Unschooling and the media
Martha
Hi all,
I feel compelled to write something about all the discussion lately about journalists and the media.
First, a brief background on myself. I am a former newspaper reporter, pre-mommy days. I love the idea of unschooling, but I am still not sure how or if it will eventually fit into my 2-year-old daughter's life because I co-parent with her father and we are not a couple.
Education was/is very important to both of us. Since I began investigating forms of education, my ideas about how our daughter will/should learn are becoming less mainstream. Her father still holds the same ideas about education that he did before she was born. So we'll see.
Anyway, there have been a lot of angry comments about the media lately on this forum. I don't doubt that you all have reasons to feel this way.
But there are a few things I want to comment on. This is going to be general because I don't have time to go back through the thread and find each comment. I keep thinking that it might be useful to all of you who are doing interviews or who are thinking about it, if you could keep an open mind about how the media works and if you could hear from the perspective of a reporter.
Yes, some media outlets go straight for ratings. That is true. More so when you are talking about TV. Print media is generally more fair, I'd say, but they have to keep it short so inevitably, the whole story does not get told in one article.
Also, there will and should always be the other side. A good reporter will/should mention critiques of anything in a story. Especially something that is controversial like unschooling or homeschooling.
It's how the media strives for balance.
But journalists in general do not, or really I should say, ideologically, should not have an "agenda." I put this word in quotes because I believe I saw it more than once in the the threads on the media.
They are looking for good stories.
Journalists may have their own perspective or hold an opinion on a topic, but in general, I believe that they are curious and open-minded group of folks who are truly interested in new and innovative ideas. It's one of the reasons they become reporters. (I know unschooling isn't new, but it is new to many people.)
Someone mentioned in the thread that it was good to stick to talking points. This is only a good idea if you really think that the reporter you are talking to is out for blood.
If I was giving advice, and if anyone is interested in my take on this as a reporter and someone who has worked in the media, I would say this:
Tell your story in as much vivid detail as you can. Have really awesome examples of how unschooling works. Don't use generalizations. Don't try to use talking points. Reporters have a nose for a good story, if they are a good reporter. They like details. They like something you can sink your teeth into. Sure, controversy gets ratings, but so do really good stories.
A good example might be of how video games helped a child learn math or problem solving techniques. Or how a trip to the zoo made your child interested in looking up more about a rare species and then spent hours reading books about it. The more detail you give, the better the story. What video game was it? How much time did the child spend on the math or problem? How did you connect the dots when you saw what your child was doing? These are the types of details I'm talking about.
I'm just making this stuff up. I'm sure you all have lots of stories like that. Those are what's going to catch the interest of a good reporter and those stories will catch the interest of their readers.
Some of you may say that the whole point of unschooling is exactly the opposite of what I'm talking about, that you don't want or need to quantify how your child is learning. I know this is true. But you could think of it as just a way to learn for yourself how to tell a better story. How to really observe the links between daily life and unschooling. It's also fun to write/tell stories with lots of vivid details.
A good reporter can also tell when someone is holding back and that's when they start digging. Don't give them a reason to dig. What are trying to hide? Fear? What are you afraid of? They will want to know that too.
For what it's worth. That's my take on the media. I don't think unschoolers should hold back and hide unschooling because they fear the media or they are afraid it will get twisted. The more you talk about it, the more mainstream it will become and maybe someday it will be the norm. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
Sure, you are going to run into reporters who are dumb, lazy, out for blood, tired or simply don't care. Look for the good ones, give them your stories and watch people's interest grow. Don't be afraid of the media.
Just because someone says something negative about unschooling in an article or on a news report doesn't mean that everyone reading or watching will believe that side. There are plenty of people who will only hear the good stuff and will sit back and say, "Hmmm, that sounds interesting. I've never heard of unschooling. Maybe I'll go read more about it online." Then they come across Sandra's website or this group or other groups and find out more about it, like I did.
Another thing, if it wasn't for my reporter instincts, I never would have bothered to check out unschooling. I would have just dismissed it.
Best, Martha
http://www.momsoap.com
I feel compelled to write something about all the discussion lately about journalists and the media.
First, a brief background on myself. I am a former newspaper reporter, pre-mommy days. I love the idea of unschooling, but I am still not sure how or if it will eventually fit into my 2-year-old daughter's life because I co-parent with her father and we are not a couple.
Education was/is very important to both of us. Since I began investigating forms of education, my ideas about how our daughter will/should learn are becoming less mainstream. Her father still holds the same ideas about education that he did before she was born. So we'll see.
Anyway, there have been a lot of angry comments about the media lately on this forum. I don't doubt that you all have reasons to feel this way.
But there are a few things I want to comment on. This is going to be general because I don't have time to go back through the thread and find each comment. I keep thinking that it might be useful to all of you who are doing interviews or who are thinking about it, if you could keep an open mind about how the media works and if you could hear from the perspective of a reporter.
Yes, some media outlets go straight for ratings. That is true. More so when you are talking about TV. Print media is generally more fair, I'd say, but they have to keep it short so inevitably, the whole story does not get told in one article.
Also, there will and should always be the other side. A good reporter will/should mention critiques of anything in a story. Especially something that is controversial like unschooling or homeschooling.
It's how the media strives for balance.
But journalists in general do not, or really I should say, ideologically, should not have an "agenda." I put this word in quotes because I believe I saw it more than once in the the threads on the media.
They are looking for good stories.
Journalists may have their own perspective or hold an opinion on a topic, but in general, I believe that they are curious and open-minded group of folks who are truly interested in new and innovative ideas. It's one of the reasons they become reporters. (I know unschooling isn't new, but it is new to many people.)
Someone mentioned in the thread that it was good to stick to talking points. This is only a good idea if you really think that the reporter you are talking to is out for blood.
If I was giving advice, and if anyone is interested in my take on this as a reporter and someone who has worked in the media, I would say this:
Tell your story in as much vivid detail as you can. Have really awesome examples of how unschooling works. Don't use generalizations. Don't try to use talking points. Reporters have a nose for a good story, if they are a good reporter. They like details. They like something you can sink your teeth into. Sure, controversy gets ratings, but so do really good stories.
A good example might be of how video games helped a child learn math or problem solving techniques. Or how a trip to the zoo made your child interested in looking up more about a rare species and then spent hours reading books about it. The more detail you give, the better the story. What video game was it? How much time did the child spend on the math or problem? How did you connect the dots when you saw what your child was doing? These are the types of details I'm talking about.
I'm just making this stuff up. I'm sure you all have lots of stories like that. Those are what's going to catch the interest of a good reporter and those stories will catch the interest of their readers.
Some of you may say that the whole point of unschooling is exactly the opposite of what I'm talking about, that you don't want or need to quantify how your child is learning. I know this is true. But you could think of it as just a way to learn for yourself how to tell a better story. How to really observe the links between daily life and unschooling. It's also fun to write/tell stories with lots of vivid details.
A good reporter can also tell when someone is holding back and that's when they start digging. Don't give them a reason to dig. What are trying to hide? Fear? What are you afraid of? They will want to know that too.
For what it's worth. That's my take on the media. I don't think unschoolers should hold back and hide unschooling because they fear the media or they are afraid it will get twisted. The more you talk about it, the more mainstream it will become and maybe someday it will be the norm. Wouldn't that be wonderful?
Sure, you are going to run into reporters who are dumb, lazy, out for blood, tired or simply don't care. Look for the good ones, give them your stories and watch people's interest grow. Don't be afraid of the media.
Just because someone says something negative about unschooling in an article or on a news report doesn't mean that everyone reading or watching will believe that side. There are plenty of people who will only hear the good stuff and will sit back and say, "Hmmm, that sounds interesting. I've never heard of unschooling. Maybe I'll go read more about it online." Then they come across Sandra's website or this group or other groups and find out more about it, like I did.
Another thing, if it wasn't for my reporter instincts, I never would have bothered to check out unschooling. I would have just dismissed it.
Best, Martha
http://www.momsoap.com
Sandra Dodd
-=-. Print media is generally more fair, I'd say, but they have to
keep it short so inevitably, the whole story does not get told in one
article.
Also, there will and should always be the other side. A good reporter
will/should mention critiques of anything in a story. Especially
something that is controversial like unschooling or homeschooling.
It's how the media strives for balance. -=-
-=-Sure, you are going to run into reporters who are dumb, lazy, out
for blood, tired or simply don't care. Look for the good ones, give
them your stories and watch people's interest grow. Don't be afraid of
the media. -=-
Because unschoolers have nothing to sell or advertise--conferences
aren't for the general public--we don't look for reporters.
It can take someone who really wants to understand at least a year to
get a good glimmer of confident, direct insight. Some people get it
sooner. Some people take more than two years. No journalist is
going to get it even with a full day or two of "exposure."
I've been interviewed for newspapers, magazines, radio and TV. So
have many other unschoolers I know, and some I didn't know
personally. It's true that print media tends to be less crazed, but
they have a formula for "balance." It isn't balance. It's they set
you up and then let two "experts" each throw a knife at you. You
don't get to respond. That's not debate, without a rebuttal.
No unschooling story starts with school's opinion and then lets
unschoolers be the "experts" who get the last word.
Of the dozen "experts" who have been quoted to refute the information
I took an hour or three of my own life and time to provide, not one
single one--not one--knew about unschooling before the reporter asked
them what they thought of it. One, on a TV article in Albuquerque
even SAID, and they left it in, "I've never heard of that, but..."
And they didn't show her the footage they had of me, either. They
just asked her cold.
That's not balance. That's dismissal.
I have a few handy. I'm not going to re-read to see if they followed
the formula exactly, but these are the three easiest to get to. One
is Ren Allen's family; one is my daughter Holly, with quotes by me,
Roya Sorooshian and Brenna McBroom; one had the potential to be better
but isn't too bad. It was a weekly unschooling gathering at my house
years ago. A reporter, sound tech and camerman, all really interested
and friendly.
http://sandradodd.com/media
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
keep it short so inevitably, the whole story does not get told in one
article.
Also, there will and should always be the other side. A good reporter
will/should mention critiques of anything in a story. Especially
something that is controversial like unschooling or homeschooling.
It's how the media strives for balance. -=-
-=-Sure, you are going to run into reporters who are dumb, lazy, out
for blood, tired or simply don't care. Look for the good ones, give
them your stories and watch people's interest grow. Don't be afraid of
the media. -=-
Because unschoolers have nothing to sell or advertise--conferences
aren't for the general public--we don't look for reporters.
It can take someone who really wants to understand at least a year to
get a good glimmer of confident, direct insight. Some people get it
sooner. Some people take more than two years. No journalist is
going to get it even with a full day or two of "exposure."
I've been interviewed for newspapers, magazines, radio and TV. So
have many other unschoolers I know, and some I didn't know
personally. It's true that print media tends to be less crazed, but
they have a formula for "balance." It isn't balance. It's they set
you up and then let two "experts" each throw a knife at you. You
don't get to respond. That's not debate, without a rebuttal.
No unschooling story starts with school's opinion and then lets
unschoolers be the "experts" who get the last word.
Of the dozen "experts" who have been quoted to refute the information
I took an hour or three of my own life and time to provide, not one
single one--not one--knew about unschooling before the reporter asked
them what they thought of it. One, on a TV article in Albuquerque
even SAID, and they left it in, "I've never heard of that, but..."
And they didn't show her the footage they had of me, either. They
just asked her cold.
That's not balance. That's dismissal.
I have a few handy. I'm not going to re-read to see if they followed
the formula exactly, but these are the three easiest to get to. One
is Ren Allen's family; one is my daughter Holly, with quotes by me,
Roya Sorooshian and Brenna McBroom; one had the potential to be better
but isn't too bad. It was a weekly unschooling gathering at my house
years ago. A reporter, sound tech and camerman, all really interested
and friendly.
http://sandradodd.com/media
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
diana jenner
On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Martha <martha_h9@...> wrote:
about this" and the reporter *who interviewed the family in their home*
responded, "me, too." You can erase all doubt about the kind of
"sensationalists" (not reporters! nothing balanced nor objective) we've been
talking about by watching for yourself. You might be quick to defend the
rest of the profession, there is no excuse for the folks at GMA, it was
unprofessional and just how you said "out for blood"
to back that up. Showing out-of-mainstream folks as irresponsible parents
does just that for them. We'll be seeing a platform for more homeschooling
regulations pop-up soon, I don't doubt. Part of their "become a sheep"
agenda.
information about the very cool things their children do - with and without
their parents. Instead, the editors decided to focus only on television
watching and fried-food eating.
Here's a link to Ronnie Maier's blogpost with a collection of links to
Unschoolers' responses:
http://zombieprincess.blogspot.com/2010/04/unschoolers-respond.html
Included there is a piece you may find especially interesting: Unschooling
and Unjournalism
http://themoderatevoice.com/70102/unschooling-and-unjournalism/
exist ('cept I like watching my friends on tv!).
journalists so some kid some where might be reached.
those "journalists" in action and tell me they've got the same "balanced"
drive of which you speak.
This kind of drive, the kind that brings you back again and again to what is
important in your life, that's the kind of drive that makes for good
unschooling!_,_._,___
~diana :)
xoxoxoxo
hannahbearski.wordpress.com
hannahsashes.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Did you watch the original clip? It begins with "I gotta admit I got bias
> Anyway, there have been a lot of angry comments about the media lately on
> this forum. I don't doubt that you all have reasons to feel this way.
>
about this" and the reporter *who interviewed the family in their home*
responded, "me, too." You can erase all doubt about the kind of
"sensationalists" (not reporters! nothing balanced nor objective) we've been
talking about by watching for yourself. You might be quick to defend the
rest of the profession, there is no excuse for the folks at GMA, it was
unprofessional and just how you said "out for blood"
> But journalists in general do not, or really I should say, ideologically,No doubt the GMA folks have an agenda and they're looking for "good stories"
> should not have an "agenda." I put this word in quotes because I believe I
> saw it more than once in the the threads on the media.
>
> They are looking for good stories.
>
to back that up. Showing out-of-mainstream folks as irresponsible parents
does just that for them. We'll be seeing a platform for more homeschooling
regulations pop-up soon, I don't doubt. Part of their "become a sheep"
agenda.
> Tell your story in as much vivid detail as you can. Have really awesomeThe family on GMA, they did that. They gave the reporter hours worth of
> examples of how unschooling works. Don't use generalizations. Don't try to
> use talking points. Reporters have a nose for a good story, if they are a
> good reporter. They like details. They like something you can sink your
> teeth into. Sure, controversy gets ratings, but so do really good stories.
>
> A good example might be of how video games helped a child learn math or
> problem solving techniques. Or how a trip to the zoo made your child
> interested in looking up more about a rare species and then spent hours
> reading books about it. The more detail you give, the better the story. What
> video game was it? How much time did the child spend on the math or problem?
> How did you connect the dots when you saw what your child was doing? These
> are the types of details I'm talking about.
>
> I'm just making this stuff up. I'm sure you all have lots of stories like
> that. Those are what's going to catch the interest of a good reporter and
> those stories will catch the interest of their readers.
>
information about the very cool things their children do - with and without
their parents. Instead, the editors decided to focus only on television
watching and fried-food eating.
Here's a link to Ronnie Maier's blogpost with a collection of links to
Unschoolers' responses:
http://zombieprincess.blogspot.com/2010/04/unschoolers-respond.html
Included there is a piece you may find especially interesting: Unschooling
and Unjournalism
http://themoderatevoice.com/70102/unschooling-and-unjournalism/
> Sure, you are going to run into reporters who are dumb, lazy, out forLike school, they're on my list of things I can live as though they didn't
> blood, tired or simply don't care. Look for the good ones, give them your
> stories and watch people's interest grow. Don't be afraid of the media.
>
exist ('cept I like watching my friends on tv!).
>Sure. Nor does it mean we need to subject ourselves to idiots disguised as
> Just because someone says something negative about unschooling in an
> article or on a news report doesn't mean that everyone reading or watching
> will believe that side. There are plenty of people who will only hear the
> good stuff and will sit back and say, "Hmmm, that sounds interesting. I've
> never heard of unschooling. Maybe I'll go read more about it online." Then
> they come across Sandra's website or this group or other groups and find out
> more about it, like I did.
>
journalists so some kid some where might be reached.
>Not a reporter here, those were my mommy instincts that led me. Again watch
> Another thing, if it wasn't for my reporter instincts, I never would have
> bothered to check out unschooling. I would have just dismissed it.
>
those "journalists" in action and tell me they've got the same "balanced"
drive of which you speak.
This kind of drive, the kind that brings you back again and again to what is
important in your life, that's the kind of drive that makes for good
unschooling!_,_._,___
~diana :)
xoxoxoxo
hannahbearski.wordpress.com
hannahsashes.blogspot.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On 4/24/2010 12:10 PM, Martha wrote:
newspapers. I was interviewed just last week by a magazine reporter. She
asked really lame questions that didn't at all get to the heart of
unschooling. I tried to give her more depth than the very superficial
questions she was asking, but when I'd do that, she'd go back to her
pre-set list of questions and ask another lame one. It felt like casting
pearls before swine.
I will usually only do live interview shows, not shows where they follow
my family around and film and then, later, add on the voice of the
journalist telling about us, with carefully and very selectively chosen
bits. I do print interviews, but I'm really aware of what I say,
thinking of how it might sound if used out of context.
Sandra's family and my family were all together once, some years ago.
There was a Berkeley grad student who was making a documentary about
unschooling and he was interviewing Sandra, in my living room. There
were SIX or more unschooled kids watching as Sandra talked ABOUT them.
Multiple times she tried to tell the guy he should interview the kids,
themselves, let them speak for themselves. He just flat-out refused. He
had a plan, already, and that wasn't in his plans.
I'm not sure why we're DOING interviews. This isn't my religion and I'm
not getting into heaven by bringing more souls to see the unschooling
light! <G>
On the other hand, if homeschooling interviews are good, there might be
kids out there who are rescued from misery and even danger, in schools.
But we don't have to promote unschooling for that...people who get their
kids out of school and start homeschooling are fairly likely, these
days, to run into the idea of unschooling.
The radical unschooling publicity could put us at risk for bringing down
regulation on our heads - there is that possibility to consider.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>I've been interviewed a bunch of times - tv, radio, video, magazines,
> Another thing, if it wasn't for my reporter instincts, I never would
> have bothered to check out unschooling. I would have just dismissed it.
newspapers. I was interviewed just last week by a magazine reporter. She
asked really lame questions that didn't at all get to the heart of
unschooling. I tried to give her more depth than the very superficial
questions she was asking, but when I'd do that, she'd go back to her
pre-set list of questions and ask another lame one. It felt like casting
pearls before swine.
I will usually only do live interview shows, not shows where they follow
my family around and film and then, later, add on the voice of the
journalist telling about us, with carefully and very selectively chosen
bits. I do print interviews, but I'm really aware of what I say,
thinking of how it might sound if used out of context.
Sandra's family and my family were all together once, some years ago.
There was a Berkeley grad student who was making a documentary about
unschooling and he was interviewing Sandra, in my living room. There
were SIX or more unschooled kids watching as Sandra talked ABOUT them.
Multiple times she tried to tell the guy he should interview the kids,
themselves, let them speak for themselves. He just flat-out refused. He
had a plan, already, and that wasn't in his plans.
I'm not sure why we're DOING interviews. This isn't my religion and I'm
not getting into heaven by bringing more souls to see the unschooling
light! <G>
On the other hand, if homeschooling interviews are good, there might be
kids out there who are rescued from misery and even danger, in schools.
But we don't have to promote unschooling for that...people who get their
kids out of school and start homeschooling are fairly likely, these
days, to run into the idea of unschooling.
The radical unschooling publicity could put us at risk for bringing down
regulation on our heads - there is that possibility to consider.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
"Anyway, there have been a lot of angry comments about the media lately on this forum. I don't doubt that you all have reasons to feel this way."
Interpretation is everything. Anger? hmmm, I'm not so sure. Frustration maybe.
"Journalists may have their own perspective or hold an opinion on a topic, but in general, I believe that they are curious and open-minded group of folks who are truly interested in new and innovative ideas. It's one of the reasons they become reporters. (I know unschooling isn't new, but it is new to many people.) "
Did you see the GMA botch job? They did not even remotely seem genuinely curious or open minded about unschooling. They went straight to sensationalism, that WAS their agenda!
"Some of you may say that the whole point of unschooling is exactly the opposite of what I'm talking about, that you don't want or need to quantify how your child is learning. I know this is true. But you could think of it as just a way to learn for yourself how to tell a better story. How to really observe the links between daily life and unschooling. It's also fun to write/tell stories with lots of vivid details. "
Do you think that all of those that have been reading and writing and talking about unschooling for years don't do these things already? The problem that happened with the GMA news story didn't have ANYthing to do with this. It was completely and totally biased, edited for sensationalist responses, which they got.
"I don't think unschoolers should hold back and hide unschooling because they fear the media or they are afraid it will get twisted. The more you talk about it, the more mainstream it will become and maybe someday it will be the norm. Wouldn't that be wonderful?"
While, ideally I agree with this. That is NOT what has happened time and time again with the media, in regards to unschooling. Like you said, it isn't new. There have been plenty of reporters and others within the media that have done expose's on unschooling. Some of them have resulted in more people coming to understand unschooling. The truly terrible ones like the recent one, are the kind that do more harm than good, even if some good comes out of it for a handful.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Interpretation is everything. Anger? hmmm, I'm not so sure. Frustration maybe.
"Journalists may have their own perspective or hold an opinion on a topic, but in general, I believe that they are curious and open-minded group of folks who are truly interested in new and innovative ideas. It's one of the reasons they become reporters. (I know unschooling isn't new, but it is new to many people.) "
Did you see the GMA botch job? They did not even remotely seem genuinely curious or open minded about unschooling. They went straight to sensationalism, that WAS their agenda!
"Some of you may say that the whole point of unschooling is exactly the opposite of what I'm talking about, that you don't want or need to quantify how your child is learning. I know this is true. But you could think of it as just a way to learn for yourself how to tell a better story. How to really observe the links between daily life and unschooling. It's also fun to write/tell stories with lots of vivid details. "
Do you think that all of those that have been reading and writing and talking about unschooling for years don't do these things already? The problem that happened with the GMA news story didn't have ANYthing to do with this. It was completely and totally biased, edited for sensationalist responses, which they got.
"I don't think unschoolers should hold back and hide unschooling because they fear the media or they are afraid it will get twisted. The more you talk about it, the more mainstream it will become and maybe someday it will be the norm. Wouldn't that be wonderful?"
While, ideally I agree with this. That is NOT what has happened time and time again with the media, in regards to unschooling. Like you said, it isn't new. There have been plenty of reporters and others within the media that have done expose's on unschooling. Some of them have resulted in more people coming to understand unschooling. The truly terrible ones like the recent one, are the kind that do more harm than good, even if some good comes out of it for a handful.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-Sure. Nor does it mean we need to subject ourselves to idiots
disguised as
journalists so some kid some where might be reached.-=-
Once a journalist or program decides they're going to interview an
unschooler, they will find oen.
No one has the need to subject themselves to that, but someone will.
Better an idiot interviewing someone responsible than an idiot
interviewing the first unschooler who thought it would be fun or
profitable to get famous.
I don't need to be interviewed; it's not a need of mine.
Yet every time I have been interviewed by a journalist who was bright
nor not so bright, some kids somewhere were indeed reached.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
disguised as
journalists so some kid some where might be reached.-=-
Once a journalist or program decides they're going to interview an
unschooler, they will find oen.
No one has the need to subject themselves to that, but someone will.
Better an idiot interviewing someone responsible than an idiot
interviewing the first unschooler who thought it would be fun or
profitable to get famous.
I don't need to be interviewed; it's not a need of mine.
Yet every time I have been interviewed by a journalist who was bright
nor not so bright, some kids somewhere were indeed reached.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Martha
-- In [email protected], diana jenner <hahamommy@...> wrote:
You know how unschoolers become annoyed when some asshole who is too lazy to send his kids to school and too lazy to help them learn says they are unschooling? It gives unschoolers a bad name.
Well, I become annoyed when I hear people trashing the entire media based upon one 10 minute segment with a couple of talking heads who probably got their jobs based on the lush quality of their hair or their political connections.
Not all reporters have an agenda. Not all of them are biased.
--"Sure. Nor does it mean we need to subject ourselves to idiots disguised as
Nobody forced that family to give an interview. I don't watch GMA regularly, but I have watched it many times over the years. It doesn't take much exposure to that show to know that they try to sensationalize all their stories and they generally give personal commentary on the stories, which I agree is totally biased reporting. Unfortunately, most people don't understand that behavior is not at the core of the values and principles of good and honest reporters.
I was only talking about myself, not assuming that one needs reporter skills to find oneself interested in unschooling.
Best, Martha
http://www.momsoap.com
>--- Yes, this was horrible and obviously biased reporting. I was talking about the comments generalizing all of the media based on this bad report.
>
> "Did you watch the original clip? It begins with "I gotta admit I got bias
> about this" and the reporter *who interviewed the family in their home*
> responded, "me, too." You can erase all doubt about the kind of
> "sensationalists" (not reporters! nothing balanced nor objective) we've been
> talking about by watching for yourself. You might be quick to defend the
> rest of the profession, there is no excuse for the folks at GMA, it was
> unprofessional and just how you said "out for blood"
You know how unschoolers become annoyed when some asshole who is too lazy to send his kids to school and too lazy to help them learn says they are unschooling? It gives unschoolers a bad name.
Well, I become annoyed when I hear people trashing the entire media based upon one 10 minute segment with a couple of talking heads who probably got their jobs based on the lush quality of their hair or their political connections.
Not all reporters have an agenda. Not all of them are biased.
--"Sure. Nor does it mean we need to subject ourselves to idiots disguised as
> journalists so some kid some where might be reached."You're right. You don't need to subject yourself to idiots in order to reach out to the rest of the world. If someone asks you for an interview and you are tempted to accept, do some research. If you are unfamiliar with their work, look it up. Make an informed decision.
Nobody forced that family to give an interview. I don't watch GMA regularly, but I have watched it many times over the years. It doesn't take much exposure to that show to know that they try to sensationalize all their stories and they generally give personal commentary on the stories, which I agree is totally biased reporting. Unfortunately, most people don't understand that behavior is not at the core of the values and principles of good and honest reporters.
>"Not a reporter here, those were my mommy instincts that led me."
I was only talking about myself, not assuming that one needs reporter skills to find oneself interested in unschooling.
Best, Martha
http://www.momsoap.com
>
>
Martha
--- In [email protected], Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
http://www.momsoap.com
> "Sandra's family and my family were all together once, some years ago.--- I have no idea what this guy's deal was. If that had been me, I probably would have obliged Sandra. But in my experience, it's almost impossible to get good quotes or articulate interviews from children. I've never interviewed any unschooled kids though. :)
> There was a Berkeley grad student who was making a documentary about
> unschooling and he was interviewing Sandra, in my living room. There
> were SIX or more unschooled kids watching as Sandra talked ABOUT them.
> Multiple times she tried to tell the guy he should interview the kids,
> themselves, let them speak for themselves. He just flat-out refused. He
> had a plan, already, and that wasn't in his plans."
>--"I'm not sure why we're DOING interviews. This isn't my religion and I'm
> not getting into heaven by bringing more souls to see the unschooling--LOL, right. There's no incentive for unschoolers to promote unschooling. But like Sandra said, if a reporter wants to interview an unschooler, they are likely to find a candidate. Better for it to be a responsible and intelligent one instead of an idiot.
> light! <G>"
>"On the other hand, if homeschooling interviews are good, there might be
> kids out there who are rescued from misery and even danger, in schools.Yep, that possibility is very likely, especially as unschooling grows in popularity. It is, I would guess, almost inevitable.
> But we don't have to promote unschooling for that...people who get their
> kids out of school and start homeschooling are fairly likely, these
> days, to run into the idea of unschooling.
>
> The radical unschooling publicity could put us at risk for bringing down
> regulation on our heads - there is that possibility to consider."
>Best, Martha
http://www.momsoap.com
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
Marina DeLuca-Howard
I once appeared on tv with a group of breastfeeding moms. The producers
found a woman the rest of us had never met who talked about how she had
orgasms while nursing and how her newborn turned her on. Even though we had
talked about cracked nipples, tiredness and art featuring Christ nursing the
show had found something way cooler. But it seemed a shame not to show all
the footage of us moms sitting in circle, looking all motherly, so they
did:-)
One of my husband's single male friends called shortly after the show ended
to tell us his opinion and that of several others he had talked to that
agreed I looked like a "pervert". There was footage of me with Rowan in my
lap. They used it because I had long dark hair, and my son had curly blond
hair--John thought we looked cute and innocent.
The lesson is never appear on the media without a contract guaranteeing you
have control over the images or messages they use before it is aired.
Anyway, how a producer could turn something like a cute group of moms and
babes in arms into a scandal just soured me on media...except youtube
because it's self-posting.
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
found a woman the rest of us had never met who talked about how she had
orgasms while nursing and how her newborn turned her on. Even though we had
talked about cracked nipples, tiredness and art featuring Christ nursing the
show had found something way cooler. But it seemed a shame not to show all
the footage of us moms sitting in circle, looking all motherly, so they
did:-)
One of my husband's single male friends called shortly after the show ended
to tell us his opinion and that of several others he had talked to that
agreed I looked like a "pervert". There was footage of me with Rowan in my
lap. They used it because I had long dark hair, and my son had curly blond
hair--John thought we looked cute and innocent.
The lesson is never appear on the media without a contract guaranteeing you
have control over the images or messages they use before it is aired.
Anyway, how a producer could turn something like a cute group of moms and
babes in arms into a scandal just soured me on media...except youtube
because it's self-posting.
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Martha
--- In [email protected], Jenny Cyphers <jenstarc4@...> wrote:
-- Yep, I totally agree.
"Do you think that all of those that have been reading and writing and talking about unschooling for years don't do these things already? The problem that happened with the GMA news story didn't have ANYthing to do with this. It was completely and totally biased, edited for sensationalist responses, which they got."
-- I know that the unschoolers who are giving interviews do this stuff. I was writing that in response to the person who was giving the advice of using talking points and trying to control the interview. I should have more explicit. I was pressed for time and now I wish I had searched the posts and responded directly to that one. It just kept sticking in my head as I read these posts about that interview.
"While, ideally I agree with this. That is NOT what has happened time and time again with the media, in regards to unschooling. Like you said, it isn't new. There have been plenty of reporters and others within the media that have done expose's on unschooling. Some of them have resulted in more people coming to understand unschooling. The truly terrible ones like the recent one, are the kind that do more harm than good, even if some good comes out of it for a handful.
-- I disagree. The reason unschooling is growing in number is because more and more people are finding it. And yes, a lot of people are learning about it by way of the "biased, agenda-setting" media.
The reason unschooling got prominently featured on an extremely popular, mainstream morning show is because more and more people are showing interest in it. If nobody was talking about it and the number of unschoolers wasn't growing, you can be damn sure GMA wouldn't have bothered to do a story about it.
Best, Martha
http://www.momsoap.com
>"Did you see the GMA botch job? They did not even remotely seem genuinely curious or open minded about unschooling. They went straight to sensationalism, that WAS their agenda!"
-- Yep, I totally agree.
"Do you think that all of those that have been reading and writing and talking about unschooling for years don't do these things already? The problem that happened with the GMA news story didn't have ANYthing to do with this. It was completely and totally biased, edited for sensationalist responses, which they got."
-- I know that the unschoolers who are giving interviews do this stuff. I was writing that in response to the person who was giving the advice of using talking points and trying to control the interview. I should have more explicit. I was pressed for time and now I wish I had searched the posts and responded directly to that one. It just kept sticking in my head as I read these posts about that interview.
"While, ideally I agree with this. That is NOT what has happened time and time again with the media, in regards to unschooling. Like you said, it isn't new. There have been plenty of reporters and others within the media that have done expose's on unschooling. Some of them have resulted in more people coming to understand unschooling. The truly terrible ones like the recent one, are the kind that do more harm than good, even if some good comes out of it for a handful.
-- I disagree. The reason unschooling is growing in number is because more and more people are finding it. And yes, a lot of people are learning about it by way of the "biased, agenda-setting" media.
The reason unschooling got prominently featured on an extremely popular, mainstream morning show is because more and more people are showing interest in it. If nobody was talking about it and the number of unschoolers wasn't growing, you can be damn sure GMA wouldn't have bothered to do a story about it.
Best, Martha
http://www.momsoap.com
Sandra Dodd
-=The lesson is never appear on the media without a contract
guaranteeing you
have control over the images or messages they use before it is aired.-=-
I don't think there is or ever will be any such thing. That would be
called "an advertisement." Even then, good luck. They could show it
just before or after something that would color it one way or another.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
guaranteeing you
have control over the images or messages they use before it is aired.-=-
I don't think there is or ever will be any such thing. That would be
called "an advertisement." Even then, good luck. They could show it
just before or after something that would color it one way or another.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Martha
--- In [email protected], Marina DeLuca-Howard <delucahoward@...> wrote:
It's a shame that happened to you. But I think that your lesson is a bit over the top. That's like saying that you ate out once and got food poisoning so you'll never eat out again because all food prepared in restaurants will poison you. Or that you went to a movie once and there was a scene you thought was poorly acted so there must not be any good actors anywhere and you will never go to the movies again.
My point here is that the media, just like everything else in this world has good aspects and bad aspects. It's unfortunate that so many people only see the negativity surrounding the media.
Without the media we never would have found out that Richard Nixon was a criminal. Without the media we wouldn't have been able to watch 9-11 as it unfolded. Without the media we wouldn't all have the image of O.J. Simpson's white Ford Bronco being chased down the highway forever burned into our brains.
Obviously I can continue with these examples forever and a day.
I'm passionate about this. I love the media, even with its obvious problems. I love news. I love stories. I love being able to find out information at the push of a button, at the flip of a paper, at the click of a mouse. Is all that information always good, unbiased, solid reporting? No, a large percentage of it is pure crap.
But we as readers and watchers (and sometimes interviewees) can lump it all together and love it all or hate it all. OR, we can be discriminating in what we watch and read and comment on. We can become informed and help inform.
Best, Martha
http://www.momsoap.com
>--- Marina,
> I once appeared on tv with a group of breastfeeding moms. The producers
> found a woman the rest of us had never met who talked about how she had
> orgasms while nursing and how her newborn turned her on. Even though we had
> talked about cracked nipples, tiredness and art featuring Christ nursing the
> show had found something way cooler. But it seemed a shame not to show all
> the footage of us moms sitting in circle, looking all motherly, so they
> did:-)
>
> One of my husband's single male friends called shortly after the show ended
> to tell us his opinion and that of several others he had talked to that
> agreed I looked like a "pervert". There was footage of me with Rowan in my
> lap. They used it because I had long dark hair, and my son had curly blond
> hair--John thought we looked cute and innocent.
>
> The lesson is never appear on the media without a contract guaranteeing you
> have control over the images or messages they use before it is aired.
>
> Anyway, how a producer could turn something like a cute group of moms and
> babes in arms into a scandal just soured me on media...except youtube
> because it's self-posting.
>
> Marina
It's a shame that happened to you. But I think that your lesson is a bit over the top. That's like saying that you ate out once and got food poisoning so you'll never eat out again because all food prepared in restaurants will poison you. Or that you went to a movie once and there was a scene you thought was poorly acted so there must not be any good actors anywhere and you will never go to the movies again.
My point here is that the media, just like everything else in this world has good aspects and bad aspects. It's unfortunate that so many people only see the negativity surrounding the media.
Without the media we never would have found out that Richard Nixon was a criminal. Without the media we wouldn't have been able to watch 9-11 as it unfolded. Without the media we wouldn't all have the image of O.J. Simpson's white Ford Bronco being chased down the highway forever burned into our brains.
Obviously I can continue with these examples forever and a day.
I'm passionate about this. I love the media, even with its obvious problems. I love news. I love stories. I love being able to find out information at the push of a button, at the flip of a paper, at the click of a mouse. Is all that information always good, unbiased, solid reporting? No, a large percentage of it is pure crap.
But we as readers and watchers (and sometimes interviewees) can lump it all together and love it all or hate it all. OR, we can be discriminating in what we watch and read and comment on. We can become informed and help inform.
Best, Martha
http://www.momsoap.com
Sandra Dodd
-=-It's a shame that happened to you. But I think that your lesson is
a bit over the top. That's like saying that you ate out once and got
food poisoning so you'll never eat out again because all food prepared
in restaurants will poison you. -=-
Martha, I think you're scrambling to defend yourself. You didn't do
any of the things we're talking about; great. Some people DID do
them, and did them to people here. So chill. Seriously.
I didn't give a rat's ass about OJ Simpson, so that's quite a bad
example from my point of view.
Meanwhile, back at my real house, with my actual children, they have
not been portrayed honestly and fairly, more than once, after I agreed
to allow reporters to talk with them. If I were the only unschooler
ever to have had a bad experience, I'd figure it was me. But I can't
name three unschoolers who have had a great experience.
What you've written in defense of journalists seems like what people
are writing to defend all the schools and school kids in the world, in
all those comments on opinions and articles this last week.
Defensive, shrill and unfair.
I'm sorry you might not get to unschool. It's sad. Divorce removes a
lot of options and choices.
-=-You know how unschoolers become annoyed when some asshole who is
too lazy to send his kids to school and too lazy to help them learn
says they are unschooling? It gives unschoolers a bad name.-=-
Have you ever actually met one, though, who had been interviewed by
"the media"? Because I haven't.
-=-Well, I become annoyed when I hear people trashing the entire media
based upon one 10 minute segment with a couple of talking heads who
probably got their jobs based on the lush quality of their hair or
their political connections. -=-
#1, No one did that.
#2, Have you never seen any bad coverage of unschooling besides that?
Because I have.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
a bit over the top. That's like saying that you ate out once and got
food poisoning so you'll never eat out again because all food prepared
in restaurants will poison you. -=-
Martha, I think you're scrambling to defend yourself. You didn't do
any of the things we're talking about; great. Some people DID do
them, and did them to people here. So chill. Seriously.
I didn't give a rat's ass about OJ Simpson, so that's quite a bad
example from my point of view.
Meanwhile, back at my real house, with my actual children, they have
not been portrayed honestly and fairly, more than once, after I agreed
to allow reporters to talk with them. If I were the only unschooler
ever to have had a bad experience, I'd figure it was me. But I can't
name three unschoolers who have had a great experience.
What you've written in defense of journalists seems like what people
are writing to defend all the schools and school kids in the world, in
all those comments on opinions and articles this last week.
Defensive, shrill and unfair.
I'm sorry you might not get to unschool. It's sad. Divorce removes a
lot of options and choices.
-=-You know how unschoolers become annoyed when some asshole who is
too lazy to send his kids to school and too lazy to help them learn
says they are unschooling? It gives unschoolers a bad name.-=-
Have you ever actually met one, though, who had been interviewed by
"the media"? Because I haven't.
-=-Well, I become annoyed when I hear people trashing the entire media
based upon one 10 minute segment with a couple of talking heads who
probably got their jobs based on the lush quality of their hair or
their political connections. -=-
#1, No one did that.
#2, Have you never seen any bad coverage of unschooling besides that?
Because I have.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Martha
--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
No hard feelings. These are my opinions. I realize I'm in the minority when it comes to my opinion on the media.
Are you saying that I am defensive, shrill and unfair?
If people are rushing to defend schools and school children, then they must be worried that unschooling will become more popular, therefore taking away something precious to them. Why do you think they are rushing to defend? Is it unfair of them to want to defend schools?
I don't see how you can read shrillness into writing, unless I was using a lot of capitalized words or lots and lots of exclamation points. Shrillness is something you hear in someone's voice. If there's no voice, then, well, it's in your own head. I think that you might be reading something into my writing based on the amount of stress you've had this week. I promise, I am not being shrill. I am not feeling defensive. And I'm sorry if you think I am being unfair.
I'm not a big fan of schooling. I have absolutely zero good memories of school. School caused ridiculous amounts of anxiety for me when I was growing up. I can't imagine anyone wanting to go to school. And yet, some kids do. Does this make them bad or wrong, in your opinion? Maybe it's okay to have both schools and unschooling.
#2. Bad is subjective. I thought the articles on your website were all pretty decent. The first one was the best and the last one, well, okay, that one was bordering on bad, it certainly wasn't great. But I'm sure that you have seen way more coverage of unschooling than I have. And I have no doubt that much of it was "bad." But I'd bet that some of it was good too.
I really didn't mean for this to turn into a argument. I usually keep my mouth shut when I hear sweeping comments about the media. I thought this group might be open enough to hear another perspective. I also thought some of my knowledge might come in handy for some of you. I like unschoolers. I like unschooling. I also like the media.
Best, Martha
http://www.momsoap.com
>-- Thanks Sandra. I'm not scrambling. I thought my points were valid and I don't feel defensive. I'm fine, really. I know I don't participate much, mostly read, but I do read this forum regularly and I enjoy the passionate responses. I'm just feeling passionate.
> "Martha, I think you're scrambling to defend yourself. You didn't do
> any of the things we're talking about; great. Some people DID do
> them, and did them to people here. So chill. Seriously."
No hard feelings. These are my opinions. I realize I'm in the minority when it comes to my opinion on the media.
>-- Yeah, that example was just my way of trying to be balanced. ;) But even though you may not have given a rat's ass, I bet you can still see the Bronco. Right?
> "I didn't give a rat's ass about OJ Simpson, so that's quite a bad
> example from my point of view."
>-- I'm sorry that your children and your lifestyle have been the subject of unfairness.
> "Meanwhile, back at my real house, with my actual children, they have
> not been portrayed honestly and fairly, more than once, after I agreed
> to allow reporters to talk with them. If I were the only unschooler
> ever to have had a bad experience, I'd figure it was me. But I can't
> name three unschoolers who have had a great experience.
>
> What you've written in defense of journalists seems like what people
> are writing to defend all the schools and school kids in the world, in
> all those comments on opinions and articles this last week.
> Defensive, shrill and unfair."
Are you saying that I am defensive, shrill and unfair?
If people are rushing to defend schools and school children, then they must be worried that unschooling will become more popular, therefore taking away something precious to them. Why do you think they are rushing to defend? Is it unfair of them to want to defend schools?
I don't see how you can read shrillness into writing, unless I was using a lot of capitalized words or lots and lots of exclamation points. Shrillness is something you hear in someone's voice. If there's no voice, then, well, it's in your own head. I think that you might be reading something into my writing based on the amount of stress you've had this week. I promise, I am not being shrill. I am not feeling defensive. And I'm sorry if you think I am being unfair.
I'm not a big fan of schooling. I have absolutely zero good memories of school. School caused ridiculous amounts of anxiety for me when I was growing up. I can't imagine anyone wanting to go to school. And yet, some kids do. Does this make them bad or wrong, in your opinion? Maybe it's okay to have both schools and unschooling.
> "I'm sorry you might not get to unschool. It's sad. Divorce removes a-- We're not divorced. We were never married. It's not sad. We feel very blessed to have our daughter. She was not planned, but she brings us more joy than we could have ever imagined. We actually have a pretty cohesive family life even though we don't live together as a married couple. We co-parent. We live in the same apartment complex. He sees our daughter every day. There is no bitterness or sadness. We are still friends. We haven't actually discussed unschooling or homeschooling. I just don't think he'd go for it.
> lot of options and choices."
>-- No, I haven't.
> -=-You know how unschoolers become annoyed when some asshole who is
> too lazy to send his kids to school and too lazy to help them learn
> says they are unschooling? It gives unschoolers a bad name.-=-
>
> Have you ever actually met one, though, who had been interviewed by
> "the media"? Because I haven't.
>-- #1. Yes, they did. I have seen in several posts people lumping the media together as a whole based on one segment. A perfect example is the one that Marina just posted a little while ago. And my whole point is that the media is made up of varying degrees, just like any other part of life.
> -=-Well, I become annoyed when I hear people trashing the entire media
> based upon one 10 minute segment with a couple of talking heads who
> probably got their jobs based on the lush quality of their hair or
> their political connections. -=-
>
> #1, No one did that.
> #2, Have you never seen any bad coverage of unschooling besides that?
> Because I have.
#2. Bad is subjective. I thought the articles on your website were all pretty decent. The first one was the best and the last one, well, okay, that one was bordering on bad, it certainly wasn't great. But I'm sure that you have seen way more coverage of unschooling than I have. And I have no doubt that much of it was "bad." But I'd bet that some of it was good too.
I really didn't mean for this to turn into a argument. I usually keep my mouth shut when I hear sweeping comments about the media. I thought this group might be open enough to hear another perspective. I also thought some of my knowledge might come in handy for some of you. I like unschoolers. I like unschooling. I also like the media.
Best, Martha
http://www.momsoap.com
Joyce Fetteroll
On Apr 25, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Martha wrote:
list to let go of school and to whom Sandra has promised to keep their
mail relevant and helpful about unschooling.
It's unfair to the members for someone to continue to defend a point
that doesn't help list members unschool.
I agree with you that the ideal journalist wants to dig for the story
and present it in a balanced way, but the truth is that news
management needs to do better than their competitors at grabbing
people's attention. And that overrides ideals and molds stories and
how reporters produce them.
The same with teachers. I'm sure most people go into the profession
with a love of helping kids learn. The reality is they are stuck in a
system that needs them to force feed a specific set of information in
a specific allotted time. The goal they must meet isn't about learning
at all but about the statistics they can produce to show how well
they're meeting the school's agenda. The ideal teacher is irrelevant
to a child's experience with a real teacher constricted by meeting the
goals that ensure she keeps her job.
It seems to me you're doing exactly what you're saying others are
accusing the journalists who report on unschooling of doing: you're
interjecting yourself and your agenda (to defend journalistic ideals)
into this "story" and not really hearing and digging beneath what
people are saying ;-)
to see if others agree and miss what *else* is being said. I suspect
most people *did* get your point about journalists in your first post.
You're reading for "Yes, I agree" and missing that people *are*
agreeing but following it with a "but" which makes it feel like
they're missing your point. The point for this list is what's relevant
to unschooling.
Whether ideal journalists are awesome at their job is irrelevant to
the more important point that unschoolers have rarely encountered the
ideal. Doesn't your journalistic instinct see a story in that? Don't
you want to know why? You're expending your thoughts and words
defending what should be and missing how and why reality is different.
The real issue, since this is an unschooling list, is that unschoolers
need to be aware of how they're likely to be portrayed by the media
because more often than not unschoolers have been burned.
For unschoolers the issue isn't the ideals of journalism but how the
realities of journalism will likely affect them. The important points
are:
1) Grabbing the audience attention gets in the way of objectivity and
truth. No matter how clear they are, the reporter needs to write
something that will grab the audience's attention.
2) Unschooling is difficult to understand for parents who are spending
hours a week investigating. It can, as Sandra pointed out, typically
take a year. No journalist can understand unschooling in the short
amount of time they're given to produce a story. Asking questions
isn't enough when the journalist doesn't realize the foundation they
assume is beneath the topic they're investigating needs thrown out.
For instance, to understand homeschooling, people only need to throw
out part of the foundation: that kids don't need the "administrator of
the curriculum" to be an expert when there are only a few kids.
Homeschooling can be seen as schooling with a lot more flexibility.
(But even that took years before journalists approached it from that
point of view.)
But to get unschooling, pretty much the entire foundation needs
scrapped. As just a *piece* of what needs thrown out, it's
unreasonable to expect a reporter to question their knowledge that
math needs poured into kids in a specific way and to grasp that
building an understanding of how numbers work through video games and
living life not only works but works better. The two approaches don't
end up in the same place. An unschooled child will appear ignorant of
math next to a schooled child and yet the unschooled child will truly
get what they're doing when they manipulate numbers. That's because
the schooled child's goal is usually a good grade. An unschooled child
needs the answer to make life work (get to the next level, save up to
buy a toy).
To get unschooling, someone needs to question *everything* they
believe about learning, education, teaching. If the reporter doesn't
understand, they can't ask the right questions. I've been writing
about unschooling for nearly 15 years, trying to explain it to brand
new people and I still don't have a way of getting people who are
eager to grasp unschooling to realize they need to clear the
foundation to build a new understanding on. It's unreasonable to
expect a reporter who doesn't realize they need to do that to form an
accurate picture of unschooling. It's unreasonable to expect a
reporter who *does* realize they need to clear the foundation to then
be able to do that for their readers.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Why do you think they are rushing to defend? Is it unfair of themIt's unfair of them to use the time of 2000+ people who are on the
> to want to defend schools?
list to let go of school and to whom Sandra has promised to keep their
mail relevant and helpful about unschooling.
It's unfair to the members for someone to continue to defend a point
that doesn't help list members unschool.
> I realize I'm in the minority when it comes to my opinion on theI think you're mistaking ideals with reality.
> media.
I agree with you that the ideal journalist wants to dig for the story
and present it in a balanced way, but the truth is that news
management needs to do better than their competitors at grabbing
people's attention. And that overrides ideals and molds stories and
how reporters produce them.
The same with teachers. I'm sure most people go into the profession
with a love of helping kids learn. The reality is they are stuck in a
system that needs them to force feed a specific set of information in
a specific allotted time. The goal they must meet isn't about learning
at all but about the statistics they can produce to show how well
they're meeting the school's agenda. The ideal teacher is irrelevant
to a child's experience with a real teacher constricted by meeting the
goals that ensure she keeps her job.
It seems to me you're doing exactly what you're saying others are
accusing the journalists who report on unschooling of doing: you're
interjecting yourself and your agenda (to defend journalistic ideals)
into this "story" and not really hearing and digging beneath what
people are saying ;-)
> I thought this group might be open enough to hear anotherAs in most discussions with two different points, people tend to read
> perspective.
to see if others agree and miss what *else* is being said. I suspect
most people *did* get your point about journalists in your first post.
You're reading for "Yes, I agree" and missing that people *are*
agreeing but following it with a "but" which makes it feel like
they're missing your point. The point for this list is what's relevant
to unschooling.
Whether ideal journalists are awesome at their job is irrelevant to
the more important point that unschoolers have rarely encountered the
ideal. Doesn't your journalistic instinct see a story in that? Don't
you want to know why? You're expending your thoughts and words
defending what should be and missing how and why reality is different.
The real issue, since this is an unschooling list, is that unschoolers
need to be aware of how they're likely to be portrayed by the media
because more often than not unschoolers have been burned.
For unschoolers the issue isn't the ideals of journalism but how the
realities of journalism will likely affect them. The important points
are:
1) Grabbing the audience attention gets in the way of objectivity and
truth. No matter how clear they are, the reporter needs to write
something that will grab the audience's attention.
2) Unschooling is difficult to understand for parents who are spending
hours a week investigating. It can, as Sandra pointed out, typically
take a year. No journalist can understand unschooling in the short
amount of time they're given to produce a story. Asking questions
isn't enough when the journalist doesn't realize the foundation they
assume is beneath the topic they're investigating needs thrown out.
For instance, to understand homeschooling, people only need to throw
out part of the foundation: that kids don't need the "administrator of
the curriculum" to be an expert when there are only a few kids.
Homeschooling can be seen as schooling with a lot more flexibility.
(But even that took years before journalists approached it from that
point of view.)
But to get unschooling, pretty much the entire foundation needs
scrapped. As just a *piece* of what needs thrown out, it's
unreasonable to expect a reporter to question their knowledge that
math needs poured into kids in a specific way and to grasp that
building an understanding of how numbers work through video games and
living life not only works but works better. The two approaches don't
end up in the same place. An unschooled child will appear ignorant of
math next to a schooled child and yet the unschooled child will truly
get what they're doing when they manipulate numbers. That's because
the schooled child's goal is usually a good grade. An unschooled child
needs the answer to make life work (get to the next level, save up to
buy a toy).
To get unschooling, someone needs to question *everything* they
believe about learning, education, teaching. If the reporter doesn't
understand, they can't ask the right questions. I've been writing
about unschooling for nearly 15 years, trying to explain it to brand
new people and I still don't have a way of getting people who are
eager to grasp unschooling to realize they need to clear the
foundation to build a new understanding on. It's unreasonable to
expect a reporter who doesn't realize they need to do that to form an
accurate picture of unschooling. It's unreasonable to expect a
reporter who *does* realize they need to clear the foundation to then
be able to do that for their readers.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On 4/24/2010 9:41 PM, Martha wrote:
of us have done this over and over.
Based on my own experience, and I have a significant amount of it
related to unschooling, anyway, the "reporters" who contact us most
often have a preconceived idea of what their story is going to be, and
they fit whatever we say into it.
Even the very very BEST of them do this weird "balancing" thing that is
not balancing at all. They interview a bunch of "moms" - make us sound a
little dreamy or silly with a "can you believe she said that?" attitude.
THen they ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, go to some talking head expert who
has some university degree in education, who has never met an
unschooling family, never read a single word about it, for a refutation.
The article always has some stupid quote from the (not) expert saying
something like, "Children need structure and unschooling is not going to
provide for their social needs." The reporter NEVER, not one single time
in the dozens of times I've been involved, asks the expert what makes
them an expert on this?
In fact, when the so-called expert says something like, "I don't have
any expertise on this. Never heard of it." the so-called journalist
ignores that and asks things like, "Well, IF a child didn't do any kind
of school, wasn't taught anything, was just left alone to learn all on
their own, what would you think of that?"
This is NOT an isolated case, this is not how it sometimes goes. This is
how it almost always goes.
We do them anyway - even though we KNOW we're going to have to cringe
reading the article - because sometimes people are intrigued enough by
what quotes they DO use from us, that they look into it for themselves,
ignoring the so-called expert. Usually these are people who are already
very fed up with the education experts.
But it is a case of hoping what is offered won't be SO bad that it makes
us look so dangerous to our kids that we bring down the wrath of some
legislator who thinks he needs to put a STOP to our neglect of our
children's education before our kids end up unsocialized, dangerous
adults living on public welfare.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> It's a shame that happened to you. But I think that your lesson is aYeah - if it was only once, it would be a lame generalization. But some
> bit over the top. That's like saying that you ate out once and got
> food poisoning so you'll never eat out again
of us have done this over and over.
Based on my own experience, and I have a significant amount of it
related to unschooling, anyway, the "reporters" who contact us most
often have a preconceived idea of what their story is going to be, and
they fit whatever we say into it.
Even the very very BEST of them do this weird "balancing" thing that is
not balancing at all. They interview a bunch of "moms" - make us sound a
little dreamy or silly with a "can you believe she said that?" attitude.
THen they ALWAYS, and I mean ALWAYS, go to some talking head expert who
has some university degree in education, who has never met an
unschooling family, never read a single word about it, for a refutation.
The article always has some stupid quote from the (not) expert saying
something like, "Children need structure and unschooling is not going to
provide for their social needs." The reporter NEVER, not one single time
in the dozens of times I've been involved, asks the expert what makes
them an expert on this?
In fact, when the so-called expert says something like, "I don't have
any expertise on this. Never heard of it." the so-called journalist
ignores that and asks things like, "Well, IF a child didn't do any kind
of school, wasn't taught anything, was just left alone to learn all on
their own, what would you think of that?"
This is NOT an isolated case, this is not how it sometimes goes. This is
how it almost always goes.
We do them anyway - even though we KNOW we're going to have to cringe
reading the article - because sometimes people are intrigued enough by
what quotes they DO use from us, that they look into it for themselves,
ignoring the so-called expert. Usually these are people who are already
very fed up with the education experts.
But it is a case of hoping what is offered won't be SO bad that it makes
us look so dangerous to our kids that we bring down the wrath of some
legislator who thinks he needs to put a STOP to our neglect of our
children's education before our kids end up unsocialized, dangerous
adults living on public welfare.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Marina DeLuca-Howard
Marina << -=The lesson is never appear on the media without a contract
guaranteeing you
have control over the images or messages they use before it is aired.-=-
Sandra<<<I don't think there is or ever will be any such thing. That would
be
called "an advertisement." Even then, good luck. They could show it
just before or after something that would color it one way or another.>>>
Yes...that's why computers have democratized media. Ordinary people can
tweet, can facebook and can blog. They join groups like yours. That's all
media;-)
Media not limited by posters, responders and dialogues are initiated.
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
guaranteeing you
have control over the images or messages they use before it is aired.-=-
Sandra<<<I don't think there is or ever will be any such thing. That would
be
called "an advertisement." Even then, good luck. They could show it
just before or after something that would color it one way or another.>>>
Yes...that's why computers have democratized media. Ordinary people can
tweet, can facebook and can blog. They join groups like yours. That's all
media;-)
Media not limited by posters, responders and dialogues are initiated.
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
threegirlmama
(*I had meant to reply to this subject line but for some reason it just posted as a new one...so I'm pasting it here...sorry for the double post- Steph)
A few weeks ago I started looking more seriously into unschooling. I joined
this list and some others, and last Saturday I received Sandra's book and
started reading. It was really odd that Monday morning my mom called me to tell
me that there was going to be a segment on GMA about unschooling (she saw me
reading the book). I thought maybe she misunderstood (I mean, what a
coincidence!) but sure enough, I set my DVR, and when I got home later in the
day I watched it. Thank goodness I was reading the book and following comments
on the list, because I think that perhaps if I hadn't, the bias of the program
would have made it much easier for me to discount unschooling as a viable
option. It has been a roller coaster week for me (and I'm sure many others)
because of the media coverage of unschooling. It's hard enough to be a
homeschooler at times, and this week seeing unschoolers portrayed so negatively
has really caused me to think long and hard about
the decision to unschool. It is definitely not the easy road, but as I read
these posts I am encouraged to continue reading and investigating and watching
it unfold. Thank you Joyce for your last post...it is so helpful for those of
us who are newer to unschooling to hear the voices of those who have been living
and writing about it for so long. It means a ton.
Stephanie
A few weeks ago I started looking more seriously into unschooling. I joined
this list and some others, and last Saturday I received Sandra's book and
started reading. It was really odd that Monday morning my mom called me to tell
me that there was going to be a segment on GMA about unschooling (she saw me
reading the book). I thought maybe she misunderstood (I mean, what a
coincidence!) but sure enough, I set my DVR, and when I got home later in the
day I watched it. Thank goodness I was reading the book and following comments
on the list, because I think that perhaps if I hadn't, the bias of the program
would have made it much easier for me to discount unschooling as a viable
option. It has been a roller coaster week for me (and I'm sure many others)
because of the media coverage of unschooling. It's hard enough to be a
homeschooler at times, and this week seeing unschoolers portrayed so negatively
has really caused me to think long and hard about
the decision to unschool. It is definitely not the easy road, but as I read
these posts I am encouraged to continue reading and investigating and watching
it unfold. Thank you Joyce for your last post...it is so helpful for those of
us who are newer to unschooling to hear the voices of those who have been living
and writing about it for so long. It means a ton.
Stephanie
Pam Sorooshian
On 4/24/2010 11:45 PM, Martha wrote:
on this one segment. This one segment is just the most recent of a
zillion of them - this one with a lot more viewers and therefore a lot
more dangerous to our way of life.
This may be "just journalism" to you, but I have three daughters who
want to raise their own children as unschoolers, too, and I want them to
be able to do it as openly and happily as we did. Hatchet-jobs like the
GMA segment put them at risk, too much risk, imo.
Christine and Phil and their kids are marvelous and I know they would
have shown those reporters what a wonderful, engaging, enriched and
stimulating environment their children experience. I know their kids
would have been wonderful examples of unschoolers. I know they felt that
what would come out of this would be good - would offer an alternative
to people looking for one. I'm sure they figured there would be the
usually idiotic "balance" added, but I doubt very much that they
expected that the segment itself would be so terrible. I don't want
Christine and Phil to feel bad about this at all.
But this segment put our freedoms at risk - especially in some states
where unschoolers are barely skimming under the radar already.
I've accepted the fact that they will always find someone willing to
do it - someone with super good intentions - someone who figures this
time it will go well. So, when I am contacted, I usually try to help
best I can, try to make it as good as possible, knwing that there is
always a risk.
I know someone who had their family featured on a tv show, too, They're
not total unschoolers, but hands-on, experiential-learning, very
unschool-ish seeming homeschoolers. One of her sons is a bookish kind of
kid - reads ALL the time. The day they filmed, there were hours that he
sat around and waited for things to happen, always reading. On the show,
they made it seem like he didn't even know HOW to read.
I was interviewed by a well-known evening news show. It was me, my
daughter, a homeschooling dad, and his son. The questions were decent,
the reporters seemed intelligent and interested. There was a lot of time
for chatting in between actually filming and the reporter used what we
chatted about to form his questions - so they weren't just
pre-determined questions written by someone who really knew so little
that he didn't know what to ask (the usual kinds of questions we get). I
felt really good about the interview.
When it aired - I GASPED out loud. They did a little promo of it before
the commercial break. The PROMO showed my daughter and Matthew and said,
"Rose and Matthew don't go to school, but their standardized test scores
are very high. How can this be?" (I have the words slightly wrong - but
that's the gist of it.)
WHAT THE HECK? We'd told him we don't test. That was a POINT made and
discussed. Rosie and Matthew, neither of whom ever went to school or had
ANY school-at-home of any kind, had most definitely never taken any
standardized test. So not only did the NEWS reporters make up that they
tested , they made up that they scored high.
It was an overall unusually positive piece - the interviewer was pretty
intrigued and it showed. He took a "Wow - this is really suprising that
people are successfully doing this" tone - which beats the heck out of a
"Look at these weirdos and shouldn't the government step in to protect
these children " tone. I am a college professor and so is Dan - and we
were being interviewed AT the college where he teaches. We got some
respect as "professional educators." This was THE most positive piece
I've seen on unschooling, but they didn't even get their facts, very
specific facts that we'd discussed, right.
-pam
>You're not reading very carefully. Nobody is lumping them together based
> -- #1. Yes, they did. I have seen in several posts people lumping the
> media together as a whole based on one segment.
on this one segment. This one segment is just the most recent of a
zillion of them - this one with a lot more viewers and therefore a lot
more dangerous to our way of life.
This may be "just journalism" to you, but I have three daughters who
want to raise their own children as unschoolers, too, and I want them to
be able to do it as openly and happily as we did. Hatchet-jobs like the
GMA segment put them at risk, too much risk, imo.
Christine and Phil and their kids are marvelous and I know they would
have shown those reporters what a wonderful, engaging, enriched and
stimulating environment their children experience. I know their kids
would have been wonderful examples of unschoolers. I know they felt that
what would come out of this would be good - would offer an alternative
to people looking for one. I'm sure they figured there would be the
usually idiotic "balance" added, but I doubt very much that they
expected that the segment itself would be so terrible. I don't want
Christine and Phil to feel bad about this at all.
But this segment put our freedoms at risk - especially in some states
where unschoolers are barely skimming under the radar already.
I've accepted the fact that they will always find someone willing to
do it - someone with super good intentions - someone who figures this
time it will go well. So, when I am contacted, I usually try to help
best I can, try to make it as good as possible, knwing that there is
always a risk.
I know someone who had their family featured on a tv show, too, They're
not total unschoolers, but hands-on, experiential-learning, very
unschool-ish seeming homeschoolers. One of her sons is a bookish kind of
kid - reads ALL the time. The day they filmed, there were hours that he
sat around and waited for things to happen, always reading. On the show,
they made it seem like he didn't even know HOW to read.
I was interviewed by a well-known evening news show. It was me, my
daughter, a homeschooling dad, and his son. The questions were decent,
the reporters seemed intelligent and interested. There was a lot of time
for chatting in between actually filming and the reporter used what we
chatted about to form his questions - so they weren't just
pre-determined questions written by someone who really knew so little
that he didn't know what to ask (the usual kinds of questions we get). I
felt really good about the interview.
When it aired - I GASPED out loud. They did a little promo of it before
the commercial break. The PROMO showed my daughter and Matthew and said,
"Rose and Matthew don't go to school, but their standardized test scores
are very high. How can this be?" (I have the words slightly wrong - but
that's the gist of it.)
WHAT THE HECK? We'd told him we don't test. That was a POINT made and
discussed. Rosie and Matthew, neither of whom ever went to school or had
ANY school-at-home of any kind, had most definitely never taken any
standardized test. So not only did the NEWS reporters make up that they
tested , they made up that they scored high.
It was an overall unusually positive piece - the interviewer was pretty
intrigued and it showed. He took a "Wow - this is really suprising that
people are successfully doing this" tone - which beats the heck out of a
"Look at these weirdos and shouldn't the government step in to protect
these children " tone. I am a college professor and so is Dan - and we
were being interviewed AT the college where he teaches. We got some
respect as "professional educators." This was THE most positive piece
I've seen on unschooling, but they didn't even get their facts, very
specific facts that we'd discussed, right.
-pam
Sandra Dodd
-=-Yes...that's why computers have democratized media. -=-
Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are not "the
democratization of media." I've been writing all my life without
being a journalist. I have published newsletters for clubs I've been
in and have been editor of school newspapers and such. I had a
philosophy publication called ThinkWell for many years, and you seem
to be suggesting that computers, and twitter, have opened up the world
for me.
-=-Media not limited by posters, responders and dialogues are
initiated.-=-
I don't know what you intended to write there.
What this list is for is providing an opportunity to discuss
unschooling in depth. We do it every day.
It's not journalism. It's not "media" in the sense that it is not
broadcast. "Media" in the way you used it usually means "broadcast
media" or "print media." By your definition classes in schools, AA
meetings and people's dinner parties would be media. We're using an
electronic meeting place, but it's not information intended for the
general public.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are not "the
democratization of media." I've been writing all my life without
being a journalist. I have published newsletters for clubs I've been
in and have been editor of school newspapers and such. I had a
philosophy publication called ThinkWell for many years, and you seem
to be suggesting that computers, and twitter, have opened up the world
for me.
-=-Media not limited by posters, responders and dialogues are
initiated.-=-
I don't know what you intended to write there.
What this list is for is providing an opportunity to discuss
unschooling in depth. We do it every day.
It's not journalism. It's not "media" in the sense that it is not
broadcast. "Media" in the way you used it usually means "broadcast
media" or "print media." By your definition classes in schools, AA
meetings and people's dinner parties would be media. We're using an
electronic meeting place, but it's not information intended for the
general public.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Marina DeLuca-Howard
<<<Freedom of expression and freedom of the press are not "the
democratization of media." I've been writing all my life without
being a journalist. >>>
The invention of the printing press also gave an audience to all sorts of
reformers or people spreading new ideas. But with the internet I share
information with less effort than anyone could historically. I am
broadening my understanding of media to include the internet as a means
ordinary people share information. For ordinary people getting access to a
printing press was expensive, photocopiers changed things for small
newletters, but the internet made more information available to more people
and they can go looking for information day or night. Nobody waits.
I am not implying you need to be a journalist to have opinions--just that
reaching an audience has become easier. I like the idea of people having
online dialogues--we can come to clearer understandings.
<<I had a
philosophy publication called ThinkWell for many years, and you seem
to be suggesting that computers, and twitter, have opened up the world
for me.>>
I wasn't suggesting you in particular--but there are people in Switzerland,
and France and Canada on this list and there are many lists. Anyone can
find information more easily or share their thoughts. Without the Internet
if I wanted to ask you a question I would have to write and mail a letter.
There are many other people--those ordinary people I connect with online
whose ideas are similar to mine would never have crossed my path otherwise.
<<-=-Media not limited by posters, responders and dialogues are
initiated.-=>>
The sentence doesn't really make much sense;-)
The way I express opinions and gather information is changing, at least for
me it has changed radically over the course of my life. I can read
something posted by someone in Switzerland seconds after he or she writes
and sends their opinion to the world. That is just amazing to me--time,
space and money used to limit the spread of ideas, as did censorship for
centuries.
There is more information to view than ever, and I think that helps me to
revise my thinking. I don't have to read about your ideas as filtered in
the press--I can find your site, or email you. That may not change things
for you, but I can have more information first hand faster, than I could if
I had to board a plane to go to a conference(time and money are hindering
people from doing that) or wait for a newsletter to appear in my mailbox or
visit a library or bookstore(who may choose not to stock a particular book).
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
democratization of media." I've been writing all my life without
being a journalist. >>>
The invention of the printing press also gave an audience to all sorts of
reformers or people spreading new ideas. But with the internet I share
information with less effort than anyone could historically. I am
broadening my understanding of media to include the internet as a means
ordinary people share information. For ordinary people getting access to a
printing press was expensive, photocopiers changed things for small
newletters, but the internet made more information available to more people
and they can go looking for information day or night. Nobody waits.
I am not implying you need to be a journalist to have opinions--just that
reaching an audience has become easier. I like the idea of people having
online dialogues--we can come to clearer understandings.
<<I had a
philosophy publication called ThinkWell for many years, and you seem
to be suggesting that computers, and twitter, have opened up the world
for me.>>
I wasn't suggesting you in particular--but there are people in Switzerland,
and France and Canada on this list and there are many lists. Anyone can
find information more easily or share their thoughts. Without the Internet
if I wanted to ask you a question I would have to write and mail a letter.
There are many other people--those ordinary people I connect with online
whose ideas are similar to mine would never have crossed my path otherwise.
<<-=-Media not limited by posters, responders and dialogues are
initiated.-=>>
The sentence doesn't really make much sense;-)
The way I express opinions and gather information is changing, at least for
me it has changed radically over the course of my life. I can read
something posted by someone in Switzerland seconds after he or she writes
and sends their opinion to the world. That is just amazing to me--time,
space and money used to limit the spread of ideas, as did censorship for
centuries.
There is more information to view than ever, and I think that helps me to
revise my thinking. I don't have to read about your ideas as filtered in
the press--I can find your site, or email you. That may not change things
for you, but I can have more information first hand faster, than I could if
I had to board a plane to go to a conference(time and money are hindering
people from doing that) or wait for a newsletter to appear in my mailbox or
visit a library or bookstore(who may choose not to stock a particular book).
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***I really didn't mean for this to turn into a argument. I usually keep my mouth shut when I hear sweeping comments about the media. I thought this group might be open enough to hear another perspective. I also thought some of my knowledge might come in handy for some of you. I like unschoolers. I like unschooling. I also like the media. ***
Unschoolers are the least likely to make sweeping arguments about anything, media included. What mostly happens in media, in regards to unschooling, is like what happened to Marina when she did an interview about breast feeding, something completely normal and good, and they turned it into something weird with a disturbing slant. I've also seen some fairly decent things written about unschooling in the media, but they completely missed the point of it, like doing a story about breast feeding with the assumption that baby formula is better, and then showing an extreme option of using human milk as if it's somehow abnormal.
Most people believe that school is THE be all end all to human enlightenment, that without it, all society will break down and kids will grow up to be huge losers that all hard working people will need to support. Any time, any thing that counters that, gets put into the news, it's going to be viewed with that lens either by the media, by the viewers, or both.
I'm going to be visiting a friend from Germany today. I used to live with him in college and we've maintained a friendship. He's never liked the idea of homeschooling even though he likes me and my family. He just had a baby. Even if I managed to change his mind, he still wouldn't be able to homeschool his child unless his partner agreed and they moved out of the country. I doubt he watched the GMA thing, but if he did, he'd be in the segment of the population that would see sensationalist journalism for what it is, but he'd probably STILL agree with it. He's a very intelligent person. That news segment didn't have an audience of people like him, their audience was one that LIKES sensationalist news pieces. It has about 1000 comments, mostly negative, I haven't read most of them or even tried to keep up with them.
What bothers me, is the family that offered themselves up, was a really great unschooling example. I think I'd be booed off. My house isn't nearly as nice or clean as theirs, my husband and I don't have the same quality of careers as those parents, and my oldest doesn't look like your average kid. I'd be made to look like a nut job for sure!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Unschoolers are the least likely to make sweeping arguments about anything, media included. What mostly happens in media, in regards to unschooling, is like what happened to Marina when she did an interview about breast feeding, something completely normal and good, and they turned it into something weird with a disturbing slant. I've also seen some fairly decent things written about unschooling in the media, but they completely missed the point of it, like doing a story about breast feeding with the assumption that baby formula is better, and then showing an extreme option of using human milk as if it's somehow abnormal.
Most people believe that school is THE be all end all to human enlightenment, that without it, all society will break down and kids will grow up to be huge losers that all hard working people will need to support. Any time, any thing that counters that, gets put into the news, it's going to be viewed with that lens either by the media, by the viewers, or both.
I'm going to be visiting a friend from Germany today. I used to live with him in college and we've maintained a friendship. He's never liked the idea of homeschooling even though he likes me and my family. He just had a baby. Even if I managed to change his mind, he still wouldn't be able to homeschool his child unless his partner agreed and they moved out of the country. I doubt he watched the GMA thing, but if he did, he'd be in the segment of the population that would see sensationalist journalism for what it is, but he'd probably STILL agree with it. He's a very intelligent person. That news segment didn't have an audience of people like him, their audience was one that LIKES sensationalist news pieces. It has about 1000 comments, mostly negative, I haven't read most of them or even tried to keep up with them.
What bothers me, is the family that offered themselves up, was a really great unschooling example. I think I'd be booed off. My house isn't nearly as nice or clean as theirs, my husband and I don't have the same quality of careers as those parents, and my oldest doesn't look like your average kid. I'd be made to look like a nut job for sure!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On 4/24/2010 9:02 PM, Martha wrote:
cracks me up because I know all the kids.
Martha - you might want to go to a conference where you can actually
hear what these young unschoolers have to say. There are a lot of them
who are amazingly articulate. We always have teen panels - the audience
asks them questions about their unschooling lives. Some of them are as
young as 11 or 12. The HSC conference in Sacramento has had kids panels
the last couple of years - that was younger children - 8 to 12 years
old. The audience is mostly adults who ask lots of questions. The kids
are great - so articulate! The kid and teen panels are super super
popular - people always say that those are what really sold them on
unschooling.
-pam
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> --- I have no idea what this guy's deal was. If that had been me, ITHAT is the most laughable thing I have heard all day. No offense. Just
> probably would have obliged Sandra. But in my experience, it's almost
> impossible to get good quotes or articulate interviews from children.
> I've never interviewed any unschooled kids though. :)
cracks me up because I know all the kids.
Martha - you might want to go to a conference where you can actually
hear what these young unschoolers have to say. There are a lot of them
who are amazingly articulate. We always have teen panels - the audience
asks them questions about their unschooling lives. Some of them are as
young as 11 or 12. The HSC conference in Sacramento has had kids panels
the last couple of years - that was younger children - 8 to 12 years
old. The audience is mostly adults who ask lots of questions. The kids
are great - so articulate! The kid and teen panels are super super
popular - people always say that those are what really sold them on
unschooling.
-pam
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-
Martha - you might want to go to a conference where you can actually
hear what these young unschoolers have to say. -=-
A conference is probably too great a commitment for someone who might
not get to homeschool at all, but you can hear and see unschoolers
several places, linked from my page and unschooling.info
http://sandradodd.com/listen/roya
Roya was 24 last fall when this was recorded, but she was that
articulate the day the interviewer was interviewing me and pam while
six or seven unschooled teens sat watching.
He used none of what he recorded, either. Ultimately, he just wasted
our whole day.
http://sandradodd.com/listen/teenpanel
All my kids were in there (Holly wasn't scheduled to be but she kept
scooting closer and closer to the front and soon couldn't stand it any
more and was handed a mic at some point.)
The boy in the rusty-orange shirt and shorts is Matthew Vilter. He
stunned me that day. I've known him since he was ten or eleven, I
guess, and he was an awkwardish younger kid but that day he blew the
top off those responses. There are other kids there who have parents
on this list or other lists some of you are on, or facebook regulars
in unschooling discussions.
Holly Dodd:
http://sandradodd.com/video/holly
Brenna McBroom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H37T7o9u_2M&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHBtjpQJp80&feature=channel
Wow. My little vid on saying yes (taken by Lee Stranahan) has 1,366
views
Holly's has 8,105. I am momentarily jealous! (Okay, I've recovered.)
http://unschooling.info/video
various kinds of things, many with kids in, or some made by unschooled
kids
This doesn't have video, but when Marty was 18 he MC'd a talent show
at Life is Good and got rave reviews.
(Marty told me later that it was really stress provoking for him and
he never wanted to do it again, but that didn't show, by any account.)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Martha - you might want to go to a conference where you can actually
hear what these young unschoolers have to say. -=-
A conference is probably too great a commitment for someone who might
not get to homeschool at all, but you can hear and see unschoolers
several places, linked from my page and unschooling.info
http://sandradodd.com/listen/roya
Roya was 24 last fall when this was recorded, but she was that
articulate the day the interviewer was interviewing me and pam while
six or seven unschooled teens sat watching.
He used none of what he recorded, either. Ultimately, he just wasted
our whole day.
http://sandradodd.com/listen/teenpanel
All my kids were in there (Holly wasn't scheduled to be but she kept
scooting closer and closer to the front and soon couldn't stand it any
more and was handed a mic at some point.)
The boy in the rusty-orange shirt and shorts is Matthew Vilter. He
stunned me that day. I've known him since he was ten or eleven, I
guess, and he was an awkwardish younger kid but that day he blew the
top off those responses. There are other kids there who have parents
on this list or other lists some of you are on, or facebook regulars
in unschooling discussions.
Holly Dodd:
http://sandradodd.com/video/holly
Brenna McBroom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H37T7o9u_2M&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHBtjpQJp80&feature=channel
Wow. My little vid on saying yes (taken by Lee Stranahan) has 1,366
views
Holly's has 8,105. I am momentarily jealous! (Okay, I've recovered.)
http://unschooling.info/video
various kinds of things, many with kids in, or some made by unschooled
kids
This doesn't have video, but when Marty was 18 he MC'd a talent show
at Life is Good and got rave reviews.
(Marty told me later that it was really stress provoking for him and
he never wanted to do it again, but that didn't show, by any account.)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jenny Cyphers
***Wow. My little vid on saying yes (taken by Lee Stranahan) has 1,366
views
Holly's has 8,105. I am momentarily jealous! (Okay, I've recovered.)***
She really ruffled some feathers with that little video! People are so silly and mean on youtube comments! I don't have a youtube account, or I'd go in right now and comment. Holly is awesome! phooey on all those meanies!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
views
Holly's has 8,105. I am momentarily jealous! (Okay, I've recovered.)***
She really ruffled some feathers with that little video! People are so silly and mean on youtube comments! I don't have a youtube account, or I'd go in right now and comment. Holly is awesome! phooey on all those meanies!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=
She really ruffled some feathers with that little video! People are so
silly and mean on youtube comments! I don't have a youtube account, or
I'd go in right now and comment. Holly is awesome! phooey on all those
meanies!-=-
I haven't looked at the comments since the first week it was up.
The negative comments on Brenna's I noticed today are wonderfully
horrible. Those people's lives would be improved if they got to sit
next to Brenna for ten minutes; she's awesome.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
She really ruffled some feathers with that little video! People are so
silly and mean on youtube comments! I don't have a youtube account, or
I'd go in right now and comment. Holly is awesome! phooey on all those
meanies!-=-
I haven't looked at the comments since the first week it was up.
The negative comments on Brenna's I noticed today are wonderfully
horrible. Those people's lives would be improved if they got to sit
next to Brenna for ten minutes; she's awesome.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Lang
I would like to second the idea of attending a conference or listening to the files on Sandra's site to better understand uschooling from the child's perspective.
My family and I attended Good Vibrations last year in San Diego. We had a blast and spent most of our time in funshops, hanging out, and swimming in the pool. I didn't get to see many talks except the wonderful teen panel.
Two weeks ago my 20 month old son accidentally poked me in the eye resulting in an ER visit and blindness in both eyes for a week. Long story short, my husband hooked me up to the computer to listen to the sound files from Good Vibrations each night as I nursed my son to sleep.
Roya's talk was such a treat. I highly recommend it and found it to be what I think would seal the deal for any "on the fence" unschooler.
Oh, and Pam, if Roya wants to email me about Art Therapy, let her know I have been a licensed Art Therapist and MFT here in Los Angeles for the past 8 years and would love to talk to her if she wants!
Liza in Los Angeles
Poppy, 4.5 and Shepard 20 months
My family and I attended Good Vibrations last year in San Diego. We had a blast and spent most of our time in funshops, hanging out, and swimming in the pool. I didn't get to see many talks except the wonderful teen panel.
Two weeks ago my 20 month old son accidentally poked me in the eye resulting in an ER visit and blindness in both eyes for a week. Long story short, my husband hooked me up to the computer to listen to the sound files from Good Vibrations each night as I nursed my son to sleep.
Roya's talk was such a treat. I highly recommend it and found it to be what I think would seal the deal for any "on the fence" unschooler.
Oh, and Pam, if Roya wants to email me about Art Therapy, let her know I have been a licensed Art Therapist and MFT here in Los Angeles for the past 8 years and would love to talk to her if she wants!
Liza in Los Angeles
Poppy, 4.5 and Shepard 20 months
k
>>>When it aired - I GASPED out loud. They did a little promo of it beforethe commercial break. The PROMO showed my daughter and Matthew and said,
"Rose and Matthew don't go to school, but their standardized test scores
are very high. How can this be?" (I have the words slightly wrong - but
that's the gist of it.)<<<
>>>WHAT THE HECK? We'd told him we don't test. That was a POINT made anddiscussed. Rosie and Matthew, neither of whom ever went to school or had
ANY school-at-home of any kind, had most definitely never taken any
standardized test. So not only did the NEWS reporters make up that they
tested , they made up that they scored high.<<<
Obviously the reporter padded the story to appeal to school
sensibilities so that it would have credibility with the general
audience. :/ I don't approve but I understand why it was done.
~Katherine
Sandra Dodd
-=-Obviously the reporter padded the story to appeal to school
sensibilities so that it would have credibility with the general
audience. :/ I don't approve but I understand why it was done.-=-
I think once reporters turn things in, editors and directors add the
titles and blurbs and so the edges end up being written by people who
weren't even at the interviews. So it goes.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sensibilities so that it would have credibility with the general
audience. :/ I don't approve but I understand why it was done.-=-
I think once reporters turn things in, editors and directors add the
titles and blurbs and so the edges end up being written by people who
weren't even at the interviews. So it goes.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Marina DeLuca-Howard
<<<What mostly happens in media, in regards to unschooling, is like what
happened to Marina when she did an interview about breast feeding, something
completely normal and good, and they turned it into something weird with a
disturbing slant. I've also seen some fairly decent things written about
unschooling in the media, but they completely missed the point of it, like
doing a story about breast feeding with the assumption that baby formula is
better, and then showing an extreme option of using human milk as if it's
somehow abnormal.>>>
I saw a tape of the breastfeeding segment--which someone provided. A friend
who is an actor commented to my husband the segment with breastfeeding moms
kept popping up and was re-run over and over. The moms were "eye candy"
with voice overs from a mom we never met and a doctor who said don't worry
if breastfeeding "sexually stimulates" you. Breastfeeding can intensify
feelings of love for the baby and feel pleasant. Most of the moms on the
interview reported feeling dopey when breastfeeding, feeling love, or
pain--with the main message being be persistent because it is worth it.
Obviously, they appeared to help "normalize" the idea of nursing--there
were two doulas, a midwife and a nurse amoung the circle. None of their
comments were used--but their faces were used with voice overs and
juxtaposed with the doctor's voice talking about orgasm during breastfeeding
being normal. Its too bad because the moms were an articulate bunch who
appeared to help other moms--their intention wasn't to look foolish or
perverted or fame.
Those women were all angry because their experiences were not shared as they
intended. One of the moms owned a small production company and offered to
reshoot everything and sell it as a documentary--giving the moms a chance to
approve the final cut. She was really mad about what happened--but nobody
wanted to appear in her breastfeeding documentary because they'd already
been disillusioned.
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
happened to Marina when she did an interview about breast feeding, something
completely normal and good, and they turned it into something weird with a
disturbing slant. I've also seen some fairly decent things written about
unschooling in the media, but they completely missed the point of it, like
doing a story about breast feeding with the assumption that baby formula is
better, and then showing an extreme option of using human milk as if it's
somehow abnormal.>>>
I saw a tape of the breastfeeding segment--which someone provided. A friend
who is an actor commented to my husband the segment with breastfeeding moms
kept popping up and was re-run over and over. The moms were "eye candy"
with voice overs from a mom we never met and a doctor who said don't worry
if breastfeeding "sexually stimulates" you. Breastfeeding can intensify
feelings of love for the baby and feel pleasant. Most of the moms on the
interview reported feeling dopey when breastfeeding, feeling love, or
pain--with the main message being be persistent because it is worth it.
Obviously, they appeared to help "normalize" the idea of nursing--there
were two doulas, a midwife and a nurse amoung the circle. None of their
comments were used--but their faces were used with voice overs and
juxtaposed with the doctor's voice talking about orgasm during breastfeeding
being normal. Its too bad because the moms were an articulate bunch who
appeared to help other moms--their intention wasn't to look foolish or
perverted or fame.
Those women were all angry because their experiences were not shared as they
intended. One of the moms owned a small production company and offered to
reshoot everything and sell it as a documentary--giving the moms a chance to
approve the final cut. She was really mad about what happened--but nobody
wanted to appear in her breastfeeding documentary because they'd already
been disillusioned.
Marina
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]