Answering other questions
Sandra Dodd
Last weekend at the ALL Unschooling Symposium there was a panel of moderators from this group, talking about the problem that sometimes new members complain that we won't just answer their questions directly.
I'm being interviewed this afternoon, and in going through the exchange to remind myself what I'm supposed to be prepared to discuss, I found this and thought some parts of it might be of interest here. That's below.
Also, I thought maybe some people who were in Albuquerque for this symposium could tell what they took from that panel (or panelists might want to expand on something or summarize something).
--------------
-=-and honoring each member of my family as a free individual - free to decide how to spend time-=-
The term "free" is problematical and I'd rather you didn't use it because it could take 45 minutes to discuss the problems with the concept of "freedom."
But separate individual, whole individual, giving family members tons of choices, I can talk about that. Choices can be given. "Freedom" can't be. If you want to do another whole podcast about that someday, I'd be willing, but it might be better if you avoid asking me about " a freedom-based" anything. :-)
The rest of it is easily doable.
-=- There was something about a mom teaching her kids to read packaged foods - to see what's in it. And she says, "Mom, I'm gonna need to learn to read." -=-
Why can't the mom read to the child?
No child can learn to read before she's capable, and there are many things that need to be in place before reading can happen.
No child can keep from reading once all those skills are developed, *unless* she's been pressured and wasn't ready and has been told or decided she's "a non-reader."
Any talk of a mom teaching a child anything (reading or anything else) is going to lead me to this
http://sandradodd.com/wordswords
so if you want to stick with your other topics, avoid questions about teaching, too.
If you WANT to go to that, I'm willing.
___________________
The part about reading is really what reminded me of the panel and why we (as someone said--who said?) tend to answer the question we think the person SHOULD have asked. :-)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I'm being interviewed this afternoon, and in going through the exchange to remind myself what I'm supposed to be prepared to discuss, I found this and thought some parts of it might be of interest here. That's below.
Also, I thought maybe some people who were in Albuquerque for this symposium could tell what they took from that panel (or panelists might want to expand on something or summarize something).
--------------
-=-and honoring each member of my family as a free individual - free to decide how to spend time-=-
The term "free" is problematical and I'd rather you didn't use it because it could take 45 minutes to discuss the problems with the concept of "freedom."
But separate individual, whole individual, giving family members tons of choices, I can talk about that. Choices can be given. "Freedom" can't be. If you want to do another whole podcast about that someday, I'd be willing, but it might be better if you avoid asking me about " a freedom-based" anything. :-)
The rest of it is easily doable.
-=- There was something about a mom teaching her kids to read packaged foods - to see what's in it. And she says, "Mom, I'm gonna need to learn to read." -=-
Why can't the mom read to the child?
No child can learn to read before she's capable, and there are many things that need to be in place before reading can happen.
No child can keep from reading once all those skills are developed, *unless* she's been pressured and wasn't ready and has been told or decided she's "a non-reader."
Any talk of a mom teaching a child anything (reading or anything else) is going to lead me to this
http://sandradodd.com/wordswords
so if you want to stick with your other topics, avoid questions about teaching, too.
If you WANT to go to that, I'm willing.
___________________
The part about reading is really what reminded me of the panel and why we (as someone said--who said?) tend to answer the question we think the person SHOULD have asked. :-)
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
Rose told me that's what we do. I repeated it on the panel at ALL.
Example - Question: My child wants to learn to read, how can I help him
learn to read?
We don't give advice on how to help him learn to read, but we respond as if
she had asked:
My child wants to learn to read, how can I help him pursue his interests
until he is reading?
We talk about reading to him, reading for him, answering questions,
distracting him from not yet reading, protecting him from people who might
embarrass him for not reading, focusing on what he does do, etc.
-pam
Example - Question: My child wants to learn to read, how can I help him
learn to read?
We don't give advice on how to help him learn to read, but we respond as if
she had asked:
My child wants to learn to read, how can I help him pursue his interests
until he is reading?
We talk about reading to him, reading for him, answering questions,
distracting him from not yet reading, protecting him from people who might
embarrass him for not reading, focusing on what he does do, etc.
-pam
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...> wrote:
> The part about reading is really what reminded me of the panel and why we
> (as someone said--who said?) tend to answer the question we think the
> person SHOULD have asked. :-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Halldorson
<< My child wants to learn to read, how can I help him pursue his interest until he is reading? >>
Why wouldn't reading be considered an interest? Or am I misunderstanding?
What if a child wanted to learn how to hoop (fancy hula hooping)? Would we be talking about finding ways to distract the child from not knowing how to hoop yet, or pursuing interests despite not knowing how to hoop, protecting him from people who might embarrass him for not knowing how to hoop or hooping for him?
What if *reading* is the interest?
My kids all knew how to read when we started unschooling. So, I can't speak to unschooing nonreaders but I know as a kid *I* was obsessed with the written word and learned how to read before most of my peers. This was not necessarily because I was taught but because it was one of my biggest interests and had a strong desire to be like the adults that I was surrounded with. I was an only child with no young relatives. I felt like the written word was a secret language between adults and I didn't like the need for a translator. I wanted direct access to what felt like hidden information to me.
I quite sure I would have been frustrated and felt patronized if I came to my mother with a desire to learn to read and she tried to distract me or instead tried to support some other interest/s she thought was more of - well - an interest.
Kelly
Sent from my iPad
Why wouldn't reading be considered an interest? Or am I misunderstanding?
What if a child wanted to learn how to hoop (fancy hula hooping)? Would we be talking about finding ways to distract the child from not knowing how to hoop yet, or pursuing interests despite not knowing how to hoop, protecting him from people who might embarrass him for not knowing how to hoop or hooping for him?
What if *reading* is the interest?
My kids all knew how to read when we started unschooling. So, I can't speak to unschooing nonreaders but I know as a kid *I* was obsessed with the written word and learned how to read before most of my peers. This was not necessarily because I was taught but because it was one of my biggest interests and had a strong desire to be like the adults that I was surrounded with. I was an only child with no young relatives. I felt like the written word was a secret language between adults and I didn't like the need for a translator. I wanted direct access to what felt like hidden information to me.
I quite sure I would have been frustrated and felt patronized if I came to my mother with a desire to learn to read and she tried to distract me or instead tried to support some other interest/s she thought was more of - well - an interest.
Kelly
Sent from my iPad
On Jan 3, 2013, at 12:29 PM, Pam Sorooshian <pamsoroosh@...> wrote:
> Rose told me that's what we do. I repeated it on the panel at ALL.
>
> Example - Question: My child wants to learn to read, how can I help him
> learn to read?
>
> We don't give advice on how to help him learn to read, but we respond as if
> she had asked:
>
> My child wants to learn to read, how can I help him pursue his interests
> until he is reading?
>
> We talk about reading to him, reading for him, answering questions,
> distracting him from not yet reading, protecting him from people who might
> embarrass him for not reading, focusing on what he does do, etc.
>
> -pam
>
> On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Sandra Dodd Sandra@...> wrote:
>
> > The part about reading is really what reminded me of the panel and why we
> > (as someone said--who said?) tend to answer the question we think the
> > person SHOULD have asked. :-)
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
They are asking how to teach a child to read because the child wants to
read.
We aren't answering that question because "wanting" to read isn't the same
as being ready to learn, first, and because teaching isn't necessary if the
child actually is ready.
A child will learn to read naturally by living in a print-rich environment
with people who read for pleasure and for usefulness, who answer questions
sensitively, and help the child cheerfully when reading is needed.
-pam
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Kelly Halldorson
<unschoolbus42@...>wrote:
read.
We aren't answering that question because "wanting" to read isn't the same
as being ready to learn, first, and because teaching isn't necessary if the
child actually is ready.
A child will learn to read naturally by living in a print-rich environment
with people who read for pleasure and for usefulness, who answer questions
sensitively, and help the child cheerfully when reading is needed.
-pam
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Kelly Halldorson
<unschoolbus42@...>wrote:
> << My child wants to learn to read, how can I help him pursue his interest[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> until he is reading? >>
>
> Why wouldn't reading be considered an interest? Or am I misunderstanding?
>
Sandra Dodd
-=-Why wouldn't reading be considered an interest? Or am I misunderstanding?-=-
You're misunderstanding.
An interest in reading does not equal the ability to read.
When a child can read, the child DOES read.
When a child isn't ready to read, no amount of instruction can help. It can only hurt.
-=-What if a child wanted to learn how to hoop (fancy hula hooping)? Would we be talking about finding ways to distract the child from not knowing how to hoop yet, or pursuing interests despite not knowing how to hoop, protecting him from people who might embarrass him for not knowing how to hoop or hooping for him?-=-
If a child who was too young, or too uncoordinated, or too weak to hoop wanted to, maybe I would distract him or her, or find other ways to play with a hula hoop. Holly took care of a girl, fulltime, for a while, whose muscle tone was so lacking that she couldn't roll a ball. We cut plastic gallons of water with a sword at the Monkey Platter Festival. This girl could only swing the sword to touch the gallon. When Holly asked a speech therapist friend of ours for advice about the girls difficulty speaking clearly, the questions that came up (from Pushpa, in case any of you might want to consider speech therapy from an unschooling mom http://sandradodd.com/pushpa/ ) uncovered the connection in all of that.
-=-What if *reading* is the interest?-=-
Many children want to ride bicycles before they're ready to do it.
-=-So, I can't speak to unschooing nonreaders but ...-=-
-=-I quite sure I would have been frustrated and felt patronized if I came to my mother with a desire to learn to read and she tried to distract me or instead tried to support some other interest/s she thought was more of - well - an interest. -=-
We're talking about unschooling and unschooled kids who haven't yet learned, but who WILL learn, to read in their own natural and gradual (or kind of sudden) way, in the course of their unschooling.
http://sandradodd.com/reading
There are dozens of stories there, in some detail, of the ways in which unschoolers have learned to read.
Interest and desire aren't factors.
Instruction and pressure can kill the interest and desire, though. School does it all the time.
Unschoolers should NOT attempt to teach reading because a child has asked to learn to read, because they can do the same kind of damage school does, and in addition to that can harm the partnership/relationship between the parent and child.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
You're misunderstanding.
An interest in reading does not equal the ability to read.
When a child can read, the child DOES read.
When a child isn't ready to read, no amount of instruction can help. It can only hurt.
-=-What if a child wanted to learn how to hoop (fancy hula hooping)? Would we be talking about finding ways to distract the child from not knowing how to hoop yet, or pursuing interests despite not knowing how to hoop, protecting him from people who might embarrass him for not knowing how to hoop or hooping for him?-=-
If a child who was too young, or too uncoordinated, or too weak to hoop wanted to, maybe I would distract him or her, or find other ways to play with a hula hoop. Holly took care of a girl, fulltime, for a while, whose muscle tone was so lacking that she couldn't roll a ball. We cut plastic gallons of water with a sword at the Monkey Platter Festival. This girl could only swing the sword to touch the gallon. When Holly asked a speech therapist friend of ours for advice about the girls difficulty speaking clearly, the questions that came up (from Pushpa, in case any of you might want to consider speech therapy from an unschooling mom http://sandradodd.com/pushpa/ ) uncovered the connection in all of that.
-=-What if *reading* is the interest?-=-
Many children want to ride bicycles before they're ready to do it.
-=-So, I can't speak to unschooing nonreaders but ...-=-
-=-I quite sure I would have been frustrated and felt patronized if I came to my mother with a desire to learn to read and she tried to distract me or instead tried to support some other interest/s she thought was more of - well - an interest. -=-
We're talking about unschooling and unschooled kids who haven't yet learned, but who WILL learn, to read in their own natural and gradual (or kind of sudden) way, in the course of their unschooling.
http://sandradodd.com/reading
There are dozens of stories there, in some detail, of the ways in which unschoolers have learned to read.
Interest and desire aren't factors.
Instruction and pressure can kill the interest and desire, though. School does it all the time.
Unschoolers should NOT attempt to teach reading because a child has asked to learn to read, because they can do the same kind of damage school does, and in addition to that can harm the partnership/relationship between the parent and child.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Kelly Halldorson
<unschoolbus42@...>wrote:
to read," and mom would try to teach him/her before the child was
cognitively ready - leading to frustration and the child thinking she/he
was stupid (or being labeled as learning disabled)?
It doesn't matter how much a child wishes she could read - if she's not
developmentally ready then no amount of instruction will help and it can
hurt.
If a 5-year-old child wants to fly an airplane, we can find ways to support
that interest for a while until the child is ready (developmentally) to
realistically consider flying lessons. Wanting to fly doesn't make the kid
ready to learn.
Kids become ready to read at widely varying ages. But they often want to
read when they are not ready because their friends are being taught to read
in school and they're hearing about it. The teaching of reading in the
schools is a huge wasted effort and often damaging (probably the cause of a
lot of so-called learning disabilities). But the kids don't know that and
so they want to learn what their friends are learning. As they get older,
they can feel even more of that pressure. But that doesn't make them ready
to learn.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
<unschoolbus42@...>wrote:
> I quite sure I would have been frustrated and felt patronized if I came toYou'd rather that a kid would go to their mother and say, "I want to learn
> my mother with a desire to learn to read and she tried to distract me or
> instead tried to support some other interest/s she thought was more of -
> well - an interest.
>
to read," and mom would try to teach him/her before the child was
cognitively ready - leading to frustration and the child thinking she/he
was stupid (or being labeled as learning disabled)?
It doesn't matter how much a child wishes she could read - if she's not
developmentally ready then no amount of instruction will help and it can
hurt.
If a 5-year-old child wants to fly an airplane, we can find ways to support
that interest for a while until the child is ready (developmentally) to
realistically consider flying lessons. Wanting to fly doesn't make the kid
ready to learn.
Kids become ready to read at widely varying ages. But they often want to
read when they are not ready because their friends are being taught to read
in school and they're hearing about it. The teaching of reading in the
schools is a huge wasted effort and often damaging (probably the cause of a
lot of so-called learning disabilities). But the kids don't know that and
so they want to learn what their friends are learning. As they get older,
they can feel even more of that pressure. But that doesn't make them ready
to learn.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mrs Jones
>>>Interest and desire aren't factors.<<<
I desagree with this. Learning to read isn't different from learning anything else, in that a child can have a desire to acquire a specific skill, and be willing to study or receive instruction to obtain that skill. Why wouldn't it be like that?
I don't understand this viewpoint. It sounds very set in stone :)
Instruction isn't by definition causing damage. Unsollicited instruction is highly likely to, but that's something very different from help that is asked for. If my child asks for my help, even if that is "mom, teach me to read please", then I am not harming the partnership in any way, because I am invited to "teach" and as long as I don't take over the learning process and push it further or in another direction than what is asked for, then my child is still in charge of his learning project.
Not everything has to be learnt by osmosis/autodidact. Imo, formal instruction has it's place in unschooling too, as long as it is wanted. I sometimes get the feeling that you think learning "on your own" is somehow superior to receiving instruction. Is this so? Or is it mainly with regards to reading you feel this way?
Maria
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I desagree with this. Learning to read isn't different from learning anything else, in that a child can have a desire to acquire a specific skill, and be willing to study or receive instruction to obtain that skill. Why wouldn't it be like that?
>>>Unschoolers should NOT attempt to teach reading because a child has asked to learn to read, because they can do the same kind of damage school does, and in addition to that canharm the partnership/relationship between the parent and child.<<<
I don't understand this viewpoint. It sounds very set in stone :)
Instruction isn't by definition causing damage. Unsollicited instruction is highly likely to, but that's something very different from help that is asked for. If my child asks for my help, even if that is "mom, teach me to read please", then I am not harming the partnership in any way, because I am invited to "teach" and as long as I don't take over the learning process and push it further or in another direction than what is asked for, then my child is still in charge of his learning project.
Not everything has to be learnt by osmosis/autodidact. Imo, formal instruction has it's place in unschooling too, as long as it is wanted. I sometimes get the feeling that you think learning "on your own" is somehow superior to receiving instruction. Is this so? Or is it mainly with regards to reading you feel this way?
Maria
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mrs Jones
>>> because teaching isn't necessary if thechild actually is ready.<<<<
I obviously agree with this, but don't you think, that one can still decide to learn something one is not totally ready for? It might mean more work and a different approach, but that doesn't mean it is necessarily a bad idea or that the attempt will fail.
I have a friend whose son asked to learn to read (at around age 8). He wanted easy-readers and such from the library. So they worked with those. He really, really wanted to learn *now* because he was so frustrated that he didn't understand the foreign movies he was watching and couldn't read to catch the subtitles. He asked for formal instruction, and is happy as bunny now that he reads like a pro.
Maria
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
>><< My child wants to learn to read, how can I help him pursue his interest until he is reading? >>Why wouldn't reading be considered an interest? Or am I misunderstanding?
What if a child wanted to learn how to hoop (fancy hula hooping)? Would we be talking about finding ways to distract the child from not knowing how to hoop yet, or pursuing interests despite not knowing how to hoop, protecting him from people who might embarrass him for not knowing how to hoop or hooping for him?<<
-----------------
Hooping is a thing. Hooping is an end in itself. Reading is a tool. It's a means to an end. Reading is about deriving information from the environment. It isn't the same as wanting to go to a cosplay event or the same as loving kookaburras. It is more like wanting to drive. And while there are ways in which driving is an end, race car driving for example or derby car, and while there are ways to meet some of a desire to drive before you are of legal driving age, like going to bumper cars or building a box car, mostly driving is a means to an end. And end that can be met in lots of different ways. You can have a driver. You can take the bus. You can walk. You can bike. Reading is more like that. You can have a reader. You can explore the world with other cues. Meredith mentioned in an a post about how she had to learn to read comics and graphic novels. She had to learn to derive information from the panels without words.
Maybe hooping is like reading if hooping is being used as a means to an end. I watched Between the Folds the other evening and Dr. Erik Demaine said that he really folding paper. He started folding paper because he really like the math and the paper folding was a means to accessing that math. But in folding paper he discovered that he really liked folding paper. So maybe hooping is a means to accessing the people at the beach or the park who you really like. So it isn't the hooping that is really the goal. It's the other people. Or maybe you are interested in orbits. Or maybe there is something else and it isn't the hooping that is really what you want.
And maybe hooping is like reading in that if you aren't a minimum size or a minimum coordination hooping is unlikely to happen. Maybe there is a threshold of mental and physical skills that must be met for hooping to occur. Like with reading.
>>What if *reading* is the interest?<<If reading is the interest. If it is the act of solving the puzzle that is the written word, than other puzzles might also appeal. There is no way to get someone to read before they are ready. But you can come up with alternatives, other things that are parallel, perhaps, to reading. If reading is in it and of itself the interest looking at why that is interesting. I have a fair few books about different writing systems because Simon was interested in hieroglyphics. He knew Braille before he could read and we wrote notes in Braille together. He liked code. And he didn't need to read to play around with that.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Halldorson
>>>You'd rather that a kid would go to their mother and say, "I want to learn to read," and mom would try to teach him/her before the child was cognitively ready - leading to frustration and the child thinking she/he was stupid (or being labeled as learning disabled)?<<<I don't think that I suggested teaching. I suggested treating reading as an interest. I might offer books, reading programs liked hooked on phonics or the phonics game, simple (subjective I know) books like early readers, closed caption TV programs, labeling things around the house etc. These things as well as continue to read aloud (if the child wanted - some might find this frustrating).
I understand phonics doesn't necessary work for all kids I only list them as an example of some thing I would offer and/or have available to my child if they had an interest in reading.
>>>It doesn't matter how much a child wishes she could read - if she's not developmentally ready then no amount of instruction will help<<<I don't agree with this.
>>>and it can hurt.<<<But I do strongly agree with this and that is why I'm not advocating instruction only options/offerings.
I think it can be equally hurtful to underestimate a child as it can be to overestimate.
Kelly
Schuyler
>>Instruction isn't by definition causing damage. Unsollicited instruction is highly likely to, but that's something very different from help that is asked for.<<How do you teach anything? How you do you teach reading, for example? I don't know how I read. Even when I come upon a word I don't know, I've read it before I am aware of reading it. There is no point in the process where I am aware of the process. So how do you break down that process into a teachable course? Like anything else. I can show people what I do. I can read to them. I can make it easy to be around the written word. But I haven't the foggiest idea how to teach reading.
>>If my child asks for my help, even if that is "mom, teach me to read please", then I am not harming the partnership in any way, because I am invited to "teach" and as long as I don't take over the learning process and push it further or in another direction than what is asked for, then my child is still in charge of his learning project.<<But you are lying to your child. Or so I argue. You are telling them that you hold the key to doing their learning project. I'm referencing Between the Folds again, because there were so many lovely moment of insight in that documentary about origami. Eric Joisel, a French origami artist whose work is amazing, said that when someone asks him to teach them how to make his origami they are asking him to give them 30 years of his life. 30 years it took him of exploring art and paper and ideas and living and moving through the world to be able to make figures like http://sweet-station.com/blog/2008/12/eric-joisel/. Learning is not something that can be handed to you. It is something you do. It is incremental even if it looks like it is occurring in leaps and bounds. Learning to read is a process that varies by individual. But it is always a process that occurs within the individual in response to their environment. So, I suppose, if Simon or Linnaea had
asked me to teach them to read I would have offered to read to them. I would have bought them more comics and more graphic novels and more pokemon cards and more video games and more of the things that they were already interested in, all of which had the written word as part of the experience.
>>Not everything has to be learnt by osmosis/autodidact. Imo, formal instruction has it's place in unschooling too, as long as it is wanted. I sometimes get the feeling that you think learning "on your own" is somehow superior to receiving instruction. Is this so? Or is it mainly with regards to reading you feel this way?<<Formal instruction has it's place where the thing can be instructed. So, using Eric Joisel's statement about 30 years being asked for when someone asked him to teach them his origami, my guess is that he could certainly show them the basics. That he could give them a step into origami. He could talk about the specifics. But was derived from the discussion and where that discussion took the listener would have only a very tangential amount to do with Eric Joisel.
I play ukulele. I bake bread. Both things are skills and in both of those arenas I could have sought out formal instruction. I didn't learn to play ukulele by osmosis. I didn't learn to bake bread by osmosis. I played ukulele. I baked bread. When I failed, as I did regularly, I would seek out information about how to not fail in the same way the next time. So I have books on baking bread and on playing ukulele. I have watched videos on baking bread and on playing ukulele. I have sought information that has incrementally improved my understanding and my skill. I'm not terribly good at ukulele. I'm fairly good at baking bread. But I've been baking bread a lot longer than I've been playing ukulele. Nobody taught me how to play ukulele or how to bake bread. I derived those skills by filling my environment with ukulele players and bread bakers via the amazing tool that is the internet.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Kelly Halldorson
>>If a 5-year-old wants to fly an airplane, we can find ways to support that interest for a while until the child is ready (developmentally) to realistically consider flying lessons. Wanting to fly doesn't make the kid ready to learn.<<I agree with this which is why I offered up the question, why not consider reading an 'interest' in its own right? And suggest/offer means of support instead of distraction and the other things suggested.
If someone came to the list and asked, "My child wants to fly planes how do I support that." I think it would be considered a legitimate interest and you all would offer up suggestions (visit with pilots, get a flight simulation game, tour planes, etc) as opposed to suggesting the focus be on other interests that are more attainable.
Kelly
Sandra Dodd
-=-Not everything has to be learnt by osmosis/autodidact. Imo, formal instruction has it's place in unschooling too, as long as it is wanted.-=-
I don't know how to swim. I can play in water. I can bounce and bob a bit, but I can't go anywhere, and I panick if I lose my footing or if my head goes under water. I've taken swimming lessons, once as a kid and once in college. It didn't take. I am a non-swimmer. A couple of individuals, certain THEY could teach me, have also failed. One was my husband. So I try to stay out of situations where swimming is important.
My husband swims well, and knows how to dive. (I would say "can dive," but with two shoulder surgeries, he probably couldn't do it "right" anymore.)
Of our three kids, the best swimmer is Holly. She learned informally, and is brave and confident. The boys can swim. Marty is better than Kirby. He has done it more than Kirby, and in different environments�pools, lake, "hole" (The Blue Hole in Santa Rosa, one of those bottomless little pools connected to caves) and ocean.
We know it's not true that instruction creates the ability to swim, and that lack of instruction keeps one from swimming. Even if our family were the only data points, we know it's not true.
-=--=-Not everything has to be learnt by osmosis/autodidact. Imo, formal instruction has it's place in unschooling too, as long as it is wanted.-=--=-
Nothing is learned by osmosis. Even if it seems so, it's learned by observation, or observation/discussion/conversation.
Everything is learned inside the learner. Every single thing of any sort that is learned is learned by and within the learner.
When a parent believes that formal instruction is or should be a part of unschooling, then the children will probably believe that (or be told that). Karate is one thing that probably needs instruction. Ballet. Playing baseball is not, nor is riding a bicycle. When someone is studying ballet or karate, though she's not unschooling in those subjects. She's learning in a traditional, formal environment. That would be the same whether she goes to school or not outside of those activities.
Attachment to the idea that formal learning doesn't hamper unschooling will (itself, the idea) hamper unschooling.
I stay near the edge of the pool. In rivers or the ocean, I don't go past where I can stand up with my head safely out. I can't claim to be swimming, even if I were to stay in water for many hours every day.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I don't know how to swim. I can play in water. I can bounce and bob a bit, but I can't go anywhere, and I panick if I lose my footing or if my head goes under water. I've taken swimming lessons, once as a kid and once in college. It didn't take. I am a non-swimmer. A couple of individuals, certain THEY could teach me, have also failed. One was my husband. So I try to stay out of situations where swimming is important.
My husband swims well, and knows how to dive. (I would say "can dive," but with two shoulder surgeries, he probably couldn't do it "right" anymore.)
Of our three kids, the best swimmer is Holly. She learned informally, and is brave and confident. The boys can swim. Marty is better than Kirby. He has done it more than Kirby, and in different environments�pools, lake, "hole" (The Blue Hole in Santa Rosa, one of those bottomless little pools connected to caves) and ocean.
We know it's not true that instruction creates the ability to swim, and that lack of instruction keeps one from swimming. Even if our family were the only data points, we know it's not true.
-=--=-Not everything has to be learnt by osmosis/autodidact. Imo, formal instruction has it's place in unschooling too, as long as it is wanted.-=--=-
Nothing is learned by osmosis. Even if it seems so, it's learned by observation, or observation/discussion/conversation.
Everything is learned inside the learner. Every single thing of any sort that is learned is learned by and within the learner.
When a parent believes that formal instruction is or should be a part of unschooling, then the children will probably believe that (or be told that). Karate is one thing that probably needs instruction. Ballet. Playing baseball is not, nor is riding a bicycle. When someone is studying ballet or karate, though she's not unschooling in those subjects. She's learning in a traditional, formal environment. That would be the same whether she goes to school or not outside of those activities.
Attachment to the idea that formal learning doesn't hamper unschooling will (itself, the idea) hamper unschooling.
I stay near the edge of the pool. In rivers or the ocean, I don't go past where I can stand up with my head safely out. I can't claim to be swimming, even if I were to stay in water for many hours every day.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mrs Jones
>>>How do you teach anything? How you do you teach reading, for example? <<<
For example, when you explain the mecanism of phonics, when you sound out words together you are "teaching reading". You are passing out tips or tools that can help someone learn. That's teaching.
There is a negative association with the word teaching today (and rightly so) but it needn't be that way. When someone who knows more than me is explaining me stuff or showing me how to do something, teaching is going on. That doesn't belittle me or deprive me of my own learning experience and project. As long as I want the teaching, it is tool, a ressource for me, like so many other things.
>>>But you are lying to your child. Or so I argue. You are telling them that you hold the key to doing their learning project.<<<
I desagree. Why would I tell them (overtly or implied) I am "holding the key"? Why would they need to get that impression? If the instruction is wanted and is offered in a respectful and useful way like any other help , it is just that; a welcomed help.
>>> Learning is not something that can be handed to you.<<<
Sure. But tools and tips can be handed, aka teaching :)
>>> Learning to read is a process that varies by individual.<<<
Precisely. Some individuals will enjoy and benefit from teaching and others won't ;-)
>>> Nobody taught me how to play ukulele or how to bake bread.<<<
But would it have been any less legitimate or valuable if someone had? If you had chosen to take ukulele lessons for instance, would your skill be any less fine just because someone had dispensed some kind of "teaching" to you?
What's important is not how someone obtains a skill or knowledge, what's important is that the process and experience is owned by the individual and tailored to his needs and wishes.
Maria
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mrs Jones
>>>When a parent believes that formal instruction is or should be a part of unschooling, then the children will probably believe that (or be told that). <<<
Probably. But there is a third possibility, that formal instruction *can* be a part of unschooling. That is neither is or should. Should is probably a bad idea ;-)
Is seems kind of neutral. Can is positive, imo.
>>>Attachment to the idea that formal learning doesn't hamper unschooling will (itself, the idea) hamper unschooling.<<<
This I don't understand. How?
We agree that noone can fully or exclusively *teach* someone something. Learning is interior, yes. But someone can definitly teach someone else SOMETHING and that something can be a smaller or larger part of the learning and of bigger or lesser importance to the learning process.
Maria
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tauna Grinager
---When a parent believes that formal instruction is or should be a part of
unschooling, then the children will probably believe that (or be told
that). Karate is one thing that probably needs instruction. Ballet.
Playing baseball is not, nor is riding a bicycle. When someone is
studying ballet or karate, though she's not unschooling in those
subjects. She's learning in a traditional, formal environment. That
would be the same whether she goes to school or not outside of those
activities.
Attachment to the idea that formal learning doesn't hamper unschooling will (itself, the idea) hamper unschooling.---
What would you say about Gymnastics? Our 6yo son wants to take Gymnastics classes. He's taken trial classes with 2 of the gyms in town, one he likes more than the other. It does seem friendly, not overly judgmental and not as rigid as the other one. We will be getting him his own trampoline soon, too. But I figured there are other things he can learn in a class and equipment we can't give him at home.
I hear you on swim lessons. We tried a number of those, and my son still can't swim. He loves to be in the water, loves to hang on to my shoulders and swim with me, jump off the edge into my arms. But he also panics if his face goes under water. No amount of instruction is going to help him get over that. Maybe more experience, maybe as he gets older, or maybe not at all. Took me a while to realize that he didn't need a better teacher. He's just not ready!
---Last weekend at the ALL Unschooling Symposium there was a panel of
moderators from this group, talking about the problem that sometimes new members complain that we won't just answer their questions directly.---
This is my first post to the group (*loving* it, btw!!). I'm a lifelong horse person, so I often relate what I know from studying them all my life. My most favorite horse gurus (some still alive, some dead) do the same thing. They almost never answer a question directly. They have an uncanny ability to look past what the person thinks they need to know, and what is really at the heart of the matter. Most people are only looking at the surface. They see the symptom as the thing to solve. But that's not what the good instructor will want to address - they want to go much deeper. I've seen a lot of students quit the guru and find someone else that says what they want to hear. Or give them a cookie-cutter system to follow. Of course this only brings temporary relief, so they're back to square one in no time. But, hey, they didn't have to challenge themselves to really change. Sound familiar?
Tauna Grinager
Ben Lomond, CA
unschooling, then the children will probably believe that (or be told
that). Karate is one thing that probably needs instruction. Ballet.
Playing baseball is not, nor is riding a bicycle. When someone is
studying ballet or karate, though she's not unschooling in those
subjects. She's learning in a traditional, formal environment. That
would be the same whether she goes to school or not outside of those
activities.
Attachment to the idea that formal learning doesn't hamper unschooling will (itself, the idea) hamper unschooling.---
What would you say about Gymnastics? Our 6yo son wants to take Gymnastics classes. He's taken trial classes with 2 of the gyms in town, one he likes more than the other. It does seem friendly, not overly judgmental and not as rigid as the other one. We will be getting him his own trampoline soon, too. But I figured there are other things he can learn in a class and equipment we can't give him at home.
I hear you on swim lessons. We tried a number of those, and my son still can't swim. He loves to be in the water, loves to hang on to my shoulders and swim with me, jump off the edge into my arms. But he also panics if his face goes under water. No amount of instruction is going to help him get over that. Maybe more experience, maybe as he gets older, or maybe not at all. Took me a while to realize that he didn't need a better teacher. He's just not ready!
---Last weekend at the ALL Unschooling Symposium there was a panel of
moderators from this group, talking about the problem that sometimes new members complain that we won't just answer their questions directly.---
This is my first post to the group (*loving* it, btw!!). I'm a lifelong horse person, so I often relate what I know from studying them all my life. My most favorite horse gurus (some still alive, some dead) do the same thing. They almost never answer a question directly. They have an uncanny ability to look past what the person thinks they need to know, and what is really at the heart of the matter. Most people are only looking at the surface. They see the symptom as the thing to solve. But that's not what the good instructor will want to address - they want to go much deeper. I've seen a lot of students quit the guru and find someone else that says what they want to hear. Or give them a cookie-cutter system to follow. Of course this only brings temporary relief, so they're back to square one in no time. But, hey, they didn't have to challenge themselves to really change. Sound familiar?
Tauna Grinager
Ben Lomond, CA
>________________________________[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> From: Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
>To: [email protected]
>Sent: Thursday, January 3, 2013 3:42 PM
>Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Answering other questions
>
>-=-Not everything has to be learnt by osmosis/autodidact. Imo, formal instruction has it's place in unschooling too, as long as it is wanted.-=-
>
>I don't know how to swim. I can play in water. I can bounce and bob a bit, but I can't go anywhere, and I panick if I lose my footing or if my head goes under water. I've taken swimming lessons, once as a kid and once in college. It didn't take. I am a non-swimmer. A couple of individuals, certain THEY could teach me, have also failed. One was my husband. So I try to stay out of situations where swimming is important.
>
>My husband swims well, and knows how to dive. (I would say "can dive," but with two shoulder surgeries, he probably couldn't do it "right" anymore.)
>
>Of our three kids, the best swimmer is Holly. She learned informally, and is brave and confident. The boys can swim. Marty is better than Kirby. He has done it more than Kirby, and in different environments用ools, lake, "hole" (The Blue Hole in Santa Rosa, one of those bottomless little pools connected to caves) and ocean.
>
>We know it's not true that instruction creates the ability to swim, and that lack of instruction keeps one from swimming. Even if our family were the only data points, we know it's not true.
>
>-=--=-Not everything has to be learnt by osmosis/autodidact. Imo, formal instruction has it's place in unschooling too, as long as it is wanted.-=--=-
>
>Nothing is learned by osmosis. Even if it seems so, it's learned by observation, or observation/discussion/conversation.
>Everything is learned inside the learner. Every single thing of any sort that is learned is learned by and within the learner.
>
>When a parent believes that formal instruction is or should be a part of unschooling, then the children will probably believe that (or be told that). Karate is one thing that probably needs instruction. Ballet. Playing baseball is not, nor is riding a bicycle. When someone is studying ballet or karate, though she's not unschooling in those subjects. She's learning in a traditional, formal environment. That would be the same whether she goes to school or not outside of those activities.
>
>Attachment to the idea that formal learning doesn't hamper unschooling will (itself, the idea) hamper unschooling.
>
>I stay near the edge of the pool. In rivers or the ocean, I don't go past where I can stand up with my head safely out. I can't claim to be swimming, even if I were to stay in water for many hours every day.
>
>Sandra
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Pam Sorooshian
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Kelly Halldorson <unschoolbus42@...>
wrote:
offer Hooked on Phonics.
Instead, we offer to read for them, read to them, we create an environment
around them that includes a heck of a lot of reading. We play games, we
sing songs and say rhymes and play with words. We do all those things that
help kids be ready to read when the time is right for them. One of the
things I've often suggested is to ask the child for a few words they'd like
to be able to read. Write those words on cards and keep them. Sometimes
that helps a child feel better if they know they have a few words they
"can" read.
But we don't tell a parent how they can get a kid reading now just because
a kid wants to read. Because the world if filled with print and if an
unschooling child is ready to read, they'll do it.
phonics game because I've seen the damage that those programs can do to a
kid who either isn't developmentally ready or for whom a phonics approach
is not right.
filled with phonics! If they are not ready, a phonics program can cause
real harm to their future learning ability.
readiness exists - and they happen at different times for different
children.
not underestimating the child. If the child could read, she'd be reading.
Do you also think the same thing about walking and talking?
When my oldest daughter was 10 months old we went to Europe and stayed with
relatives. Her cousin was exactly 2 months older. He started walking while
we were there. My daughter wanted to walk SO much! She'd crawl after him as
fast as she could and pull on him. She'd cry when he got up and walked
away. She'd try really hard to pull herself up and walk. But she couldn't
do it yet. Not ready. Should I have bought her some kind of lessons - some
how to walk equivalent of Hooked on Phonics? There was no way to get her
walking before she was ready (physically) to walk, no matter how much she
wanted to walk. And when she was ready, she walked.
In the meantime, we played and had fun and distracted her from her
unhappiness at not being physically able to walk.
-pam
wrote:
>>I don't think that I suggested teaching. I suggested treating reading asYou suggested that when a kid says they want to learn to read we should
> an interest. >>
offer Hooked on Phonics.
Instead, we offer to read for them, read to them, we create an environment
around them that includes a heck of a lot of reading. We play games, we
sing songs and say rhymes and play with words. We do all those things that
help kids be ready to read when the time is right for them. One of the
things I've often suggested is to ask the child for a few words they'd like
to be able to read. Write those words on cards and keep them. Sometimes
that helps a child feel better if they know they have a few words they
"can" read.
But we don't tell a parent how they can get a kid reading now just because
a kid wants to read. Because the world if filled with print and if an
unschooling child is ready to read, they'll do it.
>>I might offer books, reading programs liked hooked on phonics or theI would never ever offer a reading program like hooked on phonics or the
> phonics game, simple (subjective I know) books like early readers, closed
> caption TV programs, labeling things around the house etc. These things as
> well as continue to read aloud (if the child wanted - some might find this
> frustrating).<<
>
phonics game because I've seen the damage that those programs can do to a
kid who either isn't developmentally ready or for whom a phonics approach
is not right.
> >>I understand phonics doesn't necessary work for all kids I only listIf the child is ready, then a phonics program is unnecessary. The world is
> them as an example of some thing I would offer and/or have available to my
> child if they had an interest in reading.<<
>
filled with phonics! If they are not ready, a phonics program can cause
real harm to their future learning ability.
> Pam: >>>It doesn't matter how much a child wishes she could read - ifThere are certain brain developments that have to happen before reading
> she's not developmentally ready then no amount of instruction will help<<<
>
> Kelly:>>I don't agree with this.>>
>
readiness exists - and they happen at different times for different
children.
> >>>and it can hurt.<<<Underestimating meaning not giving them Hooked on Phonics? Unschoolers are
>
> But I do strongly agree with this and that is why I'm not advocating
> instruction only options/offerings.>>
>
> >>I think it can be equally hurtful to underestimate a child as it can be
> to overestimate.>>
not underestimating the child. If the child could read, she'd be reading.
Do you also think the same thing about walking and talking?
When my oldest daughter was 10 months old we went to Europe and stayed with
relatives. Her cousin was exactly 2 months older. He started walking while
we were there. My daughter wanted to walk SO much! She'd crawl after him as
fast as she could and pull on him. She'd cry when he got up and walked
away. She'd try really hard to pull herself up and walk. But she couldn't
do it yet. Not ready. Should I have bought her some kind of lessons - some
how to walk equivalent of Hooked on Phonics? There was no way to get her
walking before she was ready (physically) to walk, no matter how much she
wanted to walk. And when she was ready, she walked.
In the meantime, we played and had fun and distracted her from her
unhappiness at not being physically able to walk.
-pam
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Kelly Halldorson <unschoolbus42@...>wrote:
>
> >>If a 5-year-old wants to fly an airplane, we can find ways to support
> that interest for a while until the child is ready (developmentally) to
> realistically consider flying lessons. Wanting to fly doesn't make the kid
> ready to learn.<<
>
> I agree with this which is why I offered up the question, why not consider
> reading an 'interest' in its own right? And suggest/offer means of support
> instead of distraction and the other things suggested.
>
> If someone came to the list and asked, "My child wants to fly planes how
> do I support that." I think it would be considered a legitimate interest
> and you all would offer up suggestions (visit with pilots, get a flight
> simulation game, tour planes, etc) as opposed to suggesting the focus be on
> other interests that are more attainable.
>
> Kelly
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Kelly Halldorson <unschoolbus42@...>wrote:
wants to fly airplanes so how do I get him up in the air flying a plane?"
And the point was that we wouldn't offer ways to get the kid up in the air
flying an airplane because the child is developmentally not ready.
Similarly, if a parent comes to the list asking, "My five-year-old wants to
read so how do I get him reading?" we would not offer what the parent is
hoping for - ways to get the child reading.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>If a 5-year-old wants to fly an airplane, we can find ways to supportThe example was a parent who comes to the list asking, "My five-year-old
> that interest for a while until the child is ready (developmentally) to
> realistically consider flying lessons. Wanting to fly doesn't make the kid
> ready to learn.<<
>
> I agree with this which is why I offered up the question, why not consider
> reading an 'interest' in its own right? And suggest/offer means of support
> instead of distraction and the other things suggested.
>
> If someone came to the list and asked, "My child wants to fly planes how
> do I support that." I think it would be considered a legitimate interest
> and you all would offer up suggestions (visit with pilots, get a flight
> simulation game, tour planes, etc) as opposed to suggesting the focus be on
> other interests that are more attainable.
>
wants to fly airplanes so how do I get him up in the air flying a plane?"
And the point was that we wouldn't offer ways to get the kid up in the air
flying an airplane because the child is developmentally not ready.
Similarly, if a parent comes to the list asking, "My five-year-old wants to
read so how do I get him reading?" we would not offer what the parent is
hoping for - ways to get the child reading.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:21 PM, Mrs Jones <m.jones545@...> wrote:
be able to make that sound/letter association and it will do nothing but
frustrate the kid.
Of course, if someone keeps explaining it and the kid eventually reaches
that level of readiness to understand it, the teacher will take credit for
teaching it.
But if they keep explaining it and the child goes a year or two without
understanding it, the child will probably be considered learning disabled
and that will be an excuse for doing even more useless and harmful
instructing.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> For example, when you explain the mecanism of phonics, when you sound outYou can explain that mechanism a thousand times to a kid who isn't ready to
> words together you are "teaching reading". You are passing out tips or
> tools that can help someone learn. That's teaching.
be able to make that sound/letter association and it will do nothing but
frustrate the kid.
Of course, if someone keeps explaining it and the kid eventually reaches
that level of readiness to understand it, the teacher will take credit for
teaching it.
But if they keep explaining it and the child goes a year or two without
understanding it, the child will probably be considered learning disabled
and that will be an excuse for doing even more useless and harmful
instructing.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
>>But would it have been any less legitimate or valuable if someone had? If you had chosen to take ukulele lessons for instance, would your skill be any less fine just because someone had dispensed some kind of "teaching" to you? <<Nobody could have taught me to play ukulele. Teaching is a weird term. It implies that by getting the presentation just so someone else can't help but derive the knowledge that you are imparting. It implies that the burden of learning is on the teacher and not the learner. Even if I gone to someone seeking ukulele instruction, if I had put myself forward as a ukulele novice to some ukulele master they could only impart the knowledge that I was prepared to learn. No matter how well they taught, how skilful their ability to make something understandable, my learning is entirely dependent on my ability to engage with the material. They wouldn't have taught me anything. They would have facilitated my learning.
>>For example, when you explain the mecanism of phonics, when you sound out words together you are "teaching reading". You are passing out tips or tools that can help someone learn. That's teaching.<<No, it's not, it's talking about phonics. It's having a conversation. http://sandradodd.com/teaching/ explains better than I can. But to teach is a verb without a clear action. Presumably teaching is only teaching in the presence of someone actually learning what you are teaching. So, if you talked about phonics to someone who didn't give a toss, or couldn't really understand what you were explaining, than are you teaching or are you just talking to yourself, mostly?
How do you read? Again, I seem to be a sight reader. I only very occasional reach for phonetic pronunciations of words, if ever. And that's probably a secondary grab. I read by sight first. So if someone stressed phonics to me, I would be unlikely to grasp their meaning.
>>>But you are lying to your child. Or so I argue. You are telling them that you hold the key to doing their learning project.<<<
>I desagree. Why would I tell them (overtly or implied) I am "holding the key"? Why would they need to get that impression? If the instruction is wanted and is offered in a respectful and useful way like any other help , it is just that; a welcomed help.<If a child came to you and said "teach me to read" and you said okay you are implying that you are capable of teaching them to read. I don't believe you are. I believe that by suggesting that you can teach somebody how to read or how to play ukulele or how to bake bread you are owning their learning in a way that is a lie. You can say I can help. You can say I can show you what I do. But I don't think you can teach someone how to read.
Sandra mentioned ballet and karate as things that need clear instruction. So, let's assume that is true. Let us imagine a ballet instructor teaching a class how to do the 5 basic ballet positions. They aren't really teaching it. They are demonstrating it. An instructor will probably even go around the classroom and put people into the right position if they are out of line. They will work to get the kinetic memory in place. But they will only be able to go as far as that person is interested in going. Or capable of going. Teaching only exists in the presence of learning. And sometimes learning isn't possible. The 5 basic ballet positions aren't possible if you can't walk. You can, possibly, do an adapted version. But if you are trying to teach a pre-walker how to do the third position, well, they aren't going to learn it. No matter how good a teacher you believe you are. No matter how well you know the third position and can express the third position to
other people.
Teach is an awkward idea. Formal instruction is different from teach. But, again, it only works when someone is interested in learning what is being instructed. And even then the instruction may not go out, may not be applied precisely as intended.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robert and Colleen
****If reading is the interest. If it is the act of solving the puzzle that
is the written word, than other puzzles might also appeal. There is no way
to get someone to read before they are ready. But you can come up with
alternatives, other things that are parallel, perhaps, to reading. ****
Part of how I think of reading is like bike riding. Someone can
theoretically know how to balance, pedal, steer, etc. They can practice
each of those things independently, read books about how to do those things,
get instruction from others in how to do those things. But there's a
certain magic that comes in putting it all together, which a person's body
and brain simply can't do until they - personally themselves - are ready.
Until suddenly it all clicks and they can make the magic their own and use
it to get that bike moving in a straight line down the road. That part
can't be taught - it Needs to happen, and it Won't happen until it Can - no
matter how expert a teacher is standing on the sidelines shouting out
instructions.
Similar, reading. You can surround a child with printed materials, read to
them, show them how phonics work by sounding out some words as you're
reading along in a book, point out words as you're reading that don't follow
the standard rules of phonics and therefore sound differently than one might
think when seeing them in writing, give them picture flashcards with printed
words on the flip-side of each one, play rhyming games, label everything in
your house. but they will not read until they - personally themselves - are
ready, and they make the magic their own.
Teaching reading interferes with the process and tries to get ahead of the
magic - it tries to break it down into little steps and it tries to
prescribe things like "you should read little words like cat before you can
read big words like catastrophe" and "easy readers are for kids and the Wall
Street Journal isn't something your barely-reading-self is ready for yet"
and such. Teaching often makes something of a mess where there could have
been a beautiful experience. It puts the Learner in a passive role, rather
than an active one. I'll be forever grateful that my son had the experience
of learning to read without the interference of Teaching :-)
Colleen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
is the written word, than other puzzles might also appeal. There is no way
to get someone to read before they are ready. But you can come up with
alternatives, other things that are parallel, perhaps, to reading. ****
Part of how I think of reading is like bike riding. Someone can
theoretically know how to balance, pedal, steer, etc. They can practice
each of those things independently, read books about how to do those things,
get instruction from others in how to do those things. But there's a
certain magic that comes in putting it all together, which a person's body
and brain simply can't do until they - personally themselves - are ready.
Until suddenly it all clicks and they can make the magic their own and use
it to get that bike moving in a straight line down the road. That part
can't be taught - it Needs to happen, and it Won't happen until it Can - no
matter how expert a teacher is standing on the sidelines shouting out
instructions.
Similar, reading. You can surround a child with printed materials, read to
them, show them how phonics work by sounding out some words as you're
reading along in a book, point out words as you're reading that don't follow
the standard rules of phonics and therefore sound differently than one might
think when seeing them in writing, give them picture flashcards with printed
words on the flip-side of each one, play rhyming games, label everything in
your house. but they will not read until they - personally themselves - are
ready, and they make the magic their own.
Teaching reading interferes with the process and tries to get ahead of the
magic - it tries to break it down into little steps and it tries to
prescribe things like "you should read little words like cat before you can
read big words like catastrophe" and "easy readers are for kids and the Wall
Street Journal isn't something your barely-reading-self is ready for yet"
and such. Teaching often makes something of a mess where there could have
been a beautiful experience. It puts the Learner in a passive role, rather
than an active one. I'll be forever grateful that my son had the experience
of learning to read without the interference of Teaching :-)
Colleen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mrs Jones
> For example, when you explain the mecanism of phonics, when you sound out***You can explain that mechanism a thousand times to a kid who isn't ready to
> words together you are "teaching reading". You are passing out tips or
> tools that can help someone learn. That's teaching.
be able to make that sound/letter association and it will do nothing but
frustrate the kid.***
***But if they keep explaining it and the child goes a year or two without
understanding it, the child will probably be considered learning disabled
and that will be an excuse for doing even more useless and harmful
instructing.***
Of course, if you're in a school setting or doing some sort of school-at-home type of instruction. But this wouldn't be the way an unschooling family would use a phonics program. Certainly not the ones I know, or even myself.
Maria
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Schuyler
>>Nobody could have taught me to play ukulele. <<I wrote that and as I was making Simon a corned beef sandwich I thought about it. Nobody could have taught me to play ukulele not simply because learning is an internal thing, but because I struggle to follow someone else's agenda. If I had gone in the first couple of months of my ukulele experience to a teacher to be shown how to learn I would have quit, almost undoubtedly, playing ukulele. I would have grown bored of the whole linear nature of the teaching and would have just fallen off. My relationship with the ukulele has jumped all over the place. It's been driven by different focuses. But it has been mine. If I let someone else tell me what I needed to learn in order to master the ukulele, if I had taken someone else's path to learning how to play, I would have walked away from the ukulele like I did with all the instruments I tried as a child. And that's probably a personal failing. I guess that's my conflict of interest in this discussion. But
that perspective isn't mine alone: http://brennamcbroom.wordpress.com/2012/11/04/why-i-dropped-out-of-college/ is Brenna McBroom's discussion about why she dropped out of college. There is something fundamentally right with defining your own relationship with learning. I think looking to other people for knowledge is absolutely part of learning. I think the problem arises when you let them decide things like phonics is the core understanding needed for learning to read or you must play classical music for 4 years before you can begin playing rock guitar.
Schuyler
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Robert and Colleen
****I desagree with this. Learning to read isn't different from learning
anything else, in that a child can have a desire to acquire a specific
skill, and be willing to study or receive instruction to obtain that skill.
Why wouldn't it be like that? ****
There's a saying about "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear."
I don't know what this is intended to mean vs. the way I hear it :-) but the
way I hear it is as something of an ironic statement, because it says to me
that no one can learn anything until they're ready - not reading, not
Japanese, not knitting - nothing. But when a person is ready - personally,
within themselves - suddenly there are teachers everywhere. Not only
teachers in terms of People Who Teach, but also teachers in terms of books,
experiences, videos, etc. - all the things and people and examples from
which one can learn, that were probably around before the learner was ready,
and that now suddenly have relevance and importance to the Process since
they have the information the learner is now ready to intake, process, and
use.
Colleen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
anything else, in that a child can have a desire to acquire a specific
skill, and be willing to study or receive instruction to obtain that skill.
Why wouldn't it be like that? ****
There's a saying about "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear."
I don't know what this is intended to mean vs. the way I hear it :-) but the
way I hear it is as something of an ironic statement, because it says to me
that no one can learn anything until they're ready - not reading, not
Japanese, not knitting - nothing. But when a person is ready - personally,
within themselves - suddenly there are teachers everywhere. Not only
teachers in terms of People Who Teach, but also teachers in terms of books,
experiences, videos, etc. - all the things and people and examples from
which one can learn, that were probably around before the learner was ready,
and that now suddenly have relevance and importance to the Process since
they have the information the learner is now ready to intake, process, and
use.
Colleen
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Mrs Jones <m.jones545@...> wrote:
life. Sandra mentioned Kirby and Rosie (hers and mine) both doing Karate.
They've both been martial arts instructors while being unschooling kids,
too.
I'm feeling concerned that some people are interpreting us to be saying
that parents should never explain things to kids or that kids should never
be allowed to get formal instruction. That's a misunderstanding.
Learning happens in the learner is not a trite comment - it is an insight
that few people really have. Most people think teaching is needed for
certain things because they are taught in schools. A friend (quite
seriously) asked Rosie how she learned to tie her shoes if she didn't go to
school. Rosie thought that it was funny to think they'd teach that in
schools and that her friend would think that teaching was necessary. But
that IS what people think these days. Nobody thought that when I was a
child in the 50's because kids didn't go to school until they were six and
mostly had already learned to tie their shoes. So now there are a zillion
preschool and kindergarten teachers out there who discuss different ways to
teach kids how to tie their shoes and take full credit for the kids
learning it.
Nobody is saying you shouldn't show a kid how to tie shoes. We're saying
that if the child doesn't have the small motor coordination yet, that you
can't get him to tie shoes because "teaching" isn't the same as learning.
In the meantime, do other things - get pull-on shoes, velcro, go barefoot,
distract with something fun while you tie them.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>When a parent believes that formal instruction is or should be a part ofWell - clearly formal instruction IS sometimes part of an unschooling kid's
> unschooling, then the children will probably believe that (or be told
> that). <<<
>
> Probably. But there is a third possibility, that formal instruction *can*
> be a part of unschooling. That is neither is or should. Should is probably
> a bad idea ;-)
> Is seems kind of neutral. Can is positive, imo.
>
life. Sandra mentioned Kirby and Rosie (hers and mine) both doing Karate.
They've both been martial arts instructors while being unschooling kids,
too.
I'm feeling concerned that some people are interpreting us to be saying
that parents should never explain things to kids or that kids should never
be allowed to get formal instruction. That's a misunderstanding.
Learning happens in the learner is not a trite comment - it is an insight
that few people really have. Most people think teaching is needed for
certain things because they are taught in schools. A friend (quite
seriously) asked Rosie how she learned to tie her shoes if she didn't go to
school. Rosie thought that it was funny to think they'd teach that in
schools and that her friend would think that teaching was necessary. But
that IS what people think these days. Nobody thought that when I was a
child in the 50's because kids didn't go to school until they were six and
mostly had already learned to tie their shoes. So now there are a zillion
preschool and kindergarten teachers out there who discuss different ways to
teach kids how to tie their shoes and take full credit for the kids
learning it.
Nobody is saying you shouldn't show a kid how to tie shoes. We're saying
that if the child doesn't have the small motor coordination yet, that you
can't get him to tie shoes because "teaching" isn't the same as learning.
In the meantime, do other things - get pull-on shoes, velcro, go barefoot,
distract with something fun while you tie them.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pam Sorooshian
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Mrs Jones <m.jones545@...> wrote:
programs designed to teach a child to read in a certain way. Using them IS
teaching phonics in the programs very specific way.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Of course, if you're in a school setting or doing some sort ofThis makes no sense. Hooked on Phonics or The Phonics Game - they are
> school-at-home type of instruction. But this wouldn't be the way an
> unschooling family would use a phonics program. Certainly not the ones I
> know, or even myself.
programs designed to teach a child to read in a certain way. Using them IS
teaching phonics in the programs very specific way.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Jan 3, 2013, at 7:36 PM, Tauna Grinager wrote:
http://www.facebook.com/groups/383815885025681/
But he's interested and asking for a class that he's already tried out.
Gymnastics uses a lot of specialized equipment. So a class is useful for that. (Though the floor stuff can be done in the yard. It's where the neighborhood kids and I learned. And learned pretty well! :-)
And get him to various playgrounds too so he can try out things on his own.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> We will be getting him his own trampoline soon, too. But I figuredThe problem with classes and unschooling is when a child shows an interest in something and the mom immediately thinks, "Class!" If a mom can't think of any other ideas besides a class, she should post in the "My Unschooler is interested in ..." Facebook group to see what other possibilities there are.
> there are other things he can learn in a class and equipment we
> can't give him at home.
http://www.facebook.com/groups/383815885025681/
But he's interested and asking for a class that he's already tried out.
Gymnastics uses a lot of specialized equipment. So a class is useful for that. (Though the floor stuff can be done in the yard. It's where the neighborhood kids and I learned. And learned pretty well! :-)
And get him to various playgrounds too so he can try out things on his own.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tiffani
I was "taught" to read in school. I did not learn to read till after I graduated. In school I was labeled dyslexic. I was terrified to read in class. The first book I read was what to expect when you expecting. I spent every night during my pregnancy reading that book. It was painful slow going. I think I thought I couldn't read because of all the anxiety I felt. I did not read to my older children. I was to self consous. My Mom and Mother in law read to them. Once I got the hang of it I read lots of books. I love reading now. We began homeschooling when my 3rd child was kindergarten age. I got a hooked on phonics set. I could not understand it at all. My son complained that it was way to boaring. He took the little books a read them all without instruction. I was amazed. My youngest son has had no instruction and he has learned to read. Thankfully none of my kids has the fear I was bogged down with for so long. My daughter has brain damage and she has a
hard time with lots of things but even she does not seem bothered by not knowing something. She shouts out "how do you spell this or that", and someone will just tell her. It does my spirit good to see her not being shamed for something she can't do yet.
Tiffani
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
hard time with lots of things but even she does not seem bothered by not knowing something. She shouts out "how do you spell this or that", and someone will just tell her. It does my spirit good to see her not being shamed for something she can't do yet.
Tiffani
Sent from Yahoo! Mail on Android
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Joyce Fetteroll
On Jan 3, 2013, at 5:21 PM, Mrs Jones wrote:
Before the brain is ready -- if the child and parent believe instruction will help -- instruction will be frustrating and will potentially lead the child to believe there's something wrong with him because he still can't read.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> don't you think, that one can still decide to learn something one is not totally ready for?Not in the case of reading, walking, speaking and other skills that require the brain to have grown the right connections.
Before the brain is ready -- if the child and parent believe instruction will help -- instruction will be frustrating and will potentially lead the child to believe there's something wrong with him because he still can't read.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
I've deleted three pending comments from this topic because they were going WAY the wrong direction. They were promoting, defending and justifying using phonics programs and teaching.
There are thousands of places online to discuss that, to read those recommendations, and to promote misunderstands of unschooling.
One of the posts I removed had this. I don't want the author to claim it or defend it. It's a quote from the middle, and I'm bringing it for the ideas.
-=-I wouldn't say "okay, I will teach you to read". I would say "sure I'll
help you" and to me that is equivalent to me doing some kind of teaching. I'd
never suggest that I could entirely teach someone to do anything, but I can
certainly teach them (show, tell etc) a part of something, the basics of
something, or some specifics of something - and that wouldn't be owning their
learning at all. That would be teaching them what I know and let them go from
there.
-=-I'd agree that there is a problem with the words and the meaning of the words. I
have read Sandra's page and I agree totally with the importance of getting
detached from the idea of "teaching" as it is commonly understood.-=-
Until someone understands that learning can happen without teaching, unschooling cannot begin to work.
I'm unwilling to spend my volunteer time helping people *not* understand unschooling.
I am unwilling to provide and maintain this discussion group for people to justify things that will not help anyone move nearer to understanding how unschooling works.
-=-I'd agree that there is a problem with the words and the meaning of the words. I
have read Sandra's page -=-
My page? The page on Teaching vs. Learning, maybe? That's ten pages long with links to other pages, with links to others...
The reading section would print out to 51 pages. There are stories of many kids learning to read, and the things that helped them, and the dozens of ways they were helped without anyone "teaching" them anything.
It's important.
Without recovering from the desire to teach and the belief that it's crucial, or even helpful, unschooling will not flourish. It can't become the kind of unschooling this discussion was created to promote.
http://sandradodd.com/teaching
http://sandradodd.com/reading
Discussion here by people who haven't successfully had a child learn to read naturally isn't as useful as ideas from the many here whose children have unschooled wholly and richly for many years.
One of the posts I let through, I would ordinarily have blocked. When I saw that the author joined on December 20, I thought it was a full year ago, but it was less than two weeks ago. I'm sorry I didn't read more carefully.
Sandra
There are thousands of places online to discuss that, to read those recommendations, and to promote misunderstands of unschooling.
One of the posts I removed had this. I don't want the author to claim it or defend it. It's a quote from the middle, and I'm bringing it for the ideas.
-=-I wouldn't say "okay, I will teach you to read". I would say "sure I'll
help you" and to me that is equivalent to me doing some kind of teaching. I'd
never suggest that I could entirely teach someone to do anything, but I can
certainly teach them (show, tell etc) a part of something, the basics of
something, or some specifics of something - and that wouldn't be owning their
learning at all. That would be teaching them what I know and let them go from
there.
-=-I'd agree that there is a problem with the words and the meaning of the words. I
have read Sandra's page and I agree totally with the importance of getting
detached from the idea of "teaching" as it is commonly understood.-=-
Until someone understands that learning can happen without teaching, unschooling cannot begin to work.
I'm unwilling to spend my volunteer time helping people *not* understand unschooling.
I am unwilling to provide and maintain this discussion group for people to justify things that will not help anyone move nearer to understanding how unschooling works.
-=-I'd agree that there is a problem with the words and the meaning of the words. I
have read Sandra's page -=-
My page? The page on Teaching vs. Learning, maybe? That's ten pages long with links to other pages, with links to others...
The reading section would print out to 51 pages. There are stories of many kids learning to read, and the things that helped them, and the dozens of ways they were helped without anyone "teaching" them anything.
It's important.
Without recovering from the desire to teach and the belief that it's crucial, or even helpful, unschooling will not flourish. It can't become the kind of unschooling this discussion was created to promote.
http://sandradodd.com/teaching
http://sandradodd.com/reading
Discussion here by people who haven't successfully had a child learn to read naturally isn't as useful as ideas from the many here whose children have unschooled wholly and richly for many years.
One of the posts I let through, I would ordinarily have blocked. When I saw that the author joined on December 20, I thought it was a full year ago, but it was less than two weeks ago. I'm sorry I didn't read more carefully.
Sandra