sleeping
[email protected]
I went to look at the sleeping page to see what I had put there that was
causing so much grief. The first bit is Nancy K. /aisliin who had done a
point-by-point to someone on the Always Learning list, and I saved it. Maybe as a
lead article there it's a little strong. <g>
With anything, if a family moves from rules (about food, freedoms, clocks,
what to wear) to something new there's going to be the backlash, and thinking of
catapults (or trebuchets, more technically, or of a rubber band airplane, or
other crank-it-up projectiles...) the more pressure that's built up, the
further that kid is going to launch if you let it go all at once.
In the absence of pressure in the first place, there's no reaction to
resistence. My kids didn't WANT to stay up all night, because they were used to
going to sleep happily and peacefully since before they could remember. That
doesn't mean they were used to never being "put to bed" in their whole lives, it
means going to bed had to do with real and variable factors, but there were
principles behind it. Bed was about sleeping, not about control or punishment
or discipline or schedules. Sleeping was a cool, desireable thing that
adults liked to do.
Some kids never see adults sleep. They are "put to bed" by adults (scary
adults who turn the lights off and say "STAY IN THE BED" sometimes) and then
they wake up to the faces of adults who probably (to them) seem to have been
awake all the whole time. That's one way "family bed" arrangements add to peace
and togetherness--the kids KNOW other people sleep, and they learn to help
the other people sleep comfortably.
Some unschoolers are more radical than I am. That's okay, but here's an
example of a radical Nancy K. response <bwg>:
[someone once wrote:
It is not against the unschooling train of thought to insist that your
children be in their rooms by a certain time each night.]
If Unschooling (damned insufficient word) is a lifestyle choice, NOT an
educational style, per se; then I disagree with this statement. "Insisting" that
the kids be banished to their rooms after a certain time, on room arrest as it
were, regardless of their wills, desires, or plans for the evening, is not
respectful of them as people. Treating kids as second class citizens and
subservient members of the family, subject to your whims, is not in sync with an
"unschooling train of thought." Saying that you "insist" in the first place implies
that you have some leverage you are using in order to bend them to your will.
How will that be accomplished in a respectful and unschooly manner?
-==================================
(back to Sandra:)
I think she was respnding to "insist." But honestly, parents DO have
leverage to bend children to their will. If children have freedom to choose, it's
because the parents GIVE them that freedom, because they have the power to
give it to them.
For a parent to absolutely decide that he will never "insist" is going way to
far, I think. Not only could it be, in some cases, illegal and neglectful,
if the parent isn't even clear on what her duties and responsibilities are as
a parent, maybe she isn't thinking clearly about other things, either.
If I let Kirby make the decision about something every single time, thousands
of times, still I LET him, because the state, the county, and the people
around me expect me to make that decision. I delegated. I can't say "It's none
of my business, he can do what he wants" to people outside the famly, because
it makes me look clueless and unconcerned.
If Keith lets me decide how to spend money and doesn't make me check with him
before I buy a DVD or some expensive groceries or clothes for the kids,
that's cool. He lets me know when it's a really bad month to spend money. The
fact that he doesn't check doesn't mean it would be okay for me to buy a
Bentley or to charge tickets for a cruise. If I asked in advance about doing
that, he would insist (if he weren't insane) that I NOT do that, because we really
can't afford it. I live my live in such a way that Keith doesn't have to
insist that I do something different. We've moved gradually from the point
that we consulted about $30 purchases (when we were young and not both
employed, or one or both in college) to where now he might buy a power tool and tell
me later, or I put a $300 eBay bid on a $1500 microscope without asking (I
didn't get it, but he wouldn't have freaked out if I had).
If a child goes from a 9:00 bedtime to staying up until midnight DOING
something, that's not too bad. If the jump is to staying up until 3:00 by any
possible means just to do it, that's not so cool.
I need Joyce-logic summary, I think. <g> Or any help making this point,
please!
When I was a kid I would stay out until I "had" to be home.
My kids come back when they're through doing what they're doing.
I didn't NEED a "thing" to do to be away from home. I would just kill
time being gone.
My kids have never felt the need to do that. Being home isn't a bad thing
to be avoided.
That's the parallel that worked with food and bed and reading and all kinds
of learning, too. But somewhere in there is the tension (good tension, not
emotional distress) that kept it all together and nobody was wound up and
launched away from the cooperative togetherness.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
causing so much grief. The first bit is Nancy K. /aisliin who had done a
point-by-point to someone on the Always Learning list, and I saved it. Maybe as a
lead article there it's a little strong. <g>
With anything, if a family moves from rules (about food, freedoms, clocks,
what to wear) to something new there's going to be the backlash, and thinking of
catapults (or trebuchets, more technically, or of a rubber band airplane, or
other crank-it-up projectiles...) the more pressure that's built up, the
further that kid is going to launch if you let it go all at once.
In the absence of pressure in the first place, there's no reaction to
resistence. My kids didn't WANT to stay up all night, because they were used to
going to sleep happily and peacefully since before they could remember. That
doesn't mean they were used to never being "put to bed" in their whole lives, it
means going to bed had to do with real and variable factors, but there were
principles behind it. Bed was about sleeping, not about control or punishment
or discipline or schedules. Sleeping was a cool, desireable thing that
adults liked to do.
Some kids never see adults sleep. They are "put to bed" by adults (scary
adults who turn the lights off and say "STAY IN THE BED" sometimes) and then
they wake up to the faces of adults who probably (to them) seem to have been
awake all the whole time. That's one way "family bed" arrangements add to peace
and togetherness--the kids KNOW other people sleep, and they learn to help
the other people sleep comfortably.
Some unschoolers are more radical than I am. That's okay, but here's an
example of a radical Nancy K. response <bwg>:
[someone once wrote:
It is not against the unschooling train of thought to insist that your
children be in their rooms by a certain time each night.]
If Unschooling (damned insufficient word) is a lifestyle choice, NOT an
educational style, per se; then I disagree with this statement. "Insisting" that
the kids be banished to their rooms after a certain time, on room arrest as it
were, regardless of their wills, desires, or plans for the evening, is not
respectful of them as people. Treating kids as second class citizens and
subservient members of the family, subject to your whims, is not in sync with an
"unschooling train of thought." Saying that you "insist" in the first place implies
that you have some leverage you are using in order to bend them to your will.
How will that be accomplished in a respectful and unschooly manner?
-==================================
(back to Sandra:)
I think she was respnding to "insist." But honestly, parents DO have
leverage to bend children to their will. If children have freedom to choose, it's
because the parents GIVE them that freedom, because they have the power to
give it to them.
For a parent to absolutely decide that he will never "insist" is going way to
far, I think. Not only could it be, in some cases, illegal and neglectful,
if the parent isn't even clear on what her duties and responsibilities are as
a parent, maybe she isn't thinking clearly about other things, either.
If I let Kirby make the decision about something every single time, thousands
of times, still I LET him, because the state, the county, and the people
around me expect me to make that decision. I delegated. I can't say "It's none
of my business, he can do what he wants" to people outside the famly, because
it makes me look clueless and unconcerned.
If Keith lets me decide how to spend money and doesn't make me check with him
before I buy a DVD or some expensive groceries or clothes for the kids,
that's cool. He lets me know when it's a really bad month to spend money. The
fact that he doesn't check doesn't mean it would be okay for me to buy a
Bentley or to charge tickets for a cruise. If I asked in advance about doing
that, he would insist (if he weren't insane) that I NOT do that, because we really
can't afford it. I live my live in such a way that Keith doesn't have to
insist that I do something different. We've moved gradually from the point
that we consulted about $30 purchases (when we were young and not both
employed, or one or both in college) to where now he might buy a power tool and tell
me later, or I put a $300 eBay bid on a $1500 microscope without asking (I
didn't get it, but he wouldn't have freaked out if I had).
If a child goes from a 9:00 bedtime to staying up until midnight DOING
something, that's not too bad. If the jump is to staying up until 3:00 by any
possible means just to do it, that's not so cool.
I need Joyce-logic summary, I think. <g> Or any help making this point,
please!
When I was a kid I would stay out until I "had" to be home.
My kids come back when they're through doing what they're doing.
I didn't NEED a "thing" to do to be away from home. I would just kill
time being gone.
My kids have never felt the need to do that. Being home isn't a bad thing
to be avoided.
That's the parallel that worked with food and bed and reading and all kinds
of learning, too. But somewhere in there is the tension (good tension, not
emotional distress) that kept it all together and nobody was wound up and
launched away from the cooperative togetherness.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
I just found a quote from June 1997, so Kirby was 9. Commenting that we'd
been staying up late a lot, Kirby said, "It's like the only time I want to go
to bed is when I'm sleepy."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
been staying up late a lot, Kirby said, "It's like the only time I want to go
to bed is when I'm sleepy."
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]