KimWW

MS gulf coast newspaper editorial on unshooling

http://www.sunherald.com/2010/05/12/2176309/unschooling-is-a-lazy-parents.html?mi_pluck_action=comment_submitted&qwxq=1565979#Comments_Container

Puh-leez! As if UNSCHOOLERS are even so prevalent in Mississippi! The numbers certainly can't account for the number of cashiers who cannot make change!

Our homeschool group is up in arms, both defending their own methods and coming to the defense of unschooling.

I don't know how you all have been keeping your sanity dealing with the aftermath of the GMA farce.

I am ready to spit nails! I just cannot see how anyone in this JOKE of a state (education-wise) DARES to point fingers outside the public school system. Maybe if the public schools were 6 months old and before that we were all unschooled AND showed these results, then maybe. The way things are more people should be considering home schooling and unschooling since what we have from the gov't IS NOT WORKING.

I suppose it just amounts to not understanding nor giving enough effort to try, as well as wanting to point to something (anything) to make oneself look better, even if it is logically false.

"My kid is getting D's, but at least he doesn't sit on the couch all day watching TV. I have heard some kids do."

or

"That idiot at the gas station couldn't figure my change. I hope he didn't graduate from the same school my kid is going to. Oo, I heard some kids get to do whatever they want all day. He must be one of those."

Grrr! Sorry for the rant. I'll go try to calm down now.

XAIPETE! (Fare well, in Greek)
KimWW

Sandra Dodd

-=-I suppose it just amounts to not understanding nor giving enough
effort to try, as well as wanting to point to something (anything) to
make oneself look better, even if it is logically false.

"My kid is getting D's, but at least he doesn't sit on the couch all
day watching TV. I have heard some kids do."-=-


That kid would be WAY better off sitting on the couch all day than
being told periodically (or reminded daily) that he's D for dunce, D.
Nearly F. D. Below average. D. Can't do sports.


There's someone stuck in a rut at that crunchy chicken dicussion.
She's responding to the quoted bit:

========
"But then you'd be going against common sense, the experience of many
others AND "research into more advanced concepts and theories backing
it up.""

You write this response to my comment as if you believe that non-
traditional methods of education are the only ways that ideal learning
conditions can be met, and that is where the disconnect is, because
that's simply not true.
==========

She's not defining "ideal learning conditions," and "that's simply not
true" is a trump card in her illogical world. Much turmoil in her,
spilling out at http://www.thecrunchychicken.com/2010/04/unschooling-what-do-you-think.html

Sandra

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

Rebecca M.

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

> ========
> You write this response to my comment as if you believe that non-
> traditional methods of education are the only ways that ideal learning
> conditions can be met, and that is where the disconnect is, because
> that's simply not true.
> ==========
>
> She's not defining "ideal learning conditions," and "that's simply not
> true" is a trump card in her illogical world. Much turmoil in her,

I almost jumped in this morning and asked her what "ideal learning conditions" are according to her and to ask her to demonstrate how she knows that it is true that they are met via traditional methods of education (as opposed to non-traditional methods).

But I deleted it before I sent it.

She's lost in the circle of her own argument and it's not a repeating loop I want to get stuck in with her (well, I was, but I just got off).

Every single person I know has at least one school story that is about being shamed and humiliated and that was detrimental to their self-concept (and confidence). I'm so puzzled why those same people will stretch so far to defend school as being "just as good" (and often "better") than alternatives that preserve a child's sense of self. And some of them will even "fume" about those better approaches (as per that annoying editorial).

I just don't get it. (Well, I do, but I wish I didn't.)

-Rebecca

Joanna

> > ========
> > You write this response to my comment as if you believe that non-
> > traditional methods of education are the only ways that ideal learning
> > conditions can be met, and that is where the disconnect is, because
> > that's simply not true.
> > ==========
> >
> > She's not defining "ideal learning conditions," and "that's simply not
> > true" is a trump card in her illogical world. Much turmoil in her,
>

> She's lost in the circle of her own argument and it's not a repeating loop I want to get stuck in with her (well, I was, but I just got off).
>
Yeah--it's pretty crazy. I wrote the bit about common sense in response to her. She proved my argument in her response and then went back on it--it IS a repeating loop. I'm not even sure what it is that she's arguing about anymore--and I honestly don't think she is either. And she speaks of traditional schooling as though it's proven--a closed case of success. I think that traditional schooling, and anyone defending it needs to prove their case every bit as much as she thinks alternative methods should.

I had another response for her, but I've decided as well to get off of the crazy-circling-ride. :-)

I think many of us in that thread have made a very good case for the fact that ideal learning conditions--a piece that I brought in having to do with an emotionally safe environment without competition, with play, curiosity, etc.--are easy to create with unschooling. She just seems bent on being defensive about traditional schooling. It's like, the unschoolers want to write positively about unschooling, but she's determined to get us to weigh in on traditional schooling, and then accuse us of being negative. She has a big mouth and tiny ears!

Joanna

Jenny Cyphers

***She's not defining "ideal learning conditions," and "that's simply not
true" is a trump card in her illogical world. Much turmoil in her,
spilling out at http://www.thecrunchychicken.com/2010/04/unschooling-what-do-you-think.html***


Hopefully I helped unconfuse her! I wrote about her idea of coercive. She seems to think that schools aren't coercive. She agrees that coercive learning isn't ideal, so maybe that will help clear it up!





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

k

Not sure why crunchy chick is still going on about unschooling. What's
her inspiration for writing more in her blog about it? I understand
she doesn't like it. I'm not interested in giving the blog a penny
worth of my thoughts. :)

... >^--^< ... Maybe she doesn't have anything to write about that
is as exciting?

~Katherine



On 5/16/10, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> -=-I suppose it just amounts to not understanding nor giving enough
> effort to try, as well as wanting to point to something (anything) to
> make oneself look better, even if it is logically false.
>
> "My kid is getting D's, but at least he doesn't sit on the couch all
> day watching TV. I have heard some kids do."-=-
>
>
> That kid would be WAY better off sitting on the couch all day than
> being told periodically (or reminded daily) that he's D for dunce, D.
> Nearly F. D. Below average. D. Can't do sports.
>
>
> There's someone stuck in a rut at that crunchy chicken dicussion.
> She's responding to the quoted bit:
>
> ========
> "But then you'd be going against common sense, the experience of many
> others AND "research into more advanced concepts and theories backing
> it up.""
>
> You write this response to my comment as if you believe that non-
> traditional methods of education are the only ways that ideal learning
> conditions can be met, and that is where the disconnect is, because
> that's simply not true.
> ==========
>
> She's not defining "ideal learning conditions," and "that's simply not
> true" is a trump card in her illogical world. Much turmoil in her,
> spilling out at
> http://www.thecrunchychicken.com/2010/04/unschooling-what-do-you-think.html
>
> Sandra
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Rebecca M.

--- In [email protected], k <katherand@...> wrote:

> Maybe she doesn't have anything to write about that
> is as exciting?

Well, she did run a little segment on solar powered "personal" appliances that "some" people ;) might find exciting. (Is that off-topic?)

I think it had quieted down in the comments and then someone (the "round and round" person) started the conversation again.

Then Crunchy asked a question that I found very telling as I think that anyone who has done their "homework" about unschooling wouldn't ask a question like this. Maybe.

"But, I did want to ask, since it hasn't been addressed (or I didn't see it), what is the opinion that unschoolers have about advanced formal education. In other words, college or university.

"How does that fit into your philosophy about education since it sounds like many of your children go on to that type of formal education that you avoid in the primary and secondary years? If unschooling is a sufficient learning style, then why bother getting a degree? It sounds contrary to the goals you are trying to achieve."

And she asked this after Pam had written something about her daughters' experience in college.

I find questions like this very odd... but maybe I'm missing something?

- Rebecca

k

She's trying to make unschooling into a rule for all of children's
lives. lol (duh doesn't work that way) As though once one is
unschooling, a child can't make the decision to attend school EVER ...
their WHOLE lives. Never. Well they can!

Also she doesn't understand that the focus of unschooling isn't even
unschooling itself (seems blasphmous!). The focus is the
relationship/s between parent/s and child/ren.

~Katherine




On 5/16/10, Rebecca M. <ackirebecci@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In [email protected], k <katherand@...> wrote:
>
>> Maybe she doesn't have anything to write about that
>> is as exciting?
>
> Well, she did run a little segment on solar powered "personal" appliances
> that "some" people ;) might find exciting. (Is that off-topic?)
>
> I think it had quieted down in the comments and then someone (the "round and
> round" person) started the conversation again.
>
> Then Crunchy asked a question that I found very telling as I think that
> anyone who has done their "homework" about unschooling wouldn't ask a
> question like this. Maybe.
>
> "But, I did want to ask, since it hasn't been addressed (or I didn't see
> it), what is the opinion that unschoolers have about advanced formal
> education. In other words, college or university.
>
> "How does that fit into your philosophy about education since it sounds like
> many of your children go on to that type of formal education that you avoid
> in the primary and secondary years? If unschooling is a sufficient learning
> style, then why bother getting a degree? It sounds contrary to the goals you
> are trying to achieve."
>
> And she asked this after Pam had written something about her daughters'
> experience in college.
>
> I find questions like this very odd... but maybe I'm missing something?
>
> - Rebecca
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Sandra Dodd

-=-Also she doesn't understand that the focus of unschooling isn't even
unschooling itself (seems blasphmous!). The focus is the
relationship/s between parent/s and child/ren.-=-

I always think the focus is on learning.

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

k

Well I could *learn* how to spell check for the word blasphemous! ;)

I'm not always focused on learning but then relationships are about
learning and learning is about relationships (not just with people,
see). Making connections with people and the things and ideas in the
world is learning, even when I'm not consciously thinking about
learning per se. So learning works very well when I'm not focused on
the learning that's taking place along with being with and sharing and
doing things together.

Right the word "relationships" would make it seem as if I'm talking
about something more generally understood in other ways.

~Katherine




On 5/17/10, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> -=-Also she doesn't understand that the focus of unschooling isn't even
> unschooling itself (seems blasphmous!). The focus is the
> relationship/s between parent/s and child/ren.-=-
>
> I always think the focus is on learning.

Joanna

> On 5/17/10, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> > -=-Also she doesn't understand that the focus of unschooling isn't even
> > unschooling itself (seems blasphmous!). The focus is the
> > relationship/s between parent/s and child/ren.-=-
> >
> > I always think the focus is on learning.
>
I've know unschoolers whose focus is on the relationship before learning, and it can be a slippery slope. Here's an example:

Two families, mine and another, rode to the beach together in one car. The other mom's 9 yo son was not ready to leave when the rest of us all had decided that it had gotten chilly and windy and generally unpleasant. He was allowed some time to do the thing that he said he hadn't had time to do, but when that wasn't enough, we packed up our stuff and headed to the car. The rest of us waited and waited, and waited some more at the car while he went on digging his hole.

The mom was unwilling to say anything remotely like, "Hey, there are other people waiting and they would really like to go now," because she didn't want to "coerce" him. It was all about him and how he felt. I think that there was an opportunity missed to learn about how to be more sensitive to others in a group. He could have learned some flexibility. None of us wanted to force him into the car--we were willing to give him quite a bit of leeway, but that was more than exhausted, with no sense of reciprocation.

This mom is clear that her focus is on the relationship. And that was his focus too--and not his relationships with other people. He was entirely focused on his relationship with his mom and what she was giving him. It seemed to me to become a very selfish experience. I thought she should have helped him to see the bigger picture since he seemed unable to see it on his own.

Joanna

Sandra Dodd

-=-It seemed to me to become a very selfish experience. I thought she
should have helped him to see the bigger picture since he seemed
unable to see it on his own.-=-

It seems that would be part of a partnership. If one partner loses,
they both lose.

Next time if you take separate cars would she be offended?
Having heard the story I sure hope it was her car and not yours.

Sandra

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

BRIAN POLIKOWSKY

If these mother knows that her son may need more time than others she should have driven her own car.
I would have told my kids that  if he needed more time I would come back another say just for him to stay and play as long as he
wanted , but that there were other people waiting  and it would not be polite or nice  to make them wait anymore.
 
Knowing my kids maybe ready to leave sooner or later than others are a reason I seldom share a ride with other families.
I did once for a trip when I was really broke and needed to take my dd to the dentist. We had mostly good moments, a couple bad and I would not
do it again.

Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/

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

Su Penn

On May 17, 2010, at 7:47 PM, Joanna wrote:

> This mom is clear that her focus is on the relationship. And that was his focus too--and not his relationships with other people. He was entirely focused on his relationship with his mom and what she was giving him. It seemed to me to become a very selfish experience. I thought she should have helped him to see the bigger picture since he seemed unable to see it on his own.

I wouldn't describe that as "relationship-centered" at all. I'd call it "child-centered." One reason I prefer to say "relationship-centered" (when I have to say anything at all) is deliberately as a way to break out of child- v. parent-centered. A relationship-centered response to the kind of situation you're describing, where one person is getting what he wants while nobody else's needs or wishes are being addressed at all, would try to take everyone into account, perhaps not equally (kids are less able to "give" than parents are, some kids are less able to "give" than others) but certainly nobody's meter should drop to zero while somebody else's is humming away at 100%.

There's not just one person in any relationship, so it doesn't make sense to me to say "this is focusing on the relationship" when it's really focusing on one person only.

I have a kid who, when he was younger, had a lot of trouble with transitions. It could be very hard for him to leave home to go to the beach, and then just as hard to leave the beach. Once or twice I turned down offers to ride together with other families precisely so that _I_ could help him with that transition--which could take a very long time--without inconveniencing the other people in our group.

Su, mom to Eric, 8; Carl, 6; Yehva, 2.5
tapeflags.blogspot.com

Jenny Cyphers

***The mom was unwilling to say anything remotely like, "Hey, there are other people waiting and they would really like to go now," because she didn't want to "coerce" him.***

As the other mom there, I would've said something to the kid. Just the other day, Margaux and I were at a birthday party for a one yr old. We'd gotten a ride with the baby and his parents. Margaux was stalling when it was time to go. I told her that it was time to go and that we'd like to leave and have a pleasant good bye at the park. I waited until she was done with that one last thing, I stood there and made sure it was the one last thing and then we went over to a water fountain and washed off. She was still stalling, so the driver politely told her that if we didn't hurry it up, we'd likely be driving with a crying baby in the car because it was getting very near dinner time. That sped her up. It was a combination of me saying it and someone else saying it.

She could've made it a power struggle. I could've made it one. I could've let her play and ignore our ride, but that would've been rude.





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

JoyErin

-=-It seemed to me to become a very selfish experience. I thought she
should have helped him to see the bigger picture since he seemed
unable to see it on his own.-=-

-= It seems that would be part of a partnership. If one partner loses,
If I was that mother and found myself in that situation with my son when he
was 9 I don't think people would hear me say anything to my son about the
others wanting to go and keeping them waiting. I'd talk about it later but
more than likely not right then.


Joy K.





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

Joanna

--- In [email protected], "JoyErin" <joyerin@...> wrote:
>
> -=-It seemed to me to become a very selfish experience. I thought she
> should have helped him to see the bigger picture since he seemed
> unable to see it on his own.-=-
>
> -= It seems that would be part of a partnership. If one partner loses,
> If I was that mother and found myself in that situation with my son when he
> was 9 I don't think people would hear me say anything to my son about the
> others wanting to go and keeping them waiting. I'd talk about it later but
> more than likely not right then.

Well, I don't actually know what was said, because they were on the beach together for about 1/2 an hour while we were waiting at the car. They had privacy, though, to have whatever conversation she deemed appropriate. I'm guessing that it didn't sound like that because they didn't show up for so long.

Joanna

Pam Sorooshian

>
> Well, I don't actually know what was said, because they were on the
> beach together for about 1/2 an hour while we were waiting at the car.
> They had privacy, though, to have whatever conversation she deemed
> appropriate. I'm guessing that it didn't sound like that because they
> didn't show up for so long.

I missed whether or not she apologized profusely?

I mean - I'm likely to be understanding of being imposed on by the need
to deal with a child's quirks or issues when I know the parent is
actually aware that I'm being imposed on and is working on the problem.
She may have been avoiding imposing a complete and total crazed meltdown
on you in the car on the way home, for example, figuring making you wait
was the better of two difficult choices.

Having had a kid who was easily frustrated and explosive, there were
definitely times that others waited for me to take time to help her
become calm and centered enough that we could move on without risk of
her falling apart at an even more inopportune time (driving down the
freeway in heavy traffic with her the back seat of the car with other
kids, for example). The more I rushed it, feeling pressured because
others were waiting, the worse things would end up. "I" knew that taking
time at the front end would make for a much smoother rest of the time. I
would apologize a LOT, though, and would avoid getting into situations
where we imposed on others, except for a few close friends who were
super understanding (and who had their own child issues and I was
patient with them, too).

-pam

Joanna

--- In [email protected], Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Well, I don't actually know what was said, because they were on the
> > beach together for about 1/2 an hour while we were waiting at the car.
> > They had privacy, though, to have whatever conversation she deemed
> > appropriate. I'm guessing that it didn't sound like that because they
> > didn't show up for so long.
>
> I missed whether or not she apologized profusely?
>
No--not really. I think it was expected that we all give him the space to be ready. That's probably what rankled the most--the expectation that we all (with my own young and impatient child) be willing to do whatever it took.

Joanna