Shira Rocklin

"At one point, it was inevitable that children learn to keep clothes
clean because a child might only have two sets of clothes - or less. At
one point, it was inevitable that the tv went off at 9pm because there
was no other programming. But none of those things are inevitable Now -
and yet requiring children to live as if they were has gotten tied up
with ideas of good parenting."

Ok. So taking the clothing as an example. Just because we can have
more than 1-2 sets of clothing these days, does that mean that we
should? Or that our children should? Or maybe I'm being too extreme?
If I shop at a thrift store, its less of an issue... but when I'm
shopping and buy newly made clothing, and it might be at the expense of
some other person all the way across the world being exposed to
pesticides on a cotton farm, or something like that...

Ok. The real question. Just because we have access to something these
days, does that mean that it is ethical to access it? If it will hurt
someone else, do we still say that it's our children's choice to buy or
not buy that thing? Is this another case, like the 'health food' stuff,
where we can share our beliefs/ideas about it, but leave it up to the
children to make their own choices, and help them deal with any
repercussions of those choices?

If we can easily get oranges, but they are at the expense of tons of
carbon begin added to the atmosphere? When its sooooo easy to get the
things that were just luxuries way back when?

Shira Rocklin

"There are wonderful books by people Eric Smith and Bruce Winterhalder
about joining groups and not doing your share within a group and how
that doesn't tend to lead to being supported by a group. The population
that is best known for sharing are the Ache and a huge amount of
research has been done on the way things are divvyed out and at what age
young men begin to help out at the same level as their older counterparts."

I'm very glad to hear about Jean Liedloff not being so great. It was
hard to believe, and yet so romantic.

So, if not doing your share within a group leads to not being supported
by the group. So, is that group living in a way that unschoolers would
find unhealthy for children? Or, was this referring to adults, not
children?

Has unschooling ever existed before? This way of raising children? Are
there older examples of it? Aside from the kids who are grown up
unschoolers presently? Because, while those stories are wonderful, its
a small sample, right? A small group, of probably specific demographics
(just like homeschoolers are often middle-class or something such, can't
remember exactly)?

Does unschooling make sense from the perspective of how children have
evolved to be? I mean, if all of history is a story of various methods
of setting limits on growing children among different cultures, going
all the way back to prehistory, back to monkeys (ok, not monkeys. What
was our common acestor? Apes? No...), then how can unschooling be a
better way?

It feels right to me. I'm doing it. Its working for our family. I
think I'm just playing devil's advocate to gain a deeper understanding.
Not actually trying to argue with anyone that unschooling is bad.

Joyce Fetteroll

On Jan 17, 2010, at 2:20 PM, Shira Rocklin wrote:

> Does unschooling make sense from the perspective of how children have
> evolved to be? I mean, if all of history is a story of various methods
> of setting limits on growing children among different cultures, going
> all the way back to prehistory, back to monkeys (ok, not monkeys. What
> was our common acestor? Apes? No...), then how can unschooling be a
> better way?

All of recorded history is a blip in evolutionary terms.

I think, though, if you look at how animals raise their young:

Mom lets her young explore and play within a safety zone, she warns
them of danger (animal world versions of speeding Mack trucks), she
hunts or forages and they absorb by watching. Animal moms don't make
them do what they can't with some mistaken idea that they need made
in order to learn. (Obviously at some point if they can't take care
of themselves, they do get left behind. Fortunately we have the extra
resources and don't need to do that.)

And at how brains are designed to learn:

By playing and trying different things to see what happens. By trial
and error. By learning just enough to make something work for our
purposes and then picking up more as we go along.

unschooling fits in with that.

Joyce

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

BRIAN POLIKOWSKY

So, if not doing your share within a group leads to not being supported
by the group. So, is that group living in a way that unschoolers would
find unhealthy for children? Or, was this referring to adults, not
children? 

-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
 
Just because  a group of people or culture lives without school it does not mean they are unschooling!
Unschooling is not simply not having schools or not sending your child to school.
Its a choice a family makes that envolves living a very rich life.
 

 
Alex Polikowsky
http://polykow.blogspot.com/
 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unschoolingmn/

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

Joyce Fetteroll

On Jan 17, 2010, at 3:20 PM, Joyce Fetteroll wrote:

> Animal moms don't make
> them do what they can't with some mistaken idea that they need made
> in order to learn.

I don't want people left with the impression we should be looking to
animal societies for new rules on how to treat our kids!

I was painting a picture of the environment that shaped all animal
brains. Our brains were shaped to pull understanding of the world
from our experience. To pull *enough* understanding to create adults
who can function competently in their world.

Experience can be play as animals explore what will happen when they
do "this". Or trial and error as they try to get something to do
something in particular. Or observation.

We humans have created a more complex society that animals need to
learn about. But that society hasn't altered the way our brains have
been honed over 100's of millions of years to work. No matter how
hard schools try to pour a predigested understanding of the world
into children's heads, that won't make it natural or easy. We evolved
to pull our own understanding from our own experience. We evolved to
grow our understanding through trying things out. It's just not going
to be natural to try to put someone else's understanding into a
child's head before we let them play and experience. Not unless we
pull their brains out and replace them with computers ;-)

Joyce

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

plaidpanties666

--- In [email protected], Shira Rocklin <shirarocklin@...> wrote:
>> Has unschooling ever existed before?

It depends what you mean. To some extent, unschooling is what it is Because of what education has become. Its an Effort to step away from the continual pressure to "get" kids into good preschools, good grades, nice well rounded educations yada yada. It takes a substantial leap for many parents to consider home ed at all, much less natural learning.

If by "unschooling" you mean natural learning, then sure, people have learned naturally for millenia. If you mean the idea of working in partnership with children, that's an idea that, first of all, depends on certain views of childhood that haven't always been around. When children are innocents or blank slates than unschooling doesn't make sense. When children are, first and foremost, smaller, weaker workers in the economic life of the family, unschooling doesn't make sense.

> Does unschooling make sense from the perspective of how children have
> evolved to be?

Childhood as it exists today isn't the childhood that existed even a hundred years ago - that's too short of a time span to even consider evolution. Humans, however, are adaptable. We've adapted to technology, and continue to do so. Unschooling is an adaptation that works very well for some families, but not all families can unschool. Not all parents and situations are compatible with unschooling.

---Meredith (Mo 8, Ray 16)

plaidpanties666

--- In [email protected], Shira Rocklin <shirarocklin@...> wrote:
>> Ok. So taking the clothing as an example. Just because we can have
> more than 1-2 sets of clothing these days, does that mean that we
> should? Or that our children should?

From an unschooling perspective, does it help your relationship with your child to say "don't do that, you'll ruin your clothes" when there are other options? Relationships are important!

> If I shop at a thrift store, its less of an issue...

So shop at thrift stores. Buy one or two sets of newly made clothing and the rest second hand. Its good to get away from extremes of either-or decision making - that's part of what makes unschooling work, looking for ranges of varied solutions rather than thinking in simple dichotomies.

> Ok. The real question. Just because we have access to something these
> days, does that mean that it is ethical to access it?

Are you 100% certain that your ethics are exactly the same as your kids' ethics? Thats the real question from an unschooling perspective. If plastic is Bad, but my charming little girl can see beauty in a My Little Pony, is she Wrong? Is it Right for me to tell her she's wrong or bad or ignorant? That her love destroys the world?

That's part of what I mean about moving away from extremes of either-or. If you're uncomfortable with a particular subset of solutions, you're certainly not "required" to use those solutions (I solemnly swear that neither I nor Joyce will come to anyone's house and check... don't know about Alex, though) but it can help to think about why you're uncomfortable. Sometimes thinking things through can help you clarify what's making you uncomfortable so that you can find more options, options that work for you *and* your kids. Sometimes changing your perspective is an option!

>>If it will hurt
> someone else, do we still say that it's our children's choice to buy or
> not buy that thing?

You could just as well ask "If you have to hurt someone, who do you pick? Your child or a stranger?" That's a lot of baggage to lay on yourself! If you want to help "someone else" you can find other ways, arguably more effective than denying your child a purple pony with a star on its hip. Finding those other ways, joyfully finding ways to make the world a better place, will say more to your child about love and care for the world and people in it than a litany of "nos".

Will your child go on to share your values? There's no guarantee of that no matter what you do! But arguing with a child doesn't make for more peace in the world. Saying "no" doesn't bring more joy or create more kindness. Taking away choices doesn't provide more freedom.

---Meredith (Mo 8, Ray 16)

BRIAN POLIKOWSKY

That's part of what I mean about moving away from extremes of either-or. If you're uncomfortable with a particular subset of solutions, you're certainly not "required" to use those solutions (I solemnly swear that neither I nor Joyce will come to anyone's house and check... don't know about Alex, though)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Yeah people... if you did not know before, be aware now. The unschooling police will come check your house!

<BWG>

Its my way or the highway!!!!!!! =P~~~~~

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

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




________________________________


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