kids manage their various traits (including traits perceived as "positive" but often very difficult for kids, like ability to be a really good, loyal friend (my daughter is like this and it was a painful way to be in the world, because she found it difficult to meet peers with the same traits, and quite vulnerable and lonely for a long time.) it can also be helpful to assist parents to see how they might be contributing to their child's struggles, or even causing them. but to flat out say that when kids don't go along fairly easily with parent's directives or guidance, as they get older, it's because of resentment against parents is, in my opinion, contributing to the culture of parent blaming, and not an accurate representation of the broad array of temperament types and underlying needs children (people) experience.
danielle conger writes about unschooling with a spirited child, and ren allen about her "atypical child" - i would venture to guess that those children don't 'go along" with parent's guidance easily and smoothly, and that it's NOT because of resentment against their parents....i am not sure if either ren or danielle are on this list, i've lost track, but if so, i hope they respond! :)
warmly, lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
As a parent of a child who seems to have been born with 10 children's worth of counter-will, when I read this I can only say, "Bwah ha ha ha ha ha ha...Hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo hoo *wipes tear* ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha *snort* he he he he he..."
************
su i was JUST now coming on to compose a post about counterwill and those on the more, er, spirited end of the (dare i say spectrum).
i also have a kid with such a huge amount of counterwill, and he has also said stuff like eric:
***I have a kid with so much "counter-will" that recently when I suggested--gently--he do something, he said to me, "Aww, Mom, I was about to do that, but now that you told me to, I can't! [huffs and sits down with arms crossed] Now I have to sit here until I forget you told me to do it and it can be my idea again."
*********
there really, truly, really, truly are kids who *need* a "collaborative problem solving" approach for a itsy bitsy number of subjects (that would, in the explosive child language, be put into 'plan b' - things to work on together/negotiate - and then they need a VAST number of things to be in 'plan c' - not worth confronting/addressing - need to let it go - and pretty much nothing in plan A (commands). At first glance, i think that sounds a lot like unschooling, for most kids, because unschoolers don't tend to say no without trying to find a way to "yes" first, we don't tend to order our kids around, and we let a lot of stuff that doesn't really matter, go. however, when i say nothing can be in plan A with some kids - i mean even the occasional "if you want to go to the aquarium with grandma, you need to take a shower", said kindly and compassionately. and it *certainly* wouldn't work to say it firmly, or yell about it. and when i say "can't" be in plan A, i mean without HUGE repercussions/explosions.
i am also very aware while i am typing, that my kids have not been lifelong unschoolers, so that could be interpreted as enough off a reason for the explosivity - but, my older daughter, who was in school longer, and actually suffered more and struggled with me more, while she was in school, has come to the point, after only 1.5 years of unschooling (to her brother's >2) where those "methods" are just not necessary - we can talk about stuff in a respectful way, as i would with any other human, and she can listen to "no" with not much reason, once in a while, she can respond compassionately to MY needs sometimes, and we have a great relationship. my son has *always* been explosive and intense, even well before he was in school, and even though he was in school, i was very much his partner in a vast number of other ways when he was younger, supporting him through his "quirky" needs, and intense reactions to seemingly little things. so to me it's pretty obvious that while i know he would have been WAY better off not ever being in school, his level of "counterwill" and intensity and sensitivity are temperament traits for him, and really supporting him and helping him requires *seeing* that and accepting it and working with it, rather than trying to change it. he has told me that straight out, in several ways.
i also know many lifelong unschooling families with kids who were quite intense and resistant, even through older stages, 9, 10, 11... (my daughter is nearly 15 and my son is 11.5). i have generally seen super intense kids mellow a TON, with supportive parenting, around age 12-14 (which is what i am hoping for for my son, and have actually seen a lot of even in the last few months.)
i think there is a very painful culture of parent blaming out there, from almost every camp - "natural parenting", unschooling, traditional parenting (they blame "permissive parenting"), etc. and while i think it's so important to own our own mistakes and that parenting is important, of course, (and i do believe there are better and worse ways to address each situation that arises in parenting, contrary to the 'everyone needs to do what works for them' mantra-ists), i also think blaming everything on parenting removes a level of respect from our kids too, as whole people, who are living NOW. sometimes kids are quirky, less capable of managing their emotions in intense situations, or shy, or fearful and anxious, or super sensitive, etc. and blaming these differences on parenting is not fair, or helpful. it IS helpful to help parents see how they can HELP their kids manage their various traits (including traits perceived as "positive" but often very difficult for kids, like ability to be a really good, loyal friend (my daughter is like this and it was a painful way to be in the world, because she found it difficult to meet peers with the same traits, and quite vulnerable and lonely for a long time.) it can also be helpful to assist parents to see how they might be contributing to their child's struggles, or even causing them. but to flat out say that when kids don't go along fairly easily with parent's directives or guidance, as they get older, it's because of resentment against parents is, in my opinion, contributing to the culture of parent blaming, and not an accurate representation of the broad array of temperament types and underlying needs children (people) experience.
danielle conger writes about unschooling with a spirited child, and ren allen about her "atypical child" - i would venture to guess that those children don't 'go along" with parent's guidance easily and smoothly, and that it's NOT because of resentment against their parents....i am not sure if either ren or danielle are on this list, i've lost track, but if so, i hope they respond! :)
warmly, lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lyla Wolfenstein
***********Some kids are genetically inconvenienced. Some kids might be mentally
ill, or reacting to abuse or neglect not the parent's fault. But MOST
kids, even if their parents had genetic handicaps or if the child
isn't as whole as he might be, STILL then the parents can make it
better or worse. EASILY better or worse.
*******
DEFINITELY! i totally agree with that. i just don't agree that when things are hard, it's always about the parenting. :)
*******
I do want to talk about bad parenting. And "support." And neglect.
And the magic that people seem to think unschooling will be.
********
i would love to see a discussion about that. i do think that unschooling is only useful if it's part of a cohesive parenting "paradigm" - there are plenty of people who move into unschooling in a reactionary mode about school, specifically, and yet don't have the parenting peice in place that makes it all actually work.
lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ill, or reacting to abuse or neglect not the parent's fault. But MOST
kids, even if their parents had genetic handicaps or if the child
isn't as whole as he might be, STILL then the parents can make it
better or worse. EASILY better or worse.
*******
DEFINITELY! i totally agree with that. i just don't agree that when things are hard, it's always about the parenting. :)
*******
I do want to talk about bad parenting. And "support." And neglect.
And the magic that people seem to think unschooling will be.
********
i would love to see a discussion about that. i do think that unschooling is only useful if it's part of a cohesive parenting "paradigm" - there are plenty of people who move into unschooling in a reactionary mode about school, specifically, and yet don't have the parenting peice in place that makes it all actually work.
lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-***********Some kids are genetically inconvenienced. Some kids
might be mentally
ill, or reacting to abuse or neglect not the parent's fault. But MOST
kids, even if their parents had genetic handicaps or if the child
isn't as whole as he might be, STILL then the parents can make it
better or worse. EASILY better or worse.
*******
-=-DEFINITELY! i totally agree with that. i just don't agree that when
things are hard, it's always about the parenting. :) -=-
I just said that when things are hard it's not always about the
parenting, so you DO agree.
I do not and won't even begin to consider agreeing with anyone who
wants to say that there can be reactionary child behavior in the
absence of something to react to.
I have no interest in soothing people's feelings about not being the
best parents they can be. I want to help them be the best parents
they can be so that they won't need ANYbody to soothe their feelings.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
might be mentally
ill, or reacting to abuse or neglect not the parent's fault. But MOST
kids, even if their parents had genetic handicaps or if the child
isn't as whole as he might be, STILL then the parents can make it
better or worse. EASILY better or worse.
*******
-=-DEFINITELY! i totally agree with that. i just don't agree that when
things are hard, it's always about the parenting. :) -=-
I just said that when things are hard it's not always about the
parenting, so you DO agree.
I do not and won't even begin to consider agreeing with anyone who
wants to say that there can be reactionary child behavior in the
absence of something to react to.
I have no interest in soothing people's feelings about not being the
best parents they can be. I want to help them be the best parents
they can be so that they won't need ANYbody to soothe their feelings.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
Someone wrote this the other day "my in laws are choosing to not
associate with us because they think we neglect our children."
When I then used the word "neglect" in a response, someone else wrote
to me:
"You have equated not bathing to child neglect. This is a big stretch
imo."
It's not a stretch at all. I wasn't talking about what I would
think. I'm not even there. I would have no idea which direction to
travel to go to that person's house from my house, and I wouldn't want
to! But wherever that person lives who wrote " they think we neglect
our children," there are neighbors. Policemen. Social workers.
Their in-laws and other relatives. *If* the word "neglect" is bandied
about on this list, so what!?
If the word "neglect" starts being spoken by neighbors, policemen,
social workers, in-laws and other relatives, then what?
Possibly kids court-ordered to go to school. Possibly children
removed from the home.
For people to get huffy HERE, at ME, about the *very idea* that there
might possibly be such a thing as neglect, or the appearance of
neglect, is irrational.
Unschooling is not magic. Unschooling isn't an invisible force
shield. If anything, unschooling can be a magnet for attention, and a
spotlight.
Is it possible for an unschooling family to be neglectful?
Is it impossible for an unschooling family to be neglectful?
Is it possible for the soothing words of strangers to encourage a
neglectful parent to feel good about not paying better attention to
her children?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
associate with us because they think we neglect our children."
When I then used the word "neglect" in a response, someone else wrote
to me:
"You have equated not bathing to child neglect. This is a big stretch
imo."
It's not a stretch at all. I wasn't talking about what I would
think. I'm not even there. I would have no idea which direction to
travel to go to that person's house from my house, and I wouldn't want
to! But wherever that person lives who wrote " they think we neglect
our children," there are neighbors. Policemen. Social workers.
Their in-laws and other relatives. *If* the word "neglect" is bandied
about on this list, so what!?
If the word "neglect" starts being spoken by neighbors, policemen,
social workers, in-laws and other relatives, then what?
Possibly kids court-ordered to go to school. Possibly children
removed from the home.
For people to get huffy HERE, at ME, about the *very idea* that there
might possibly be such a thing as neglect, or the appearance of
neglect, is irrational.
Unschooling is not magic. Unschooling isn't an invisible force
shield. If anything, unschooling can be a magnet for attention, and a
spotlight.
Is it possible for an unschooling family to be neglectful?
Is it impossible for an unschooling family to be neglectful?
Is it possible for the soothing words of strangers to encourage a
neglectful parent to feel good about not paying better attention to
her children?
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
"I think other than that, yes, a child who is
balking at going along is most likely doing so because of built up
resentment to the parent."
That's the problem phrase, right? So, I'll temper it. A child who is parented with generousity and attention and kindness is more likely to go along with a parent in a moment when the parent needs them to than a child who is not parented in such a manner. Even if there are differences in a child's ability to cope with direction and suggestion, presumably that can be considered true. So, for example, would your son be more willing to accomodate you now than if you had spent years making him accomodate you?
I don't force Simon or Linnaea to accomodate me very often. Actually I can't remember the last time I made them do something that they really didn't want to do. I'm lucky, my life is such that I can accomodate them most of the time. Yesterday, though, Linnaea wanted to go to a pottery class that Simon didn't really want to go to. He was willing to hang out outside or in the car and to play with the dog and on his ds and to listen to stories and music on the ipod instead of doing any pottery. So that's how he accomodated Linnaea's desire to do something that he didn't want to participate in. He came up with his own response, he didn't even really discuss it with me. However, it wouldn't have been an option when he was younger. He's 12 now. At 8 he needed me much more.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
balking at going along is most likely doing so because of built up
resentment to the parent."
That's the problem phrase, right? So, I'll temper it. A child who is parented with generousity and attention and kindness is more likely to go along with a parent in a moment when the parent needs them to than a child who is not parented in such a manner. Even if there are differences in a child's ability to cope with direction and suggestion, presumably that can be considered true. So, for example, would your son be more willing to accomodate you now than if you had spent years making him accomodate you?
I don't force Simon or Linnaea to accomodate me very often. Actually I can't remember the last time I made them do something that they really didn't want to do. I'm lucky, my life is such that I can accomodate them most of the time. Yesterday, though, Linnaea wanted to go to a pottery class that Simon didn't really want to go to. He was willing to hang out outside or in the car and to play with the dog and on his ds and to listen to stories and music on the ipod instead of doing any pottery. So that's how he accomodated Linnaea's desire to do something that he didn't want to participate in. He came up with his own response, he didn't even really discuss it with me. However, it wouldn't have been an option when he was younger. He's 12 now. At 8 he needed me much more.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I don't force Simon or Linnaea to accomodate me very often.
Actually I can't remember the last time I made them do something that
they really didn't want to do.-=-
Marty's 21 and still living at home.
For a year I've been asking him occasionally whether he wants a new
phone. His is cracked, some of the buttons came off the side, and it
was over a year old so we could get a discount on a phone.
He kept saying no.
Two days ago in a conversation I wasn't even in on, Keith gave him
$200 and told him to go get a new phone.
Wow. Well Marty can't go get a new phone, because he's on my family
account and I have to be there to sign for any changes to the
account. So I said "Let's go get one, then." Marty didn't really
want to. He had pajama pants on. He was barefooted. I had a smaller
window of time, because of taking care of Keith and needing to go to
the post office before they closed, and his having told his girlfriend
he would go to a fabric store with her, and his having regular
Thursday role playing. So we have this 45 minute window, and not
another one for another 20 hours.
He kinda sighed and said he didn't really want to go right then, and I
gave him the eyebrows of "Really!? Are you serious!?" (as much as
eyebrows can say exactly that). He smiled and said "I guess since Dad
already gave me the money and you need to be there, we should go, huh?"
That's as close as I've come lately to "making" Marty do something.
We went, there was a line, he looked at the phones and said he needed
time to think. He has a friend working in customer service, so he
wanted to ask him for advice, too, about which phones people are happy
or unhappy with.
We went home happily.
Yesterday we went back happily and he got a new phone and we added
internet for him. None of the other phones have internet. Kirby, who
lives on his own, has a fully-everything iPhone, but that's not on our
family account. So Marty has google maps (he was looking at the Nile,
with placenames in Arabic and English, before we got home) and GPS
(good for his jeep "explores") and I'm really happy for him.
Because we were being generous (Keith was being WAY more generous than
my standing offer to go get another cheap phone anytime<g>), and
because Marty knew that, he was willing to let the little voice in his
own head, his own conscience, get him up and get dressed and go look
at phones.
It took a long number of year, and it took thousands of more-peaceful
choices to get the little voice in Marty's head to be sweet and
reasonable. There's no reason to be reactionary to sweet and
reasonable.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Actually I can't remember the last time I made them do something that
they really didn't want to do.-=-
Marty's 21 and still living at home.
For a year I've been asking him occasionally whether he wants a new
phone. His is cracked, some of the buttons came off the side, and it
was over a year old so we could get a discount on a phone.
He kept saying no.
Two days ago in a conversation I wasn't even in on, Keith gave him
$200 and told him to go get a new phone.
Wow. Well Marty can't go get a new phone, because he's on my family
account and I have to be there to sign for any changes to the
account. So I said "Let's go get one, then." Marty didn't really
want to. He had pajama pants on. He was barefooted. I had a smaller
window of time, because of taking care of Keith and needing to go to
the post office before they closed, and his having told his girlfriend
he would go to a fabric store with her, and his having regular
Thursday role playing. So we have this 45 minute window, and not
another one for another 20 hours.
He kinda sighed and said he didn't really want to go right then, and I
gave him the eyebrows of "Really!? Are you serious!?" (as much as
eyebrows can say exactly that). He smiled and said "I guess since Dad
already gave me the money and you need to be there, we should go, huh?"
That's as close as I've come lately to "making" Marty do something.
We went, there was a line, he looked at the phones and said he needed
time to think. He has a friend working in customer service, so he
wanted to ask him for advice, too, about which phones people are happy
or unhappy with.
We went home happily.
Yesterday we went back happily and he got a new phone and we added
internet for him. None of the other phones have internet. Kirby, who
lives on his own, has a fully-everything iPhone, but that's not on our
family account. So Marty has google maps (he was looking at the Nile,
with placenames in Arabic and English, before we got home) and GPS
(good for his jeep "explores") and I'm really happy for him.
Because we were being generous (Keith was being WAY more generous than
my standing offer to go get another cheap phone anytime<g>), and
because Marty knew that, he was willing to let the little voice in his
own head, his own conscience, get him up and get dressed and go look
at phones.
It took a long number of year, and it took thousands of more-peaceful
choices to get the little voice in Marty's head to be sweet and
reasonable. There's no reason to be reactionary to sweet and
reasonable.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lyla Wolfenstein
"I think other than that, yes, a child who is
balking at going along is most likely doing so because of built up
resentment to the parent."
That's the problem phrase, right? So, I'll temper it. A child who is parented with generousity and attention and kindness is more likely to go along with a parent in a moment when the parent needs them to than a child who is not parented in such a manner. Even if there are differences in a child's ability to cope with direction and suggestion, presumably that can be considered true. So, for example, would your son be more willing to accomodate you now than if you had spent years making him accomodate you?
***************
thank you schuyler! i totally agree. and would clarify, even, with "more likely than that same child would have been, given different parenting!
lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
balking at going along is most likely doing so because of built up
resentment to the parent."
That's the problem phrase, right? So, I'll temper it. A child who is parented with generousity and attention and kindness is more likely to go along with a parent in a moment when the parent needs them to than a child who is not parented in such a manner. Even if there are differences in a child's ability to cope with direction and suggestion, presumably that can be considered true. So, for example, would your son be more willing to accomodate you now than if you had spent years making him accomodate you?
***************
thank you schuyler! i totally agree. and would clarify, even, with "more likely than that same child would have been, given different parenting!
lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lyla Wolfenstein
me -=-DEFINITELY! i totally agree with that. i just don't agree that when
things are hard, it's always about the parenting. :) -=-
sandra: I just said that when things are hard it's not always about the
parenting, so you DO agree.
I do not and won't even begin to consider agreeing with anyone who
wants to say that there can be reactionary child behavior in the
absence of something to react to.
I have no interest in soothing people's feelings about not being the
best parents they can be. I want to help them be the best parents
they can be so that they won't need ANYbody to soothe their feelings.
***********
i absolutely agree with you. that last sentene of mine about not agreeing, was in response to schuyler's post, which she has no reworded, and with which i am not in total agreement as well. i also have no interest in soothing parents' feelings in the absence of helping them be the best parents they can. and i do agree that there is always something to react TO if children are reacting - just sometimes that something is parenting, and sometimes it's more internal, and even when it's internal, parents can still learn how to be the best parents for THAT child, but it's just not always about resentment (although it often is!), which is the word schuyler used and has now retracted.
Lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
things are hard, it's always about the parenting. :) -=-
sandra: I just said that when things are hard it's not always about the
parenting, so you DO agree.
I do not and won't even begin to consider agreeing with anyone who
wants to say that there can be reactionary child behavior in the
absence of something to react to.
I have no interest in soothing people's feelings about not being the
best parents they can be. I want to help them be the best parents
they can be so that they won't need ANYbody to soothe their feelings.
***********
i absolutely agree with you. that last sentene of mine about not agreeing, was in response to schuyler's post, which she has no reworded, and with which i am not in total agreement as well. i also have no interest in soothing parents' feelings in the absence of helping them be the best parents they can. and i do agree that there is always something to react TO if children are reacting - just sometimes that something is parenting, and sometimes it's more internal, and even when it's internal, parents can still learn how to be the best parents for THAT child, but it's just not always about resentment (although it often is!), which is the word schuyler used and has now retracted.
Lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]