balance and boundaries and helping kids
[email protected]
I wish I had saved some more quotes from side conversations over the summer.
There were some good ones, and I had been meaning to bring up the idea of
helping kids get along in the world. The paraphrase of it all in general is
that some people seem to use unschooling as an excuse to do LESS with and for
their children, rather than more. Some people seem to see unschooling out of
the corner of their eye and glom onto it as a way to justify their inability or
unwillingness to really see their kids directly and help them learn to live
and act in ways that will benefit them (the children) and others.
That, I think, is a distraction and a disservice to those unschooling who can
and want to really create a totally nurturing life in which their children
can thrive.
I do have one quote:
"While I totally understand that most parents need to become *way* more
child-centered and discussions of limits and boundaries are not terribly
useful for getting to radical unschooling, sometimes the pendulum seems
to go too far in that direction, imo."
There have been others, similar.
I can't encourage or support or think lovely thoughts about people who want
to ignore their children's needs and say "because I'm an unschooler," and it
seems that some of this discussion of judgement is a cover for that kind of
hands-off "parenting."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
There were some good ones, and I had been meaning to bring up the idea of
helping kids get along in the world. The paraphrase of it all in general is
that some people seem to use unschooling as an excuse to do LESS with and for
their children, rather than more. Some people seem to see unschooling out of
the corner of their eye and glom onto it as a way to justify their inability or
unwillingness to really see their kids directly and help them learn to live
and act in ways that will benefit them (the children) and others.
That, I think, is a distraction and a disservice to those unschooling who can
and want to really create a totally nurturing life in which their children
can thrive.
I do have one quote:
"While I totally understand that most parents need to become *way* more
child-centered and discussions of limits and boundaries are not terribly
useful for getting to radical unschooling, sometimes the pendulum seems
to go too far in that direction, imo."
There have been others, similar.
I can't encourage or support or think lovely thoughts about people who want
to ignore their children's needs and say "because I'm an unschooler," and it
seems that some of this discussion of judgement is a cover for that kind of
hands-off "parenting."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Danielle Conger
SandraDodd@... wrote:
however, I think it's more a difference in the definition of "need."
Over on the AU list, people advocating an NVC (non-violent
communication) approach were very much attuned and focused on their
child's underlying needs--whatever need was behind the behavior--and
meeting those needs, whether it be more time and attention, more
outings, more food, whatever.
Rather, there was dissent about whether a child's "needs" also include
receiving information about the wider world's potential reaction to the
chosen expression of the need, or the parent's reaction, or the
sibling's reaction, whatever, in evaluative terms. The dilemma seemed to
me to be over whether a parent choosing to offer personal opinions and
judgments when the child hadn't asked was consistent with unschooling.
Or whether this were the same kind of thing as "teachable moments,"
demonstrating a lack of trust in the child's own discerning powers and
ability to learn about the world.
There also was some discussion over whether it were productive to say
"hitting hurts" when the child clearly already received that information
but was still choosing to hit as a way of getting his needs met. Is it
more productive to ignore the hitting and meet the need, trusting that
the child knows hitting hurts and will eventually find other
expressions, or to meet the need *and* have a brief discussion (either
in the moment or as a later follow-up) about better ways to meet the
need, such as "Hitting hurts. Can we come up with another way to get my
attention/ your sister's attention/ whatever?"
So, I didn't see this discussion as an instance of the "hands-off"
parenting, though I do know what Sandra's describing and chafe at that
as well.
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (6), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
> I can't encourage or support or think lovely thoughts about people whoI think there are some parents who definitely do that. Sometimes, too,
> want
> to ignore their children's needs and say "because I'm an unschooler,"
> and it
> seems that some of this discussion of judgement is a cover for that
> kind of
> hands-off "parenting."
however, I think it's more a difference in the definition of "need."
Over on the AU list, people advocating an NVC (non-violent
communication) approach were very much attuned and focused on their
child's underlying needs--whatever need was behind the behavior--and
meeting those needs, whether it be more time and attention, more
outings, more food, whatever.
Rather, there was dissent about whether a child's "needs" also include
receiving information about the wider world's potential reaction to the
chosen expression of the need, or the parent's reaction, or the
sibling's reaction, whatever, in evaluative terms. The dilemma seemed to
me to be over whether a parent choosing to offer personal opinions and
judgments when the child hadn't asked was consistent with unschooling.
Or whether this were the same kind of thing as "teachable moments,"
demonstrating a lack of trust in the child's own discerning powers and
ability to learn about the world.
There also was some discussion over whether it were productive to say
"hitting hurts" when the child clearly already received that information
but was still choosing to hit as a way of getting his needs met. Is it
more productive to ignore the hitting and meet the need, trusting that
the child knows hitting hurts and will eventually find other
expressions, or to meet the need *and* have a brief discussion (either
in the moment or as a later follow-up) about better ways to meet the
need, such as "Hitting hurts. Can we come up with another way to get my
attention/ your sister's attention/ whatever?"
So, I didn't see this discussion as an instance of the "hands-off"
parenting, though I do know what Sandra's describing and chafe at that
as well.
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (6), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/24/05 12:38:10 PM, danielle.conger@... writes:
(judgment of better/worse)?
-=-The dilemma seemed to
me to be over whether a parent choosing to offer personal opinions and
judgments when the child hadn't asked was consistent with unschooling.-=-
I think withholding information is inconsistent with unschooling.
The idea that unschooling is doing nothing until a child asks (for math
information, reading help or feedback about social realities) is at odds with the
creation of a rich learning environment.
-=-Or whether this were the same kind of thing as "teachable moments,"
demonstrating a lack of trust in the child's own discerning powers and
ability to learn about the world.-=-
I suppose my child could learn about the world if I were catatonic, but it
wouldn't be any good for the relationship between me and my child. Are people
advocating not HAVING a relationship with the child past buying groceries and
paying for the electricity?
-=-There also was some discussion over whether it were productive to say
"hitting hurts" when the child clearly already received that information
but was still choosing to hit as a way of getting his needs met.-=-
I don't think it's ever productive to say "hitting hurts."
I think it's criminal to allow a child to continue to hit It hurts everyone
involved--parent, hitter and hittee, and whether it's physical danger or just
harm to integrity and peace, it's harm.
-=-Is it more productive to ignore the hitting and meet the need-=-
Hitting can be prevented by getting the child in a target-poor environment,
by meeting his need, by calming him down. But learning not to hit is a VERY
real need (unless the parents are just planning to have the kid around between
now and when he goes to live in prison or a mental hospital). He can learn
to live with other people, or he will have that privilege removed. The
parents have only a few years to do what they can to help him live with other
people. After that it's not their call anymore whether their offspring have
freedom and choices or not.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Rather, there was dissent about whether a child's "needs" also includeHow would a parent or sibling indicate a reaction without any "evaluation"
> receiving information about the wider world's potential reaction to the
> chosen expression of the need, or the parent's reaction, or the
> sibling's reaction, whatever, in evaluative terms.
>
(judgment of better/worse)?
-=-The dilemma seemed to
me to be over whether a parent choosing to offer personal opinions and
judgments when the child hadn't asked was consistent with unschooling.-=-
I think withholding information is inconsistent with unschooling.
The idea that unschooling is doing nothing until a child asks (for math
information, reading help or feedback about social realities) is at odds with the
creation of a rich learning environment.
-=-Or whether this were the same kind of thing as "teachable moments,"
demonstrating a lack of trust in the child's own discerning powers and
ability to learn about the world.-=-
I suppose my child could learn about the world if I were catatonic, but it
wouldn't be any good for the relationship between me and my child. Are people
advocating not HAVING a relationship with the child past buying groceries and
paying for the electricity?
-=-There also was some discussion over whether it were productive to say
"hitting hurts" when the child clearly already received that information
but was still choosing to hit as a way of getting his needs met.-=-
I don't think it's ever productive to say "hitting hurts."
I think it's criminal to allow a child to continue to hit It hurts everyone
involved--parent, hitter and hittee, and whether it's physical danger or just
harm to integrity and peace, it's harm.
-=-Is it more productive to ignore the hitting and meet the need-=-
Hitting can be prevented by getting the child in a target-poor environment,
by meeting his need, by calming him down. But learning not to hit is a VERY
real need (unless the parents are just planning to have the kid around between
now and when he goes to live in prison or a mental hospital). He can learn
to live with other people, or he will have that privilege removed. The
parents have only a few years to do what they can to help him live with other
people. After that it's not their call anymore whether their offspring have
freedom and choices or not.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Danielle Conger
SandraDodd@... wrote:
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (6), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
>I completely agree and am glad to hear you say this.
> I think withholding information is inconsistent with unschooling.
>
> The idea that unschooling is doing nothing until a child asks (for math
> information, reading help or feedback about social realities) is at
> odds with the
> creation of a rich learning environment.
> Hitting can be prevented by getting the child in a target-poorYes, this pretty well sums up how I feel about it, too.
> environment,
> by meeting his need, by calming him down. But learning not to hit
> is a VERY
> real need (unless the parents are just planning to have the kid around
> between
> now and when he goes to live in prison or a mental hospital). He can
> learn
> to live with other people, or he will have that privilege removed. The
> parents have only a few years to do what they can to help him live
> with other
> people. After that it's not their call anymore whether their
> offspring have
> freedom and choices or not.
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (6), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
Betsy Hill
**some people seem to use unschooling as an excuse to do LESS with and for
their children, rather than more.**
I've been thinking that the "un-" prefix sometimes gets simplistically
translated as "nothing-".
Also, maybe there is some confusion, in people just learning about
unschooling, between "unschooling" and "deschooling".
Betsy
** I can't encourage or support or think lovely thoughts about people
who want
to ignore their children's needs and say "because I'm an unschooler,"
and it
seems that some of this discussion of judgement is a cover for that kind of
hands-off "parenting."**
Maybe if we keep including examples with the theoretical stuff.
Otherwise abstract words are pretty stretchy.
their children, rather than more.**
I've been thinking that the "un-" prefix sometimes gets simplistically
translated as "nothing-".
Also, maybe there is some confusion, in people just learning about
unschooling, between "unschooling" and "deschooling".
Betsy
** I can't encourage or support or think lovely thoughts about people
who want
to ignore their children's needs and say "because I'm an unschooler,"
and it
seems that some of this discussion of judgement is a cover for that kind of
hands-off "parenting."**
Maybe if we keep including examples with the theoretical stuff.
Otherwise abstract words are pretty stretchy.
Betsy Hill
**But learning not to hit is a VERY
real need (unless the parents are just planning to have the kid around
between
now and when he goes to live in prison or a mental hospital).**
I agree that learning not to hit is important.
But to rub theory and reality together for a minute, do we think we
"teach" our children not to hit by "giving them a good lesson", or do we
think they eventually "learn"?
Betsy
real need (unless the parents are just planning to have the kid around
between
now and when he goes to live in prison or a mental hospital).**
I agree that learning not to hit is important.
But to rub theory and reality together for a minute, do we think we
"teach" our children not to hit by "giving them a good lesson", or do we
think they eventually "learn"?
Betsy
Danielle Conger
Betsy Hill wrote:
by experimenting and exploring and getting real feedback. If we take
away that real feedback, it's kind of like hiding part of the data from
a scientist while still expecting him to draw the same rational
conclusions that require the whole set of data. I think withholding our
genuine reactions is akin to kids only having access to a partial data set.
I believe withholding information based on our best experience and
judgment and expecting kids to learn from others what they could have
learned more gently with us is unnecessary and potentially cruel, quite
frankly.
I don't see dealing with such scenarios as they naturally occur through
life with our children as bearing any similarity to sitting down to
create a lesson plan that covers such things. Moreover, "giving them a
good lesson" is a loaded expression that generally refers to some kind
of nasty, arbitrary consequence thought up by an instructor and put in
place to reinforce the contrived lesson.
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (6), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
>Well, in my mind, unschooling kids are living and learning in the world
> But to rub theory and reality together for a minute, do we think we
> "teach" our children not to hit by "giving them a good lesson", or do we
> think they eventually "learn"?
by experimenting and exploring and getting real feedback. If we take
away that real feedback, it's kind of like hiding part of the data from
a scientist while still expecting him to draw the same rational
conclusions that require the whole set of data. I think withholding our
genuine reactions is akin to kids only having access to a partial data set.
I believe withholding information based on our best experience and
judgment and expecting kids to learn from others what they could have
learned more gently with us is unnecessary and potentially cruel, quite
frankly.
I don't see dealing with such scenarios as they naturally occur through
life with our children as bearing any similarity to sitting down to
create a lesson plan that covers such things. Moreover, "giving them a
good lesson" is a loaded expression that generally refers to some kind
of nasty, arbitrary consequence thought up by an instructor and put in
place to reinforce the contrived lesson.
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (6), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
Betsy Hill
** I don't see dealing with such scenarios as they naturally occur through
life with our children as bearing any similarity to sitting down to
create a lesson plan that covers such things.**
I was thinking that IF one is trying to teach sibling A to not hit
sibling B through "lecturing" then that in some ways resembled
teaching. That was the only potential inconsistency between discussing
anti-social behavior and all out unschooling theory that I could see.
But I agree that giving kids information about what we think and about
what we think other people might commonly think is a necessary part of
parenting.
Where did the idea that it's better to suppress all judgement come
from? Was the origin of that discussion on another list? Is it an NVC
theory taken to the max? I've lost track.
Betsy
life with our children as bearing any similarity to sitting down to
create a lesson plan that covers such things.**
I was thinking that IF one is trying to teach sibling A to not hit
sibling B through "lecturing" then that in some ways resembled
teaching. That was the only potential inconsistency between discussing
anti-social behavior and all out unschooling theory that I could see.
But I agree that giving kids information about what we think and about
what we think other people might commonly think is a necessary part of
parenting.
Where did the idea that it's better to suppress all judgement come
from? Was the origin of that discussion on another list? Is it an NVC
theory taken to the max? I've lost track.
Betsy
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/24/05 4:39:23 PM, ecsamhill@... writes:
here used that phrase.
Those aren't the only two options.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>Why are there quotes on "giving them a good lesson"? I don't think anyone
> But to rub theory and reality together for a minute, do we think we
> "teach" our children not to hit by "giving them a good lesson", or do we
> think they eventually "learn"?
>
here used that phrase.
Those aren't the only two options.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Betsy Hill
** Why are there quotes on "giving them a good lesson"? I don't think
anyone
here used that phrase.**
The quote marks are for emphatic purposes, same as the words "teach" and
"learn" were flagged. Underlining probably would have been better, but
I'm not sure if that kind of formatting stays in the post for everyone
who reads it.
I thought that Danielle was implying that someone else had said that
unschoolers shouldn't speak to their children about their behavior. I
was trying to comprehend why someone (even a hypothetical someone) might
say that, and made kind of a leap to the rhetorical question that I
asked below. I think I may have been using reducto ad absurdem, but
pushed it to far.
Children need information and guidance and practice to be socially
adept, but I don't think we would say that we must "teach" them to be
socially adept, because it is not teaching that causes learning to
happen. Unless the distinction between teaching and learning is less
pertinent in this context?
Betsy
** > But to rub theory and reality together for a minute, do we think we
anyone
here used that phrase.**
The quote marks are for emphatic purposes, same as the words "teach" and
"learn" were flagged. Underlining probably would have been better, but
I'm not sure if that kind of formatting stays in the post for everyone
who reads it.
I thought that Danielle was implying that someone else had said that
unschoolers shouldn't speak to their children about their behavior. I
was trying to comprehend why someone (even a hypothetical someone) might
say that, and made kind of a leap to the rhetorical question that I
asked below. I think I may have been using reducto ad absurdem, but
pushed it to far.
Children need information and guidance and practice to be socially
adept, but I don't think we would say that we must "teach" them to be
socially adept, because it is not teaching that causes learning to
happen. Unless the distinction between teaching and learning is less
pertinent in this context?
Betsy
** > But to rub theory and reality together for a minute, do we think we
> "teach" our children not to hit by "giving them a good lesson", or do we
> think they eventually "learn"?**
Robyn Coburn
<<<<< I thought that Danielle was implying that someone else had said that
unschoolers shouldn't speak to their children about their behavior. I
was trying to comprehend why someone (even a hypothetical someone) might
say that, and made kind of a leap to the rhetorical question that I
asked below. I think I may have been using reducto ad absurdem, but
pushed it to far.>>>>
It is always hard when paraphrasing a conversation that is occurring on
another list to separate what people are saying from our interpretation of
it. I feel called to defend the folks contributing to a really deep
philosophical, and practical, series of threads on AU by letting you know
that nobody said that, and tbh I didn't think Danielle was implying that
anyone had (rather the opposite).
The conversation has been very broad including being about ways of speaking
to them, what idea should be communicated first in different situations, the
motivations behind the different ways of speaking, choosing a mental label
for their behavior that promotes a compassionate response, and the best time
to speak to children about their challenging behaviors - and how these may
vary depending on the children's personalities. Danielle may disagree with
my paraphrase!
The whole thing was instigated by concern about an angry father responding
punitively to his three year old poorly communicating his desire to play
with aggressive behavior, and has been one of the most wide ranging,
intellectually challenging and personally useful (promoting of
introspection) conversations that we have had over there. Helping our
children do better - with us, with their siblings, in social situations -
has definitely been the underlying focus.
<<<<< Children need information and guidance and practice to be socially
adept, but I don't think we would say that we must "teach" them to be
socially adept, because it is not teaching that causes learning to
happen. Unless the distinction between teaching and learning is less
pertinent in this context? >>>>
My experience with Jayn is that she resents being given information that she
already knows (but may have momentarily forgotten in the grip of emotions).
Trying to offer "familiar guidance" really annoys her and gets in the way of
our creative conversations about alternative strategies.
Robyn L. Coburn
Betsy
** > But to rub theory and reality together for a minute, do we think we
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
<http://www.unschooling.info>
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/81 - Release Date: 8/24/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/81 - Release Date: 8/24/2005
unschoolers shouldn't speak to their children about their behavior. I
was trying to comprehend why someone (even a hypothetical someone) might
say that, and made kind of a leap to the rhetorical question that I
asked below. I think I may have been using reducto ad absurdem, but
pushed it to far.>>>>
It is always hard when paraphrasing a conversation that is occurring on
another list to separate what people are saying from our interpretation of
it. I feel called to defend the folks contributing to a really deep
philosophical, and practical, series of threads on AU by letting you know
that nobody said that, and tbh I didn't think Danielle was implying that
anyone had (rather the opposite).
The conversation has been very broad including being about ways of speaking
to them, what idea should be communicated first in different situations, the
motivations behind the different ways of speaking, choosing a mental label
for their behavior that promotes a compassionate response, and the best time
to speak to children about their challenging behaviors - and how these may
vary depending on the children's personalities. Danielle may disagree with
my paraphrase!
The whole thing was instigated by concern about an angry father responding
punitively to his three year old poorly communicating his desire to play
with aggressive behavior, and has been one of the most wide ranging,
intellectually challenging and personally useful (promoting of
introspection) conversations that we have had over there. Helping our
children do better - with us, with their siblings, in social situations -
has definitely been the underlying focus.
<<<<< Children need information and guidance and practice to be socially
adept, but I don't think we would say that we must "teach" them to be
socially adept, because it is not teaching that causes learning to
happen. Unless the distinction between teaching and learning is less
pertinent in this context? >>>>
My experience with Jayn is that she resents being given information that she
already knows (but may have momentarily forgotten in the grip of emotions).
Trying to offer "familiar guidance" really annoys her and gets in the way of
our creative conversations about alternative strategies.
Robyn L. Coburn
Betsy
** > But to rub theory and reality together for a minute, do we think we
> "teach" our children not to hit by "giving them a good lesson", or do we"List Posting Policies" are provided in the files area of this group.
> think they eventually "learn"?**
Visit the Unschooling website and message boards:
<http://www.unschooling.info>
Yahoo! Groups Links
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/81 - Release Date: 8/24/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/81 - Release Date: 8/24/2005
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/24/2005 7:30:10 PM Central Standard Time,
danielle.conger@... writes:
Moreover, "giving them a
good lesson" is a loaded expression that generally refers to some kind
of nasty, arbitrary consequence thought up by an instructor and put in
place to reinforce the contrived lesson.
~~~
It makes me think of spanking.
Karen
www.badchair.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
danielle.conger@... writes:
Moreover, "giving them a
good lesson" is a loaded expression that generally refers to some kind
of nasty, arbitrary consequence thought up by an instructor and put in
place to reinforce the contrived lesson.
~~~
It makes me think of spanking.
Karen
www.badchair.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/25/2005 7:36:50 AM Central Standard Time,
tuckervill2@... writes:
Moreover, "giving them a
good lesson" is a loaded expression that generally refers to some kind
of nasty, arbitrary consequence thought up by an instructor and put in
place to reinforce the contrived lesson.
~~~
It makes me think of spanking.
~~~
Ah, and now I see that no one used that phrase, so we'll move on...
Karen
www.badchair.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
tuckervill2@... writes:
Moreover, "giving them a
good lesson" is a loaded expression that generally refers to some kind
of nasty, arbitrary consequence thought up by an instructor and put in
place to reinforce the contrived lesson.
~~~
It makes me think of spanking.
~~~
Ah, and now I see that no one used that phrase, so we'll move on...
Karen
www.badchair.net
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/24/05 7:17:19 PM, ecsamhill@... writes:
No one is recommending lecturing. TALKING, maybe, telling real stories
maybe, explaining maybe. But a lecture? A planned presentation in which the
child is not a participant!?
-=- That was the only potential inconsistency between discussing
anti-social behavior and all out unschooling theory that I could see.-=-
It's anti-social to double dip chips, and to spell really badly, and not to
put trash in the trash can. None of that needs a lecture.
-=-Where did the idea that it's better to suppress all judgement come
from? Was the origin of that discussion on another list?-=-
I thought it was hypothetical or originally on another list or both.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I was thinking that IF one is trying to teach sibling A to not hitThese quoted words are making me very nervous. <g>
> sibling B through "lecturing" then that in some ways resembled
> teaching.
>
No one is recommending lecturing. TALKING, maybe, telling real stories
maybe, explaining maybe. But a lecture? A planned presentation in which the
child is not a participant!?
-=- That was the only potential inconsistency between discussing
anti-social behavior and all out unschooling theory that I could see.-=-
It's anti-social to double dip chips, and to spell really badly, and not to
put trash in the trash can. None of that needs a lecture.
-=-Where did the idea that it's better to suppress all judgement come
from? Was the origin of that discussion on another list?-=-
I thought it was hypothetical or originally on another list or both.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/24/05 11:24:26 PM, ecsamhill@... writes:
"not judging" (which I thought was saying nothing. I might be wrong. We did
kind of come in in the middle of a conversation. <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Children need information and guidance and practice to be sociallyI thought the queston was between saying something (no matter now nice) and
> adept, but I don't think we would say that we must "teach" them to be
> socially adept, because it is not teaching that causes learning to
> happen. Unless the distinction between teaching and learning is less
> pertinent in this context?
>
"not judging" (which I thought was saying nothing. I might be wrong. We did
kind of come in in the middle of a conversation. <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/25/05 2:02:18 AM, dezigna@... writes:
careful/sensitive/whatever, I might've said something like "I was embarrassed."
That's a flat out honest "me" answer, and lets them consider that not only did
they act less courteously than they might've/should've, but that I know they
could've done better.
The too-extreme version of that is "I'm ashamed of you." I don't say that.
I'm proud of my kids. They know that. Sometimes they embarrass me.
Sometimes I embarrass them. They're able to say so.
More often I'll wait for them to talk about it and ask if they might want to
do differently next time, or if they want to do something to make it up to the
other person. If they're too embarrassed or it's too soon I'll try to
remind them the next time we're with that other person and they can maybe
apologize, or just pointedly do or be better.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> My experience with Jayn is that she resents being given information thatIn a case like that, when I knew the kid knew and had just not been more
> she
> already knows (but may have momentarily forgotten in the grip of emotions).
> Trying to offer "familiar guidance" really annoys her and gets in the way of
> our creative conversations about alternative strategies.
>
>
careful/sensitive/whatever, I might've said something like "I was embarrassed."
That's a flat out honest "me" answer, and lets them consider that not only did
they act less courteously than they might've/should've, but that I know they
could've done better.
The too-extreme version of that is "I'm ashamed of you." I don't say that.
I'm proud of my kids. They know that. Sometimes they embarrass me.
Sometimes I embarrass them. They're able to say so.
More often I'll wait for them to talk about it and ask if they might want to
do differently next time, or if they want to do something to make it up to the
other person. If they're too embarrassed or it's too soon I'll try to
remind them the next time we're with that other person and they can maybe
apologize, or just pointedly do or be better.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Danielle Conger
SandraDodd@... wrote:
behind the discussion over to discuss in a broader forum--not an easy
transition. While I would agree with Robyn's characterization of the
discussion (and of course the whole thing's available at AU for anyone's
perusal), for me it went beyond any single recent post about "couch
dad." It is more a conglomeration of posts and situations and
recommendations, compounded by a recent reading of Rosenberg's
_Non-Violent Communication_ as part of an ongoing monthly book
discussion. For me, it's a bunch of things swirling together that all
seem to converge at the point of *to judge or not to judge--what is the
unschooling parent's role?*
Rosenberg's theory in a nutshell contains four ordered components:
observation, feeling, needs, request. First we observe, the "trick is to
be able to articulate this observation without introducing any judgment
or evaluation--to simply say what people are doing that we either like
or don't like" (6). Rosenberg differentiates between "moralistic" and
"value" judgments. He writes, "All of us make value judgments as to the
qualities we value in life; for example, we might value honesty,
freedom, or peace. Value judgments reflect our beliefs of how life can
best be served. We make *moralistic judgments* of people and behaviors
that fail to support our value judgments, e.g. 'Violence is bad. People
who kill others are evil.' Had we been raised speaking a language that
facilitated the expression of compassion, we would have learned to
articulate our needs and values directly, rather than to insinuate
wrongness when they have not been met. For example instead of 'Violence
is bad,' we might say instead, 'I am fearful of the use of violence to
resolve conflicts; I value the resolution of human conflicts through
other means.'" (17).
Okay, so there's lots more, but that gets at the whole judgment thing. I
personally find Rosenberg's language wordy, stilted and formulaic.
Moreover, I don't find moralistic judgments of behaviors to translate to
the person. I don't make the logical leap that people who choose
violence are evil. I believe it is possible to talk about and evaluate
actions and choices within the moment without translating those
evaluations to the person over all time.
So, to put it in more practical terms, if one of my children is hitting
another person (friend, sibling, parent, whatever, even the dog) with
his sword, I'm not going to stand there using the four wordy steps only
to end in a request that he please stop hitting with the sword. I'm
going to say "Stop! Hitting hurts!" or something brief and to that
effect. If I'm close enough, I'm going to grab the sword in mid air
before it lands another blow. The sword is available only on the
condition that it's not being used to hurt. As soon as that condition is
met, the sword is immediately available. My child decides that, not me.
Another specific example that I posted today...
The other day, the kids were out in the driveway drawing with chalk with
our 8 yo neighbor, who is very sweet and quiet most of the time--tends
to become overwhelmed by my children's exuberance. Sam (5) got very
excited and walked up to the little girl sitting in the driveway and
started doing his "butt dance," shaking his hips back and forth Elvis
style, which he does when he's very excited. However, this meant that
his groin was right in the little girl's face shaking back and forth,
Chippendale style. All I had to say was, "Sam, honey, no thank you." He
was fine with that; he was just really excited and having fun. He moved
off and found something else to do.
Later, however, we had a conversation about how shaking one's groin or
butt in someone else's face or at someone else was *inappropriate.* I
judged and labeled the action inappropriate without implying that Sam is
inappropriate. We talked about how doing the butt dance at home with
family was fine, but there are some things we only do at home with
family and we don't do this in anyone's face. I had no qualms whatsoever
in passing judgment on his action or making that sweeping generalization
about the likely interpretation of his action out in the wider world
(even though he may someday become a Chippendale dancer and make loads
of money doing what I labeled as inappropriate for general social
interaction). It was simple, easy, to the point, useful, practical
information that he *needs* to have. No shame, no blame.
Now, if I had simply focused on his need--to express his excitement and
exuberance--and expressed C's need--she needs to feel safe in her space,
or whatever--that may have helped him in the moment but it would not
necessarily have translated into the next situation. If I had gone
through all of Rosenberg's four steps with Sam in the moment, it would
have drawn more attention to the behavior than I deemed necessary and
that attention in and of itself may have been shaming. Sometimes
sweeping generalizations are useful and expedient.
If Sam had done this over at C's house where her father, for instance,
were the one to see it, that may have resulted in a very different
situation. He could have been shamed and scolded and made to feel like a
terrible person and sent home. That's not something I want to happen,
and if my judgment of his actions, labeling them inappropriate, can
prevent that--great! That's what I mean when I say that I believe not
sharing judgment and rationale can have cruel results. Not everything
must be learned through trial and error.
Maybe having more specific and less hypothetical situations will make
this whole discussion more clear, I don't know. But, there you go.
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (6), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
> I thought the queston was between saying something (no matter nowYes, and that's entirely my fault. I wanted to bring the principle
> nice) and
> "not judging" (which I thought was saying nothing. I might be
> wrong. We did
> kind of come in in the middle of a conversation. <g>
behind the discussion over to discuss in a broader forum--not an easy
transition. While I would agree with Robyn's characterization of the
discussion (and of course the whole thing's available at AU for anyone's
perusal), for me it went beyond any single recent post about "couch
dad." It is more a conglomeration of posts and situations and
recommendations, compounded by a recent reading of Rosenberg's
_Non-Violent Communication_ as part of an ongoing monthly book
discussion. For me, it's a bunch of things swirling together that all
seem to converge at the point of *to judge or not to judge--what is the
unschooling parent's role?*
Rosenberg's theory in a nutshell contains four ordered components:
observation, feeling, needs, request. First we observe, the "trick is to
be able to articulate this observation without introducing any judgment
or evaluation--to simply say what people are doing that we either like
or don't like" (6). Rosenberg differentiates between "moralistic" and
"value" judgments. He writes, "All of us make value judgments as to the
qualities we value in life; for example, we might value honesty,
freedom, or peace. Value judgments reflect our beliefs of how life can
best be served. We make *moralistic judgments* of people and behaviors
that fail to support our value judgments, e.g. 'Violence is bad. People
who kill others are evil.' Had we been raised speaking a language that
facilitated the expression of compassion, we would have learned to
articulate our needs and values directly, rather than to insinuate
wrongness when they have not been met. For example instead of 'Violence
is bad,' we might say instead, 'I am fearful of the use of violence to
resolve conflicts; I value the resolution of human conflicts through
other means.'" (17).
Okay, so there's lots more, but that gets at the whole judgment thing. I
personally find Rosenberg's language wordy, stilted and formulaic.
Moreover, I don't find moralistic judgments of behaviors to translate to
the person. I don't make the logical leap that people who choose
violence are evil. I believe it is possible to talk about and evaluate
actions and choices within the moment without translating those
evaluations to the person over all time.
So, to put it in more practical terms, if one of my children is hitting
another person (friend, sibling, parent, whatever, even the dog) with
his sword, I'm not going to stand there using the four wordy steps only
to end in a request that he please stop hitting with the sword. I'm
going to say "Stop! Hitting hurts!" or something brief and to that
effect. If I'm close enough, I'm going to grab the sword in mid air
before it lands another blow. The sword is available only on the
condition that it's not being used to hurt. As soon as that condition is
met, the sword is immediately available. My child decides that, not me.
Another specific example that I posted today...
The other day, the kids were out in the driveway drawing with chalk with
our 8 yo neighbor, who is very sweet and quiet most of the time--tends
to become overwhelmed by my children's exuberance. Sam (5) got very
excited and walked up to the little girl sitting in the driveway and
started doing his "butt dance," shaking his hips back and forth Elvis
style, which he does when he's very excited. However, this meant that
his groin was right in the little girl's face shaking back and forth,
Chippendale style. All I had to say was, "Sam, honey, no thank you." He
was fine with that; he was just really excited and having fun. He moved
off and found something else to do.
Later, however, we had a conversation about how shaking one's groin or
butt in someone else's face or at someone else was *inappropriate.* I
judged and labeled the action inappropriate without implying that Sam is
inappropriate. We talked about how doing the butt dance at home with
family was fine, but there are some things we only do at home with
family and we don't do this in anyone's face. I had no qualms whatsoever
in passing judgment on his action or making that sweeping generalization
about the likely interpretation of his action out in the wider world
(even though he may someday become a Chippendale dancer and make loads
of money doing what I labeled as inappropriate for general social
interaction). It was simple, easy, to the point, useful, practical
information that he *needs* to have. No shame, no blame.
Now, if I had simply focused on his need--to express his excitement and
exuberance--and expressed C's need--she needs to feel safe in her space,
or whatever--that may have helped him in the moment but it would not
necessarily have translated into the next situation. If I had gone
through all of Rosenberg's four steps with Sam in the moment, it would
have drawn more attention to the behavior than I deemed necessary and
that attention in and of itself may have been shaming. Sometimes
sweeping generalizations are useful and expedient.
If Sam had done this over at C's house where her father, for instance,
were the one to see it, that may have resulted in a very different
situation. He could have been shamed and scolded and made to feel like a
terrible person and sent home. That's not something I want to happen,
and if my judgment of his actions, labeling them inappropriate, can
prevent that--great! That's what I mean when I say that I believe not
sharing judgment and rationale can have cruel results. Not everything
must be learned through trial and error.
Maybe having more specific and less hypothetical situations will make
this whole discussion more clear, I don't know. But, there you go.
--
~~Danielle
Emily (8), Julia (6), Sam (5)
http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
"With our thoughts, we make the world." ~~Buddha
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/25/05 10:01:52 AM, danielle.conger@... writes:
from the 60's. Not horrible, but not necessary. And I hate to see people
glomming onto it like a religion instead of using it as one of many tools. THERE
comes one of the things he's preaching against, which is making a moral
judgment. I've had people tell me (online and in person) that something I said
wasn't in keeping with non-violent communication. "Rosenberg says..."
Well I don't go to his church, and if they want to decide I've violated their
boundaries because I didn't read the book before I talked to them, all I can
think is that if they need to study remedial conversation-having that's not my
problem.
So for me personally, having YEARS and years of good relationships with kids
and friends and relatives who still call to tell me their problems, I don't
want to stop what I'm doing and read a book about communicating with
prescribed phrases.
Chippendale dancing between consenting adults is fine. <g>
"Between consenting adults" might be a phrase all children should be required
to learn. :-)
-=-
Okay, so there's lots more, but that gets at the whole judgment thing. I
personally find Rosenberg's language wordy, stilted and formulaic.
Moreover, I don't find moralistic judgments of behaviors to translate to
the person. I don't make the logical leap that people who choose
violence are evil.-=-
Right.
My kids are really surprised sometimes to hear what others would consider
totally inappropriate, but they understand it. A shy Christian family came over
to visit one day and I had the soundtrack of the Southpark movie playing
(past the "uncle f***ker" song, but still...) and I didn't even notice. Marty
and Holly did, and one of them just subtly came over and turned the volume down
gradually to nothing.
They understand the principle.
I do too, but am of an age where I'd just as soon cleanse my life of those
who would be offended. They're not at that point yet, so they're more careful
and considerate.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>It seems to be a more elaborate version of the same old "I message" stuff
> -=-Okay, so there's lots more, but that gets at the whole judgment thing. I
> personally find Rosenberg's language wordy, stilted and formulaic.
> Moreover, I don't find moralistic judgments of behaviors to translate to
> the person. I don't make the logical leap that people who choose
> violence are evil.-=-
>
from the 60's. Not horrible, but not necessary. And I hate to see people
glomming onto it like a religion instead of using it as one of many tools. THERE
comes one of the things he's preaching against, which is making a moral
judgment. I've had people tell me (online and in person) that something I said
wasn't in keeping with non-violent communication. "Rosenberg says..."
Well I don't go to his church, and if they want to decide I've violated their
boundaries because I didn't read the book before I talked to them, all I can
think is that if they need to study remedial conversation-having that's not my
problem.
So for me personally, having YEARS and years of good relationships with kids
and friends and relatives who still call to tell me their problems, I don't
want to stop what I'm doing and read a book about communicating with
prescribed phrases.
Chippendale dancing between consenting adults is fine. <g>
"Between consenting adults" might be a phrase all children should be required
to learn. :-)
-=-
Okay, so there's lots more, but that gets at the whole judgment thing. I
personally find Rosenberg's language wordy, stilted and formulaic.
Moreover, I don't find moralistic judgments of behaviors to translate to
the person. I don't make the logical leap that people who choose
violence are evil.-=-
Right.
My kids are really surprised sometimes to hear what others would consider
totally inappropriate, but they understand it. A shy Christian family came over
to visit one day and I had the soundtrack of the Southpark movie playing
(past the "uncle f***ker" song, but still...) and I didn't even notice. Marty
and Holly did, and one of them just subtly came over and turned the volume down
gradually to nothing.
They understand the principle.
I do too, but am of an age where I'd just as soon cleanse my life of those
who would be offended. They're not at that point yet, so they're more careful
and considerate.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Betsy Hill
** I thought the queston was between saying something (no matter now
nice) and
"not judging" (which I thought was saying nothing. I might be wrong.
We did
kind of come in in the middle of a conversation. <g> **
I must confess to not being very good at saying nothing! You all have
probably figured that out by now (from my posting style).
I think not judging can be taken too far. But the first big step on the
not judging path seems like a good one. I define that first step as
saying something like "*I* don't like that" or "that bothers *me*"
rather than saying "that's bad". (This would be clearer is I was using
real examples. Sorry.) What you've suggested, saying "stop", is also
more neutral and doesn't have a built-in putdown. (If there are people
who find "stop" to be too authoritarian, or something, I'm not with them
ideologically, but I'm willing to listen.)
My kid (11 now) takes moderate feedback without seeming upset by it, so
I haven't delved as far into this issue as people who have either kids
or spouse who make it clear they prefer to be treated a different way.
(And my kid was very verbal at a young age, which makes this kind of
dialog easier.) I haven't had to think so hard about improving, because
it's been "workable" here. Other people undoubtedly have a deeper grasp
of the subject than I do.
Betsy
nice) and
"not judging" (which I thought was saying nothing. I might be wrong.
We did
kind of come in in the middle of a conversation. <g> **
I must confess to not being very good at saying nothing! You all have
probably figured that out by now (from my posting style).
I think not judging can be taken too far. But the first big step on the
not judging path seems like a good one. I define that first step as
saying something like "*I* don't like that" or "that bothers *me*"
rather than saying "that's bad". (This would be clearer is I was using
real examples. Sorry.) What you've suggested, saying "stop", is also
more neutral and doesn't have a built-in putdown. (If there are people
who find "stop" to be too authoritarian, or something, I'm not with them
ideologically, but I'm willing to listen.)
My kid (11 now) takes moderate feedback without seeming upset by it, so
I haven't delved as far into this issue as people who have either kids
or spouse who make it clear they prefer to be treated a different way.
(And my kid was very verbal at a young age, which makes this kind of
dialog easier.) I haven't had to think so hard about improving, because
it's been "workable" here. Other people undoubtedly have a deeper grasp
of the subject than I do.
Betsy
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/25/05 10:38:49 AM, ecsamhill@... writes:
I'm willing to listen, but I'd probably STILL yell "stop" if they were about
to walk in front of a bus.
People don't have the right to deny *me* the right to use my words to save
their lives or to ensure the safety of others. I just wouldn't sleep well if I
hesitated, in an emergency, to say "STOP" even to someone obnoxious enough to
insist that it was too authoritarian. <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> (If there are people-----------------
> who find "stop" to be too authoritarian, or something, I'm not with them
> ideologically, but I'm willing to listen.)
>
I'm willing to listen, but I'd probably STILL yell "stop" if they were about
to walk in front of a bus.
People don't have the right to deny *me* the right to use my words to save
their lives or to ensure the safety of others. I just wouldn't sleep well if I
hesitated, in an emergency, to say "STOP" even to someone obnoxious enough to
insist that it was too authoritarian. <g>
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]