<genealogy92109@...>

I've been hearing the oft repeated, traditional parenting dogma "Kids need structure" from a variety sources lately, but I'm struggling to figure out what it means and how it applies to the lives of my children. I've been searching the web, but haven't found many meaningful discussions. A blog post on Psychology Today talked about parents supervising young children (under age 5) at birthday parties as an example of structure. In other words, helping them manage a social situation that they might not be old enough to handle solo.
I am blessed to live with minimal outside obligations that dictate our daily lives. We sleep when we want, eat when we want and play when we want about 95% of the time. I don't see how having a more rigid schedule will make us happier.

Any thoughts?
Gen

Joyce Fetteroll

On Dec 11, 2013, at 4:07 AM, <genealogy92109@...> <genealogy92109@...> wrote:

> I've been hearing the oft repeated, traditional parenting dogma "Kids need structure"

A good test of the truth of "Kids need ..." statements is to replace "kids" with "people."

"People need structure."

Is it true? Some people *like* structure. Some people don't. Some people like others to impose structure on them probably because they were never given the support to find their own ways of structuring their days. Or they've, for whatever reason, equated structure (predictability) with security.

> parents supervising young children (under age 5) at birthday parties as an example of structure.

Well, yeah, the sentence will make more sense if the meaning of structure is twisted.

(Foreign) people who don't know the rules of a society do appreciate having a "spotter" to catch them before they fall on their faces ;-) Children are like foreigners -- who sometimes don't realize they're foreigners! ;-) They don't know how to -- and sometimes can't -- be as kind, respectful, polite as a situation needs. Sometimes it's a matter of not knowing how. Sometimes it's being overwhelmed with emotions. Sometimes it's a matter of not being mature enough to make the kindest choices. A social situation is much pleasanter for everyone if mom can be her child's spotter.

There's a big chunk of the mentoring relationship between parent and child that doesn't have counterpart ideas that people already understand. So people resort to words that only sort of work, like calling support structure.

Being a child's partner is one way of looking at the relationship. But it can call up images of partners who are equal and support each other. Being a team captures part of it. But a team generally implies all members on it have the same goal. Being a mentor captures part but misses how much the parent is in charge but giving thoughtful freedom to explore.

Joyce

Sandra Dodd

-=-Being a child's partner is one way of looking at the relationship. But it can call up images of partners who are equal and support each other.-=-

It can in the case of a selfish mom who wants "her partner" to carry half the load.  

I learned the phrase in the context of nursing a baby, and because it helped me with all of Kirby's life, I shared it with unschoolers, when we got to that point.  The way I had come to enjoy so much peace and progress with him was that I had been his partner—in nursing, in helping him sleep comfortably, in helping him reach things he couldn't reach, and get things he couldn't get, and understand things he wondered about.   His partner, not his adversary.  

I'm Keith's partner, too, because we promised to be married and stay together, and we've done pretty well.  But I don't rag on him to do more when he's tired, and he doesn't get mad if I don't feel like making dinner.   We help when help is needed.

Now that I'm getting old and more forgetful and less physically able to do things, my kids are helping me when help is needed.  Someday they might be doing more than half of what's done between us.  

Sandra Dodd

Security. They need to know that they are safe, and that there will be food, and a warm place to sleep, and people to answer their questions. They need the structure of a home and family.

The kids who suffer with a lack of structure are the kids who have no idea what to expect when, and are always on the alert, biochemically, for danger or fear. Kids with parents who aren't reliable about getting home, or picking the kids up on time, or having food in the house, or being kind and supportive—those kids need some more structure, surely.

<bjelwell@...>

I like seeing structure as providing partnership and security.


This hadn't occurred to me before, but I wonder if Vygotsky's idea of scaffolding would be helpful.  A scaffold is a structure built to support the construction of a building. Parents scaffold for their children to help them access the world and construct their own knowledge.  From reaching high cupboards, to driving places, to answering questions, to strewing--unschooling provides a secure and reliable scaffold that expands kids' knowledge instead of limiting it.  As our children mature, we take away the scaffolding they no longer need.


Barb




Pam Sorooshian

Scaffolding has been one of my own personal mental images throughout our unschooling years. An aspect of the image that I like is that scaffolding is built to suit the situation. And I also like that it is clear that the person building the scaffolding is not the person who is really doing the actual work (learning). That's quite different than school teaching, where it is so commonly assumed that teaching creates the learning.


-pam

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:48 PM, <bjelwell@...> wrote:

This hadn't occurred to me before, but I wonder if Vygotsky's idea of scaffolding would be helpful.  A scaffold is a structure built to support the construction of a building. Parents scaffold for their children to help them access the world and construct their own knowledge.  From reaching high cupboards, to driving places, to answering questions, to strewing--unschooling provides a secure and reliable scaffold that expands kids' knowledge instead of limiting it.  As our children mature, we take away the scaffolding they no longer need.



Lynn Williams

I can relate this to my son who has HFA and other co-conditions.  So many people have recommended visual timetables and structure. While he was in the acutely stressful environment of school I think it might have helped (if they had ever bothered to implement it correctly), and for us at home it did seem to help during that time.  For a time once we were out of school we still used it, and structured our days to avoid anxiety, but the need reduced although my son sometimes would ask for a daily schedule, or organise one himself from our resources.

Now that so much of the anxiety has gone, so has the need for structure.  Yes he still needs reassurance sometimes about what we are doing, and we are always clear on explaining activities when they are planned in advance, but the need for structure has gone, we can be spontaneous for known activities, we can change plans at the last minute.

Life by it's nature is not structured the the way we now recognise it.  In the past our structure was more fluid with changing seasons, not fixed minute by minute but changeable by forces such as weather.

Lynn


On 11 December 2013 09:07, <genealogy92109@...> wrote:
 

I've been hearing the oft repeated, traditional parenting dogma "Kids need structure" from a variety sources lately, but I'm struggling to figure out what it means and how it applies to the lives of my children. I've been searching the web, but haven't found many meaningful discussions. A blog post on Psychology Today talked about parents supervising young children (under age 5) at birthday parties as an example of structure. In other words, helping them manage a social situation that they might not be old enough to handle solo.
I am blessed to live with minimal outside obligations that dictate our daily lives. We sleep when we want, eat when we want and play when we want about 95% of the time. I don't see how having a more rigid schedule will make us happier.

Any thoughts?
Gen