katherand2003

Yeah but I have a 2 1/2 year old who would be so angry if he weren't
allowed to play with the computer. He's loves it and asks to get up
in my lap when I'm on the computer. One of his favorite words is
videoclips.

I found Monke's article irritating based on logic not just on
unschooling or gentle parenting. I prefer to think the Gigantic
Generalizations in the article don't apply to me and my family because
we're special. :)

My main objections rest in the word "allow." Quoting:

::::All that screen time is supplemented by the hundreds of impressive
computer projects now taking place in schools. Yet these projectsthe
steady diet of virtual trips to the Antarctic, virtual climbs to the
summit of Mount Everest, and trips into cyber-orbit that represent one
technological high after anothergenerate only vicarious thrills. The
student doesn't actually soar above the Earth, doesn't trek across icy
terrain, doesn't climb a mountain. Increasingly, she isn't even
allowed to climb to the top of the jungle gym.::::

Wordy, isn't it? I was intrigued by the word "allowed" there because
I at first fell into a misinterpretation that the child was allowed to
go online SOMEtimes whenever she was NOT allowed to play on the jungle
gym. I don't think that's what the writer meant. I think the
implication was that children cannot climb on the jungle gym while
online. This is like saying "the sky is blue." I would guess and be
correct to say that children climbing on the jungle gym cannot
simultaneously use the swing either. And grass is usually green too.

::::<snip> ... students came back down to the Earth of their immediate
surroundings with boredom and disinterestand a desire to get back
online.::::

Well there you have it. It seems there's a distinct disadvantage to
exactly the behavior the writer advocates. Not allowing children
access to the computer equals boredom and disinterest. I don't think
there's a benefit to withholding special choices that adults choose to
cordon off from children --educationally or in any way.

What's the virtue of allowing outdoor play but not allowing choices?
When children know choices are there, not allowing them the power to
make decisions means we don't trust their abilities or motives or
whatever. It doesn't mean they make bad or good decisions. It means
they aren't allowed to make decisions AT ALL. I can attest to
detesting this way of growing up.

I can also attest to the difficulty in spite of what my heart says of
breaking away from the ingrained belief that children should be
decided for and adults should be in total control. It's not easy.
I'm consciously allowing ds as many choices as possible. I'm getting
better at it but still have much to learn.

In a real way, withholding choices from children is a long time in
which both children and adults lack certain choices in naturally,
peacefully and happily relating to one another because parents allow
experts to tell them children aren't capable of making good decisions.
I can already see this playing out between me and ds and dh too for
that matter. When one person grabs control of another's choices, it
always causes grief. Conversely when we are in concert with one
another, so to speak, each person has their own unique precious thing
to say in their own voice, something we would otherwise miss altogether.

Kathe




--- In [email protected], "cris" <muddpies@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.oriononline.org/pages/om/05-5om/Monke.html
>
> My sister - who has no children, and doesn't necessarily agree that
> home/unschooling is best for mine - sent me this link today. I read
> the article, then read the below post from Sandra (haven't read the
> newsweek article yet); thought it intriguing that the exerpts Sandra
> made highlighted the benefits of the Internet/computer use, whereas
> the education/computer "expert" in the Orion article bemoans the
> computer's tendency to separate kids from real life. (Didn't someone
> once say that about TV...?)
> Guess it's a matter of user-failure -- or success!!
>
> cris
>
> (long-time lurker)
>

Sandra Dodd

On Mar 8, 2006, at 5:10 PM, katherand2003 wrote:

> Well there you have it. It seems there's a distinct disadvantage to
> exactly the behavior the writer advocates. Not allowing children
> access to the computer equals boredom and disinterest. I don't think
> there's a benefit to withholding special choices that adults choose to
> cordon off from children --educationally or in any way.


::Picture a little me hopping up and down in my little uncomfortable
desk with my arm stretched to the clouds eeping " Oooh! ooh! I know!"

The benefit of boredom, and the disadvantage of *allowing* access to
something stimulating, is that after something COOL,the teacher, the
textbooks, and that ratty little desk seem positively bland and dusty.

-=-What's the virtue of allowing outdoor play but not allowing
choices? -=-

Specifically in the case of school playgrounds, there are LOTS and
lots and lots of reasons to tell kids what area is "theirs" today,
whether to balance their play for some chart-making purposes (calling
it PE if once a week they're assigned the field, one day to swings,
one day to climbing equipment; it keeps them from fighting
(theoretically) if they're more evenly distributed; teachers can
check on all their students without hiking all over the school; they
separate ages so big kids don't pick on little ones (*snort*).

-=-When children know choices are there, not allowing them the power to
make decisions means we don't trust their abilities or motives or
whatever. -=-

At school it usually has more to do with making the teachers' lives
easier.

-=-When one person grabs control of another's choices, it
always causes grief. -=-

Unless the person offered up their freedom willingly, as nuns and
monks do, as soldiers do. That's not always grief. Some people
seem to prefer for others to make their decisions, and to find a
place to be where they just wear what they're told to wear and when
to go to bed and when to wake up. And that's part of what the
culture is preparing kids for, too, for the possibility (liklihood,
in many cases, historically) that they would grow up to be field
workers or farm workers or housemaids and have to get up very early
and do what other people told them to do. But if someone CHOOSES
that position, it's all different. Marty gets up at 5:30 Monday
through Friday and walks to work by 6:30, but he doesn't *HAVE* to,
and so because it's entirely his choice, he can do it joyfully.

Sandra

katherand2003

--- In [email protected], Sandra Dodd <Sandra@...>
wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 8, 2006, at 5:10 PM, katherand2003 wrote:
>
> > Well there you have it. It seems there's a distinct disadvantage to
> > exactly the behavior the writer advocates. Not allowing children
> > access to the computer equals boredom and disinterest. I don't think
> > there's a benefit to withholding special choices that adults choose to
> > cordon off from children --educationally or in any way.
>
>
> ::Picture a little me hopping up and down in my little uncomfortable
> desk with my arm stretched to the clouds eeping " Oooh! ooh! I know!"
>
> The benefit of boredom, and the disadvantage of *allowing* access to
> something stimulating, is that after something COOL,the teacher, the
> textbooks, and that ratty little desk seem positively bland and dusty.

LOL. I love that picture. :) There's nothing quite like an eep.
And you are too right.. that IS a benefit. Whew! Not allowing
computer time is liable to make the computer seem way more valuable
and cool to these kids, true.

> -=-What's the virtue of allowing outdoor play but not allowing
> choices? -=-
>
> Specifically in the case of school playgrounds, there are LOTS and
> lots and lots of reasons to tell kids what area is "theirs" today,
> whether to balance their play for some chart-making purposes (calling
> it PE if once a week they're assigned the field, one day to swings,
> one day to climbing equipment; it keeps them from fighting
> (theoretically) if they're more evenly distributed; teachers can
> check on all their students without hiking all over the school; they
> separate ages so big kids don't pick on little ones (*snort*).
>
> -=-When children know choices are there, not allowing them the power to
> make decisions means we don't trust their abilities or motives or
> whatever. -=-
>
> At school it usually has more to do with making the teachers' lives
> easier.

Yuk. I know I know. This guy was a homeschooler, right? Yes, I know
he's talking to school people. Picture me whining a bit here. ;) Or
not. It just seems odd, what he's proposing these teachers do with
their classes. It doesn't compute much in the real world.


> -=-When one person grabs control of another's choices, it
> always causes grief. -=-
>
> Unless the person offered up their freedom willingly, as nuns and
> monks do, as soldiers do. That's not always grief. Some people
> seem to prefer for others to make their decisions, and to find a
> place to be where they just wear what they're told to wear and when
> to go to bed and when to wake up. And that's part of what the
> culture is preparing kids for, too, for the possibility (liklihood,
> in many cases, historically) that they would grow up to be field
> workers or farm workers or housemaids and have to get up very early
> and do what other people told them to do. But if someone CHOOSES
> that position, it's all different. Marty gets up at 5:30 Monday
> through Friday and walks to work by 6:30, but he doesn't *HAVE* to,
> and so because it's entirely his choice, he can do it joyfully.

Ah I see your point. I meant grief in terms of taking away choices
that obviously conflicted with the person's wishes to whom the choices
would probably have the most impact.

The biggest difference between Marty and the majority of anybody in
the Western world is his decision's informed by what HE wants to do
with his time. Many people have no idea what they want and really it
doesn't usually enter into the equation. This includes a lot of nuns,
monks, soldiers and other uniformed folk. My dh works in a factory
where uniforms are provided and it's so ironic to see the humanity
peaking out the seams of those uniforms which are obviously despised
by many of the workers for whatever reason (and I'm sure there're many
reasons). When the buzzer/bell rings a parade begins between shifts.
Dh gets comments on his hair during work, and I would say that's the
easiest thing for people to get by with in terms of nonconformity.

Kathe