Laura Flynn Endres

>>>>>
I wrote: Many people think homeschooling and especially unschooling should be illegal, and this just fans the flames. I'm all for someone >>making money doing what they love, so long as it doesn't sell the rest of us down the river.

Kelly wrote: The more normalized it becomes the more accepting people will eventually be. I'm sure there were a lot of gay/lesbian folks who were upset by gay pride parades...and were happy just pretending they were doing what everyone else was doing.
>>>>>>


The analogy doesn't work. Gay and lesbian advocates are fighting FOR rights, and when going public with their outcry, no one else's rights are threatened. They can only GAIN legal rights they don't have.

I HAVE the legal right to homeschool, and by fanning the flames of society's fears about it, those rights can be challenged, threatened, taken away.

As Rebecca said, "Homeschoolers have gained a lot of ground in years past and it would be sad to have those gains jeopardized by unnecessary media attention now."

Awareness of unschooling IS spreading. More and more people ARE finding unschooling and ARE drawn to its ideas. All without unnecessary media attention that largely does more harm than good.

Laura



*~*~*~*~*
"Keep company with those who make you better." ~ English saying
*~*~*~*~*
www.piscesgrrrl.blogspot.com
*~*~*~*~*

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

diana jenner

On Sat, Jun 5, 2010 at 5:35 PM, Laura Flynn Endres
<piscesgrrl@...>wrote:

>
>
> >>>>>
> I wrote: Many people think homeschooling and especially unschooling should
> be illegal, and this just fans the flames. I'm all for someone >>making
> money doing what they love, so long as it doesn't sell the rest of us down
> the river.
>
> Kelly wrote: The more normalized it becomes the more accepting people will
> eventually be. I'm sure there were a lot of gay/lesbian folks who were upset
> by gay pride parades...and were happy just pretending they were doing what
> everyone else was doing.
> >>>>>>
>
> The analogy doesn't work. Gay and lesbian advocates are fighting FOR
> rights, and when going public with their outcry, no one else's rights are
> threatened. They can only GAIN legal rights they don't have.
>


It works if you consider gay folks have rights, as long as they're not
honest about details; the same way we have the right to homeschool, as long
as we're not honest about unschooling.


~diana :)
xoxoxoxo
hannahbearski.wordpress.com
hannahsashes.blogspot.com


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

Laura Flynn Endres

>>>>>>>>
Jenny Cyphers wrote:
Right, and establishing yourself as an authority on something really puts you in a position of needing to defend yourself and your position. Defensiveness isn't conducive to positive growth, in my experience.

It took me a long time to be able to articulate with certainty of what I know. I still waiver on ideas and problem solving, because, really I'm a human and humans make mistakes, even if I feel absolutely certain that I'm right about something IN THAT MOMENT!
I wouldn't want to be right about something for someone else and find out later I was wrong and be responsible for that. I'm ok with it for myself though!
>>>>>>>>


I was just talking about this sort of thing with a friend at the LiG conference, about how I cycle through different stages and even though new ideas and awareness seem like the "this is IT!" moment, after a while, when the newness wears off, I'm better able to see what is worth keeping, add it to my repertoire, and then I'm calmer about it, less high in that "all-knowing" way that, for me, accompanies new insights. And there's always more learning to come, new awareness, new insights. So I agree that becoming an authority, or making money as an unschooling advocate or expert, seems to preclude new growth.




>>>>>>>>
Joyce wrote:
2) It's very very difficult to explain unschooling to those who've
never heard of it before so that doesn't sound like neglect,
>>>>>>>>


That's a very important point. We sometimes talk about developing our 'elevator speech' to describe unschooling to the curious, but we don't ever assume we'll bring those people to an understanding of unschooling in just those few moments. While some people get it sooner than others, for most, applying unschooling principles is an on-going evolution. It can take years. Many years. Why would we expect that anyone seeing a strongly biased 5 minute segment in the national media will actually understand it much less respect it? Again, it's not worth the negative liability to reach the possible few who might be drawn to unschooling.




>>>>>>>>>>
Robin wrote:
I am not hiding in any shadows, I am
choosing to live my life focusing on my relationships with my husband and children instead on focusing that
energy outward. I have no duty to the unaware public, just to keeping
my family happy and relatively stress-free.
>>>>>>>>>>>>

This reminds me of when I was leaving the teaching profession, and people kept saying that the system needed people like me to work on change from the inside. That may be true, but I was not willing to lose my kids to the system's failings in the meantime, while I labored, likely unsuccessfully, to enact any sort of philosophical or practical change.


<<<<<<
Rebecca wrote:
There are venues (magazines, websites, interviews) where people can share about unschooling and what is shared is truly representative of what it is (or, at least, what the original source thinks it is).
>>>>>>>


Whenever I speak or write, I always consider "who is my audience?" My message changes if I'm talking to homeschoolers instead of unschoolers. The message I gave when speaking to my UU Church was different from the message I gave to a local peace and justice group and was even more different when I spoke at the recent Life is Good conference - each time about unschooling. You meet the audience where you believe they are, based upon your research. When the audience is as diverse as GMA's viewing audience, it's nearly impossible to craft a message that will speak to most viewers.

Those who are seeking something different will inevitably find us, I think. Thanks to the internet, we're just a short search away.



Laura



*~*~*~*~*
"Keep company with those who make you better." ~ English saying
*~*~*~*~*
www.piscesgrrrl.blogspot.com
*~*~*~*~*

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

k

> One person wrote: The more normalized it becomes the more accepting people
will
> eventually be. I'm sure there were a lot of gay/lesbian folks who were
upset
> by gay pride parades...and were happy just pretending they were doing what
> everyone else was doing.
> >>>>>>
>
> Someone replied: The analogy doesn't work. Gay and lesbian advocates are
fighting FOR
> rights, and when going public with their outcry, no one else's rights are
> threatened. They can only GAIN legal rights they don't have.

>>>>Diana responded: It works if you consider gay folks have rights, as long
as they're not honest about details; the same way we have the right to
homeschool, as long as we're not honest about unschooling.<<<<

There's honest, and then there's TOO honest.

My comment is in reply to other's comments that unschooling supposedly isn't
legal. I want to point out that unschooling IS legal in the U.S. as are gay
rights. It's homeschooling and is protected under the same laws that protect
homeschooling.

That doesn't mean gay rights and/or unschooling are respected. As Diana
says, unschoolers could be wise about how they inform others of their
unschooling. Lots of people get very hot under the collar about unschooling.
It's wise to know that people who don't respect unschooling can be
problematic. They have posed legal difficulties in the past for some
unschoolers in terms of things like reports to CPS for neglect or abuse.

And in those cases it's good to know that you can refer to what you're doing
as homeschooling rather than bring attention to something that's odd to most
people, the details of unschooling. I don't have a ton of community support
for unschooling. So I know it's good to fly out of range from most people's
radar. My relatives know but I don't talk much about it because they don't
want to know much. They support me and my decision about how I'm
homeschooling Karl but don't find the details about unschooling.

~Katherine


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

k

That last sentence got cut off:

It should be "They support me and my decision about how I'm homeschooling
Karl but don't find the details about unschooling fascinating."

~Katherine




On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 11:30 PM, k <katherand@...> wrote:

> > One person wrote: The more normalized it becomes the more accepting
> people will
>
> > eventually be. I'm sure there were a lot of gay/lesbian folks who were
> upset
> > by gay pride parades...and were happy just pretending they were doing
> what
> > everyone else was doing.
> > >>>>>>
> >
> > Someone replied: The analogy doesn't work. Gay and lesbian advocates are
> fighting FOR
>
> > rights, and when going public with their outcry, no one else's rights are
> > threatened. They can only GAIN legal rights they don't have.
>
> >>>>Diana responded: It works if you consider gay folks have rights, as
> long as they're not honest about details; the same way we have the right to
> homeschool, as long as we're not honest about unschooling.<<<<
>
> There's honest, and then there's TOO honest.
>
> My comment is in reply to other's comments that unschooling supposedly
> isn't legal. I want to point out that unschooling IS legal in the U.S. as
> are gay rights. It's homeschooling and is protected under the same laws that
> protect homeschooling.
>
> That doesn't mean gay rights and/or unschooling are respected. As Diana
> says, unschoolers could be wise about how they inform others of their
> unschooling. Lots of people get very hot under the collar about unschooling.
> It's wise to know that people who don't respect unschooling can be
> problematic. They have posed legal difficulties in the past for some
> unschoolers in terms of things like reports to CPS for neglect or abuse.
>
> And in those cases it's good to know that you can refer to what you're
> doing as homeschooling rather than bring attention to something that's odd
> to most people, the details of unschooling. I don't have a ton of community
> support for unschooling. So I know it's good to fly out of range from most
> people's radar. My relatives know but I don't talk much about it because
> they don't want to know much. They support me and my decision about how I'm
> homeschooling Karl but don't find the details about unschooling.
>
> ~Katherine
>
>


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

keetry

==I want to point out that unschooling IS legal in the U.S.==

In every state? What about states that require standardized testing and/or umbrella schools without any alternatives? Doesn't that sort of make unschooling illegal because it requires testing and/or the production of "work", which is contrary to unschooling?

I'm just curious because I've homeschooled in 2 different states so far and the laws for each are very different. One state gave several options for showing progress in your child. One of those options was to submit a written summary of everything the child did for that school year. I can see that as very easily fitting into unschooling without disturbing the flow. The other state requires annual standardized tests with no alternatives. No matter what else you do, you must administer a nationally standardized test to your child every year. If you can't provide a copy of that completed and graded test, you could lose your right to homeschool. Doesn't that, in a sense, make unschooling illegal since you can't decline administering the test?

Alysia

Jenny Cyphers

***In every state? What about states that require standardized testing and/or umbrella schools without any alternatives? Doesn't that sort of make unschooling illegal because it requires testing and/or the production of "work", which is contrary to unschooling?***

Testing doesn't prove natural learning. Natural learning doesn't exempt someone from the law. There are a few required tests where I live. We stayed under the radar for a long time. My oldest has never taken one, it was a gamble I was willing to take. The penalty was to take the test and or pay $150. She missed 3 tests, each of which would've cost at least $25 a piece.

This is why people should know their laws inside and out and find ways to comply with them or be comfortable with non-compliance. If I lived in a high regulation state, I'd find a way to comply, with as little child involvement as possible.

Kids in school are told they must take tests and are measured by their outcome. Unschooled kids, even when they must take tests, need not be measured by their outcome. A parent need not ever look at the test results.

Which brings me to the reason that my oldest is now compliant... In our state, in order to get a driver's permit, one must get approval from the school or the service district, so homeschoolers must also get permission from the service district and must be compliant with the laws to do so. Maybe that's a bit to locally off topic, BUT kids will do what they need to do to get what they want, even to take a test to take a test. (take required school test to take required driver's permit test)

The laws are about homeschooling, not about unschooling. Many homeschoolers actively work to keep the laws in check and actively work to lessen the requirements and the regulations for all homeschoolers, unschooling ones included.

It's a parent's job to buffer their kids from damage. Testing doesn't need to be damaging. No weight needs to be put on it. http://sandradodd.com/testing/tests





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

Su Penn

On Jun 7, 2010, at 3:10 PM, Jenny Cyphers wrote:

> This is why people should know their laws inside and out and find ways to comply with them or be comfortable with non-compliance. If I lived in a high regulation state, I'd find a way to comply, with as little child involvement as possible.

I loved the story a mom told on one of the unschooling lists a few years ago...her state required testing of, say, 1st and 4th graders, and her way of getting around that was that she never had a first or fourth grader. Sadly, none of her children were prepared to move on after third grade, but after a second year in third grade, had done so well that they could skip right to fifth grade. I thought that was both clever and bold. I suppose someone paying close attention year-by-year might have caught on, but it worked out for her and her family--probably some bureaucrat was happy to just file the papers she sent every year and leave it at that.

Su, mom to Eric, 9; Carl, 6; Yehva, 2.5
tapeflags.blogspot.com

Pam Sorooshian

On 6/6/2010 12:04 PM, diana jenner wrote:
> It works if you consider gay folks have rights, as long as they're not
> honest about details; the same way we have the right to homeschool, as
> long
> as we're not honest about unschooling.

I agree. I'm not advocating hiding or being dishonest. I'm advocating
being MORE honest, more clear, better at explaining unschooling in ways
that don't just sound like we're neglectful and crazy.

Somebody is going to do it. The tv stations will decide who to use and
it will often, thankfully not always, be the family that makes
unschooling look the most dangerous or ridiculous because that will make
better tv. Those of us who are willing to do it should be talking about
how to do it better, not just going on and on about how great it was or
blaming the media for it looking bad.

=pam





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

Kelly Halldorson

===================
Pam wrote:

I agree. I'm not advocating hiding or being dishonest. I'm advocating
being MORE honest, more clear, better at explaining unschooling in ways
that don't just sound like we're neglectful and crazy.

Somebody is going to do it. The tv stations will decide who to use and
it will often, thankfully not always, be the family that makes
unschooling look the most dangerous or ridiculous because that will make
better tv. Those of us who are willing to do it should be talking about
how to do it better, not just going on and on about how great it was or
blaming the media for it looking bad.

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


I couldn't agree more....

peace,
Kelly

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




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

k

Here's something for comparison. It was a short youtube video series.

Former president Clinton was being interviewed during the Bush
administration on FOX Network by Chris Wallace, a very tough
interviewer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DI7u-TytRU and then two
more videos follow, part 2 and 3). What struck me is that Clinton is
incredibly media savvy. He totally expected the big bad question(s)
and he was ready. Wallace tried his best to derail Clinton on several
occasions. Clinton challenged Wallace and anyone listening to read
Clark's book to get more informed on Clinton's viewpoint.

It seems to take quite a lot of whatever it is that Clinton has get
one's message through. AND on top of that, unschooling is not a
one-shot explanation kind of thing either.

Probably no matter which unschooler is in the hot seat, challenging
the audience to read a book to get more informed of one's viewpoint or
philosophy leads people to think the unschooler is there to sell
books. I doubt anyone thinks Clinton mentioned Clark's book for that
reason.

~Katherine

Sandra Dodd

-=-My comment is in reply to other's comments that unschooling
supposedly isn't
legal. I want to point out that unschooling IS legal in the U.S. as
are gay
rights. It's homeschooling and is protected under the same laws that
protect
homeschooling.-=-

Unschooling is not "protected" by any laws. In states where the laws
are strictly stated, each individual unschooling family needs to
understand unschooling well enough to be confident enough to defend
it. Some states' laws are pretty specific about subject matter and
"instruction."

Conscious, careful unschooling can overcome that. Cavalier,
irresponsible unschooling would violate the law in some states.

This list isn't for the support of "whatever," but of high-quality
unschooling.

-=- Lots of people get very hot under the collar about unschooling.
It's wise to know that people who don't respect unschooling can be
problematic.-=-

Yes, and encouraging people to think unschooling itself is protected
by law can be a problem, too.
Unschooling IS homeschooling. It's not "school at home," but anytime
someone says 'not homeschooling, UNschooling' I cringe. Or when they
say "unschooling isn't a method of homeschooling," I cringe. It IS.
That's not all it is, but if the choice is school or homeschooling,
we're the homeschoolers.

Sandra



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

Kelly Halldorson

==>Unschooling is not "protected" by any laws. In states where the laws
are strictly stated, each individual unschooling family needs to
understand unschooling well enough to be confident enough to defend
it. Some states' laws are pretty specific about subject matter and
"instruction."<==

Really, my point exactly...you just said it MUCH better and more clear than I did.

==>Conscious, careful unschooling can overcome that. <==

I disagree. If the subject matter and instruction is very specific it cannot be *overcome* it can be worked around, avoided, manipulated etc...which is what many people do. But some state laws are very specific.

==>Cavalier,
irresponsible unschooling would violate the law in some states.<==

Cavalier, irresponsible unschooling would violate more than homeschooling laws in *most* states.

==>This list isn't for the support of "whatever," but of high-quality
unschooling.<==

And I think it does an amazing job. Thank-you for this list.

==>encouraging people to think unschooling itself is protected
by law can be a problem, too.<==

Absolutely.

==>Unschooling IS homeschooling. It's not "school at home," but anytime
someone says 'not homeschooling, UNschooling' I cringe. Or when they
say "unschooling isn't a method of homeschooling," I cringe. It IS.
That's not all it is, but if the choice is school or homeschooling,
we're the homeschoolers.<==

I like to say we homeschool but more specifically we unschool.

Peace,
Kelly


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

k

The way I phrased it there does sound like the statements "unschooling
equals homeschooling" and "unschooling is homeschooling" are the same.
I don't think lawyers and judges would see unschooling as equal to
homeschooling at all but rather as a subset of homeschooling.

Probably no law protects anything really. Does it even protect "school
at home" enough to prevent court ordered school attendance? I'm not
sure. I don't have that knowledge. I definitely think unschooling has
very little if any defense in court which is why care and attention to
learning are so important.

On 6/7/10, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> -=-My comment is in reply to other's comments that unschooling
> supposedly isn't
> legal. I want to point out that unschooling IS legal in the U.S. as
> are gay
> rights. It's homeschooling and is protected under the same laws that
> protect
> homeschooling.-=-
>
> Unschooling is not "protected" by any laws. In states where the laws
> are strictly stated, each individual unschooling family needs to
> understand unschooling well enough to be confident enough to defend
> it. Some states' laws are pretty specific about subject matter and
> "instruction."
>
> Conscious, careful unschooling can overcome that. Cavalier,
> irresponsible unschooling would violate the law in some states.
>
> This list isn't for the support of "whatever," but of high-quality
> unschooling.
>
> -=- Lots of people get very hot under the collar about unschooling.
> It's wise to know that people who don't respect unschooling can be
> problematic.-=-
>
> Yes, and encouraging people to think unschooling itself is protected
> by law can be a problem, too.
> Unschooling IS homeschooling. It's not "school at home," but anytime
> someone says 'not homeschooling, UNschooling' I cringe. Or when they
> say "unschooling isn't a method of homeschooling," I cringe. It IS.
> That's not all it is, but if the choice is school or homeschooling,
> we're the homeschoolers.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Sandra Dodd

-=-==>Conscious, careful unschooling can overcome that. <==

I disagree. If the subject matter and instruction is very specific it
cannot be *overcome* it can be worked around, avoided, manipulated
etc...which is what many people do. But some state laws are very
specific.-=-

Because I learned this "method of instruction" in college as "the open
classroom," I would be able to describe what we do in terms of
instruction in subjects if I needed to. If they said "what about
chemistry," I could give examples of practical application and
discussion in English, but as to lab work and formulas and memorizing
elements and valences, that isn't required by New Mexico state law.

I know about New Mexico. And that's not what this list is about.
This list is about helping people understand "the open classroom"-
style learning and facilitation well enough that they can fulfill
state laws, or work around them, or fulfill them creatively (which is
not a crime at all in any field).

IF someone lives in a place where unschooling is illegal, then they
can either comply with the law or dodge the law. If they want to
avoid local tests, they can dodge or hide or take the risk of non-
compliance. But that's not the topic of this list either really,
except in very general terms.

Laws don't change how learning works.

I'm also not interested in encouraging or defending people whose
unschooling is fully reactionary, who will avoid what the parents
think might be construed as "educational" because it reminds the
parents of school. If the parents have personal trauma, they need to
get over it.

Living as school didn't exist doesn't mean living as though music,
literature, science and geography don't exist.

Some people go too far.

Sandra




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

Sandra Dodd

-=-I don't think lawyers and judges would see unschooling as equal to
homeschooling at all but rather as a subset of homeschooling.-=-

It is a way to homeschool.

-=-Probably no law protects anything really. Does it even protect
"school
at home" enough to prevent court ordered school attendance? -=-

Easily.
Because people who buy a curriculum have a receipt to show which
proves intent to follow a $700 or $900 plan created by professionals.
They're attempting in good faith to reproduce school at home. They're
doing tests and book reports and all the things so many people believe
causes and proves learning.

-=-I definitely think unschooling has
very little if any defense in court which is why care and attention to
learning are so important.-=-

FIRST, even if courts didn't exist, learning is important.
Even if schools had never existed, people like to learn, and need to
learn, and grow bigger, better, brighter and more fun from learning.

I hope there's not anyone reading here who is so carts-before-horses
that they're thinking learning happens because of laws or because of
schools. That's an awkward (awkward-to-impossible) starting place
for unschooling.

Sandra

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

Sandra Dodd

-=-Doesn't that sort of make unschooling illegal because it requires
testing and/or the production of "work", which is contrary to
unschooling?-=-

Laws trump theory.

"Contrary to unschooling" is a strong thing to say. There are ways to
take/avoid/disregard tests. There are ways to produce proof of
learning that aren't "work." People do it all the time in
Pennsylvania, so when someone is in a state with requirements of
portfolio or testing or whatever, they can check with locals to see
what they're doing.

If my choice was unschooling with inconveniences or having to send
kids to school because I was more interested in bucking the system
than helping my kids learn, I would go with the testing or portfolio
rather than risk getting into enough trouble that a judge made
decisions for my children.

There is "contrary to ideal unschooling," maybe, but unschooling has
way fewer "rules" than some jurisdictions do.

Sandra

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

keetry

== Testing doesn't prove natural learning. Natural learning doesn't exempt someone from the law.==

Yes, I know. In my opinion, testing rarely proves any kind of learning. It just proves that one is either a good test taker or has memorized information in order to answer test questions. (Maybe those are essentially the same thing.) But if one is required to show proof of learning to the state through test scores and/or paperwork done by the children, one can't just say, "Oh, we unschool so we don't do that." The state will not accept that answer and either require that the work be done or the child(ren) be sent to school. Seems to me that, in essence, makes unschooling illegal.

== It's a parent's job to buffer their kids from damage. Testing doesn't need to be damaging. No weight needs to be put on it.==

I agree that it can help if the parents don't put any weight on the test scores but that doesn't mean the state won't. The state could require school attendance if the children consistently score poorly on those tests. The state could place the blame for those low test scores on unschooling regardless of whether or not it makes sense.

I don't know how likely it is for an unschooled child to score so poorly on a test that they would be required to attend school. I haven't had to administer a test to my unschooled children yet. In light of the recent publicity (and that's what it is rather than advertising), I'd be concerned that unschoolers would be given less leeway than school-at-homers.

Alysia

Jenny Cyphers

***FIRST, even if courts didn't exist, learning is important.
Even if schools had never existed, people like to learn, and need to
learn, and grow bigger, better, brighter and more fun from learning.***

This is exactly why I objected to the idea that "history isn't important"! I don't think any unschooler in the media should ever say something like that, even if it's followed up with some positive way in which history can be learned naturally.

The other night we were flipping through channels on the TV. We don't have cable, Chamille was the one with the controller and Margaux and I were sitting together playing a Nancy Drew game on a laptop. Out of all the choices, Chamille stopped on a period piece on PBS, which was also a mystery. It's historical fiction at it's finest!

If someone came to my house, they wouldn't see history books sitting out, and research papers in the making. My book shelf has all kinds of books with history, Shakespeare, art, home decor, sewing fashion, astronomy, history of "insert various places or cultures", and other classic novels. If I felt history wasn't important, I'd likely have purged my bookshelf of many of those books to a goodwill box!

This is true of our music cabinet, which still has many vinyl collections, with no player to play them on. It also includes cd's of Bach and Mozart and many other historical musicians.

In my bathroom cabinet, under the sink, I have a really really old hair dryer that still works. The kids find it interesting, as they also find the old time hotel lobby phone sitting on my front desk by the front door, which also happens to be a piece of furniture from the art deco era with cherry veneer. If I want to get really specific, it's not even a desk, it's a vanity that used to have a mirror on it that was long gone by the time I acquired it. The drawers are different than a desk drawer from that era. Even desk drawers were smaller than nowadays desk drawers, so sometimes it's hard to tell, but I can.

Even watching TV, that is now digital, is a bit of history in the making. It's not a flat screen TV, it's a big old TV. We gave our neighbors our console TV. It still had a great picture, but was missing buttons, if something goes wrong with that TV, they can go talk to one of our neighbors that collects old tubes of all kinds. His house is almost entirely devoted to them!

I could go on and on here, but the idea that history isn't important is a wrong one to put out there! Learning is the very fabric of our lives! NOTHING is exempt from that, especially not something as cool as history!





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

Robin Bentley

>
> I could go on and on here, but the idea that history isn't important
> is a wrong one to put out there! Learning is the very fabric of our
> lives! NOTHING is exempt from that, especially not something as
> cool as history!

And you've heard the George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the
past are condemned to repeat it."

The thing is, as Jenny has said, history is in the fabric of our lives
as unschoolers (or should be). There were so many better ways to say
that in the interview. That answer was the kind of thing that could be
debated with interest on a list such as this, but not left out in the
world, dangling. Sure, the school version of history that we might
remember, ie. the teaching and memorization of meaningless dates and
names and facts with no context, is something none of us think is
the way to learn history. But better to show the positive ways we *do*
learn about those things than say "history isn't important."

Only in a place with no history (which is where?) is history not
important.

Robin B.





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

Jenny Cyphers

***I don't know how likely it is for an unschooled child to score so poorly on a test that they would be required to attend school. I haven't had to administer a test to my unschooled children yet. In light of the recent publicity (and that's what it is rather than advertising), I'd be concerned that unschoolers would be given less leeway than school-at-homers.***

It's going to be different depending on where a person lives and what the laws are. Unschoolers aren't considered seperate from other homeschoolers in regards to the laws. They are either compliant or not, and either trying to be compliant or not. One's children may pass the tests or not, just like any other homeschooled kid. I've known homeschool kids who use curriculum and school at home methods that didn't pass state tests. It happens and it's not something to be afraid of.... it's JUST a test. I don't know all the laws everywhere, but most places have ways to retake the test if needed, or lower test standards, or other means of proving "homeschooling" that doesn't take away the right to homeschool.

It really isn't much of an issue, especially if people are really aware of their laws and how they work. If they aren't then they really need to talk to other people in their area to see how it's done and know how it works so that they don't raise the red flags!





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

Rebecca M.

--- In [email protected], Robin Bentley <robin.bentley@...> wrote:

> The thing is, as Jenny has said, history is in the fabric of our lives
> as unschoolers (or should be). There were so many better ways to say
> that in the interview. That answer was the kind of thing that could be
> debated with interest on a list such as this, but not left out in the
> world, dangling. Sure, the school version of history that we might
> remember, ie. the teaching and memorization of meaningless dates and
> names and facts with no context, is something none of us think is
> the way to learn history. But better to show the positive ways we *do*
> learn about those things than say "history isn't important."

I love history. I adore history. I can't help myself and I consider myself lucky because school didn't kill it for me (although it was a close call). Just because I'm not force-feeding my kid history doesn't mean that he isn't being exposed to it in hundreds of different ways. He's also a child who wanted to know all about ancient Egypt when he was quite small because he pulled a book off my husband's shelves that is full of ancient Egyptian art and symbols.

You know the weirdest thing about that interview, though, wrt to history? Is how history got linked into literature. It started with Henry James. Mark Twain. Shakespeare. I can appreciate that the works of these authors epitomize the attitudes and behaviours of a specific period in history (and can be construed as social commentary on some level), but then to tie it into history? It was just a weird moment... I thought.

Here's the bit from the transcript:

"What happens when the learning becomes more sophisticated and her kids need to be exposed to Shakespeare or Twain or Henry James?

""I think a lot of people might value that more than others. That that is important and it is part of someone's life. I honestly don't remember, yes, although I know their names, I don't remember the details of what I learned in school about the historians," Martin said."

Of course, in the real interview, Juju says (in between those two statements), "How can you teach them the great works or the great historians if you can't get them to sit down and learn?", so it annoys me a little they left that out of the transcript as it makes it look like Dana doesn't know the difference between Shakespeare and a historian.

- Rebecca

Jenny Cyphers

***Of course, in the real interview, Juju says (in between those two statements), "How can you teach them the great works or the great historians if you can't get them to sit down and learn?", so it annoys me a little they left that out of the transcript as it makes it look like Dana doesn't know the difference between Shakespeare and a historian. ***

Right, that was a yucky edit, made worse by also saying that history isn't important. I also wondered about her use of "historian". As if one needs to know who historians are to know history? That was a weird moment for me too! Everything got twisted around in editing. So, even if Dayna had said all the right things in just the right way, it surely would've been edited to sound weird anyway.

I have a running audience in my head to keep my thoughts more clear... Prominent unschooling voices that I've been reading for years, my mom and my sister, my dad, my husband, my children, and a couple of very traditional parents who I love and a couple of traditional parents who I have zero respect for. Almost everything I write is geared to that audience in some way or another even if they all aren't my actual audience! I don't really have an audience anyway, other than the one in my head and whoever happens to be out there reading!





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

Robin Bentley

>
> Here's the bit from the transcript:
>
> "What happens when the learning becomes more sophisticated and her
> kids need to be exposed to Shakespeare or Twain or Henry James?
>
> ""I think a lot of people might value that more than others. That
> that is important and it is part of someone's life. I honestly don't
> remember, yes, although I know their names, I don't remember the
> details of what I learned in school about the historians," Martin
> said."
>
> Of course, in the real interview, Juju says (in between those two
> statements), "How can you teach them the great works or the great
> historians if you can't get them to sit down and learn?", so it
> annoys me a little they left that out of the transcript as it makes
> it look like Dana doesn't know the difference between Shakespeare
> and a historian.
>
So, that would have been an opportunity to link them! History *can* be
learned from Shakespeare in that he reflected a particular time in
history through his plays. Seeing Shakespeare's plays (which I prefer
to just reading them) can lead to learning about the Elizabethan age,
the Tudors, Danish princes, Italy, moneylenders, and so much more.
Then there's language arts, geography, comparative religion,
architecture (Globe Theatre), theatre and movies (staging plays, who
groundlings are, lighting, production, casting, cost) which can lead
to...everything in the whole wide world!!!

Just throwing out a "subject" with the school bathwater (to borrow
from Sandra's post) isn't helping people understand how and why and
where and when kids learn and how knowledge can be connected. I think
we shouldn't give the impression that nothing is important or
interesting to know. Talking about unschooling in public should be
*more* than just what you and your kids are interested in or do. It
should be about learning and how that *can* happen for anyone.

Robin B.

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

Robin Bentley

Oh, I meant to link Sandra's Shakespeare page:

http://sandradodd.com/shakespeare/

Robin B.

>>
> So, that would have been an opportunity to link them! History *can* be
> learned from Shakespeare in that he reflected a particular time in
> history through his plays. Seeing Shakespeare's plays (which I prefer
> to just reading them) can lead to learning about the Elizabethan age,
> the Tudors, Danish princes, Italy, moneylenders, and so much more.
> Then there's language arts, geography, comparative religion,
> architecture (Globe Theatre), theatre and movies (staging plays, who
> groundlings are, lighting, production, casting, cost) which can lead
> to...everything in the whole wide world!!!



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

Rebecca M.

--- Robin B. wrote:
>** Talking about unschooling in public should be
> *more* than just what you and your kids are interested in or do. It
> should be about learning and how that *can* happen for anyone.**

Yes! Yes! Yes!

(And I agree with you about Shakespeare... we go to Bard on the Beach every summer - for the comedies!)

And here's the lead-in: ""How can you teach them the great works or the great historians if you can't get them to sit down and learn?"

That was such an opportunity... and I can understand how it got missed. We all have those "I should have said" moments after times like this... but I would have loved to see this turned around.

"if you can't get them to sit down and learn"... why is learning about sitting down? Why is it about coercion? Why does it "have" to be like that? Who says? How do people really learn? And what are some fun ways to learn about history and the classics (I'm keen on the BBC myself)?

Of course, if that statement had been answered like that, it would have been edited out of the piece, but it shows that Juju still does not understand how learning happens - for anyone, let alone unschoolers.

- Rebecca

Robin Bentley

Oh, and this one...

http://sandradodd.com/strew/shakespeare

Two connections from Kenneth Branagh's Much Ado About Nothing: lead
actor is Dr. Wilson on one of my favorite TV shows, House. Hugh
Laurie, who plays House, became one of my favorite actors when I first
saw him in "Blackadder" with Rowan Atkinson. "Blackadder" is
historical comedy!

A more personal one, too: my nephew got married in Tuscany last year
around this time. When asked about the location, I would say,
"Remember the wedding scene in "Much Ado About Nothing"? Kinda like
that!"

So that's family history...

Robin B.


On Jun 8, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Robin Bentley wrote:

> Oh, I meant to link Sandra's Shakespeare page:
>
> http://sandradodd.com/shakespeare/
>

Rebecca M.

> http://sandradodd.com/shakespeare/

Excellent - I love it. Thanks for passing it along.

I have to share that my very favourite modernization of Shakespeare is BBC's Shakespeare Retold. The Taming of the Shrew is fantastic (and a bit twisted... there are fishnet stockings and "Kate" is not wearing them), with Shirley Henderson (Moaning Myrtle) and Rufus Sewell as the main players. Also, there is a new Hamlet on my wishlist... with David Tennant in the title role.

And we have several of Marcia Williams' comic-style books - two on Shakespeare, one on the Greek myths, one on inventors, Dickens, Homer, Chaucer, King Arthur, etc. They are a fun way for kids to just dip their toes into things in a way that may whet an appetite or two.

And history will never be the same now that the Horrible Histories are on the scene. (And Horrible Science is pretty interesting, too.)

There are so many great resources out there we can strew about these things... as long as we are not allergic to them ourselves.

- Rebecca

k

>>>There are so many great resources out there we can strew about these
things... as long as we are not allergic to them ourselves.<<<

I haven't been incredibly allergic to a lot of areas of knowledge but I'm
less allergic than I used to be. We had an awful coach teaching physical
science in high school I think it was. The questions I asked were returned
with mockery. Now, in retrospect, I wonder if he really knew the subject
well enough to talk about it and maybe all he knew to do was assign chapters
and check papers and grade tests to the provided key. In hindsight, I doubt
he knew science. School might sometimes be all about assuming that the
teacher knows what they're talking about. But it definitely had me thrown at
the time. I thought I was too dumb to figure it out. Same thing with math
and anything PE!

Since coming across unschooling it's wonderful to know that I can go back
and get whatever I want. And not be allergic. It's helping me in all kinds
of ways. Karl actually watched the whole documentary on NOVA with me: What
Darwin Never Knew. I didn't think he would be that interested. He had it
connected up with Ben 10 and other things. I think it's so cool that we can
learn together and it's not really about me depositing info into the child's
head as a teacher... a much less interesting idea. Unschooling totally
rocks. It's fun and no one need pretend to know something they don't know.

~Katherine


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

k

Here's a way that I think testing is actually useful for learning.
http://katheande.blogspot.com/2009/09/testing-lifeblood-of-learning.html

~Katherine






On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:40 PM, keetry <keetry@...> wrote:

> == Testing doesn't prove natural learning. Natural learning doesn't exempt
> someone from the law.==
>
> Yes, I know. In my opinion, testing rarely proves any kind of learning. It
> just proves that one is either a good test taker or has memorized
> information in order to answer test questions. (Maybe those are essentially
> the same thing.) But if one is required to show proof of learning to the
> state through test scores and/or paperwork done by the children, one can't
> just say, "Oh, we unschool so we don't do that." The state will not accept
> that answer and either require that the work be done or the child(ren) be
> sent to school. Seems to me that, in essence, makes unschooling illegal.
>
> == It's a parent's job to buffer their kids from damage. Testing doesn't
> need to be damaging. No weight needs to be put on it.==
>
> I agree that it can help if the parents don't put any weight on the test
> scores but that doesn't mean the state won't. The state could require school
> attendance if the children consistently score poorly on those tests. The
> state could place the blame for those low test scores on unschooling
> regardless of whether or not it makes sense.
>
> I don't know how likely it is for an unschooled child to score so poorly on
> a test that they would be required to attend school. I haven't had to
> administer a test to my unschooled children yet. In light of the recent
> publicity (and that's what it is rather than advertising), I'd be concerned
> that unschoolers would be given less leeway than school-at-homers.
>
> Alysia
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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