Joseph Fuerst

I agree with Joyce all the way on this. There've been discussions on
whether or not 'unschooling' is the best word for what people do......but
I'll go with a Holt idea on this. He said in talking about long and short
vowels....the adjectives are meaningless in terms of the definition of
'long' and 'short' ...but that those words were picked in regard to vowels
and there use continued. In the same way we have come to know a certain
type animal as a 'dog'.... the word seems to have stuck and we keep using it
for what we mean.
So I do believe the meaning of unschooling...and clarifying it's
definition is very important.
Susan
P.S. Thinking about other words/phrases that have been used....learning all
the time, always learning, growing without schooling...led me to think of a
way to respond to some of my friends who send their children to school, but
offer much enrichment outside the paremeters of schooling....perhaps they
are "growing in spite of schooling"...?...


> > If the term disappears tomorrow, who cares?
>
> I care. And I can give you reasons why I care. The reasons aren't intended
> to convince anyone that I'm right and someone else is wrong. The reasons
are
> an explanation of why I do what I do. Everyone has their own reasons for
> doing what they do and feeling what they feel. I think we're each entitled
> to act as we feel is best to achieve the goals *we* feel are important.
One
> of my goals is to help keep the definition of unschooling clear because
it's
> important *to me*. (Another is to help newbies who are in a quandry to see
> the illusory barriers in their thinking set up by society that keeps them
> from seeing the true nature of the problems they're facing.)
>
> > If the term gets "watered down," so what.
>
> *My* reasons for caring whether it gets watered down or not is that for
> those *who do* want to let go entirely, there needs to be a clear goal to
> reach.
>
> Unless there are people -- and I don't mean everyone needs to do this --
but
> people who do speak up and say "*This* is unschooling" and people who
> believe with all their hearts that "*This* place has benefits that that
> place doesn't have" and speak their minds on it, then many people who
could
> have gone farther had they only known will stop at their comfort level
> believing there are no greater benefits.
>
> It *seems* like just living unschooling and showing people unschooling
will
> let them understand unschooling without defining it. After all a child
> unschools exactly like that. He follows the path that leads to *his* goal.
> He isn't seeking out a path that leads to someone's definition of "Jimmy's
> goal in life". He's setting his own goal and taking his own path.
>
> But, though that may be the *method* of unschooling, the *philosophy* of
> unschooling *isn't* whatever goal that a family decides suits their family
> best. It *is* a very definite definible goal and helping people reach
*that
> particular* goal is different than helping them reach whatever goal they
> feel comfortable with.
>
> But just because I want to keep the definition of unschooling clear
> *doesn't* mean I advocate jumping all over newbies who are unclear on the
> concept and try to brow beat them into accepting my definition.
>
> *How* somenoe handles statements they disagree with is an entirely
separate
> issue from *why* they do so. They may seem connected, but they *are*
> separate.
>
> Joyce
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 18
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:06:42 -0500
> From: Fetteroll <fetteroll@...>
> Subject: Re: Subjects of substance WAS: new and inneed of support
>
> on 1/27/02 6:11 PM, Lynda at lurine@... wrote:
>
> > If a sender continues with an in your face, shove it down your throat
style
> > even when the person asking a question has made it clear that isn't a
style
> > that they like or appreciate, then perhaps the sender needs to look a
little
> > closer to home to see why they feel it is necessary for them to treat
all
> > people asking questions to verbal abuse.
>
> But, objectively speaking, why would a receiver continue asking questions
of
> someone they felt wasn't communicating in the way they felt comfortable
> with? Yes, everyone can point to specific instances and say "What about
> this?" But that's losing sight of what the true nature of the problem is.
> The problem *isn't* that someone chooses to communicate in a way he has
> gotten positive feed back on, but that others decide that he shouldn't
> communicate that way because some don't like it.
>
> I sometimes find it helpful to turn a question around and use it on
> something I agree with to see if it fits.
>
> If someone were asking the Dalai Lama questions about Buddhism and didn't
> like his gentle, seek inside yourself answers (or whatever style he'd
use),
> isn't the Dalai Lama entitled to feel that the method he uses to help
people
> on the path to enlightenment best? If he thought some other way were
better,
> then wouldn't he use it? Or, at least, he employs his skills in the way he
> feels he's best at. If a fair number of people wanted a more direct (or
> whatever) style, does he have an obligation to change to meet their needs?
> Should he compromise the method he feels is best in order to meet the
needs
> of more people or compromise meeting more people's needs so he can meet
the
> needs of those who seek the style he feels he's best at?
>
> Maybe that's hard to see. It's hard to get past the idea that someone
> shouldn't be irritating other people. If someone were *only* irritating
> people, then people certainly have a right to speak up. If someone is
> speaking in a way that *some* find irritating and *some* find helpful --
> *not* helpful because they enjoy being irritated but because they find
> something in the style illuminating -- then the problem *isn't* how to
> silence that person so no one gets irritated, but to create an environment
> where that style *and* other styles can co-exist so that those who come
here
> can have a *choice*.
>
> Perhaps all it will take is an email reminder posted to the list that
> different people have different styles of communicating, or some such
> wording.
>
> Joyce
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 19
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 09:43:54 -0500
> From: "Joseph Fuerst" <fuerst@...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1784
>
> **When I say I am done talking about him because I think most of you
> have heard enough, I'm told that I should explain again.
>
> Bridget**
>
>
> Well, actually, I never "told you" you *should* do anything. I merely
> asked questions about whether or not it may be a good idea if newer list
> members are interested. Believe me, I am hesitant to have you try it
> again. And your response here reminds me why.
> And apparently, you don't want to....I'm certainly willing to take
that
> at face value.
>
> respectfully,
> Susan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Message: 20
> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 10:31:18 -0500
> From: "Joseph Fuerst" <fuerst@...>
> Subject: Re: Digest Number 1784
>
> ***Is it acceptable to become an adult in our society who just doesn't
> > read? Would you want to allow your kid to go out into the world so
> > unprepared? Aren't you worried they'll be taken advantage of, or be
unable
> > to negotiate contracts/instructions/newspapers?
>
> I am definitely not okay w/the idea of my kid not being able to read at
> 16. I think reading is a basic skill for survival in this society. My kid
> is almost six and he is just starting to read. We do phonics stuff and
sound
> games every day *at his request*. But even if he weren't into it, I'd
> start "making him" at a later age. Not at the age he is now, but certainly
> by 10 or so. Yup, you betcha I would! It is the one thing I feel strongly
> that he has to learn. Years ago, it was illegal for my ancestors to learn
> how to read (we are African American) in this country. I feel it would be
> a slap in the face for all their struggles for me to neglect this one
> aspect of his upbringing.
>
> Best,
> Lynn***
>
> Now this is the kind of thinking that just begs for a response along the
> lines of unschooling! I'll just ask, Lynn, you're willing to give up
> unschooling if your child can't read by age 10? I'm wondering whether you
> fully understand it then. And I won't speak for Tia, but she has
commented
> many times that her experience of intervening with her son seemed to make
> things worse in their relationship.
>
> I truly understand your dilemma, for I have experienced what you are
simply
> talking about as a possible situation. Let me share a bit of my
experience.
> Since we moved away from the school track for our family (my oldest had
> attended kindergarten and two yrs of preschool), I explored aspects of
> educating our children at home and found that unschooling resonated as the
> most genuine way to allow my children to grow.
> When my very intelligent dd wasn't reading by the end of 'first
grade',
> I worried. She had even forgotten the sight words she had memorized in
> kindergarten. All the veteran homeschoolers advised me to take a deep
breat
> h and be patient. I had to trusyt a bunch of people I'd never met in
> person? Well, I did. For several months. And as dd did NOT 'take off'
in
> her reading, my patience left me. I once again struggled to 'let go. A
> discussion came up here ...about whether or not it's ok for a parent to
> 'just let them grow up illiterate'. But again, the those who had older
> children, children who learned to read 'later', others coping with the
> same circumstance all recommended being patient. I went up and down this
> roller coaster....though the hills and valleys became less and less
> pronounced.
> Finally, about a year ago, I *truly got it*!!! I had *really*
missed
> the point of unschooling in regard to reading! All along, I was pushing
dd
> into word games, shaming her at times (I didn't consciously intend to...I
> was ashamed it camed out that way). In my roller coaster ride, I was
still
> pushing her...only it became more subtle usually. Or I'd think...ok,
I've
> been patient for 6-7 months, and that hasn't 'worked' (meaning it didn't
> get me what *I* wanted - her to read AND enjoy it!)
> Intead of allowing her the freedom to learn when, how, as much as
SHE
> chose, I was trying to get her to meet MY expectations. When she was 8,
> dh and I even devised a *plan* to have her tested if she couldn't read by
> age 9. Then it was, we'll start a stringent structured program by age 9;
> then it was....maybe I'm not handling this right, maybe we should pay a
> tutor. Well, all this didn't settle well with me. And whenever it came
up,
> dd felt like she had disappointed me, like a failure. She was stressed
and
> tense about reading and 'tried' to do it for me....yet became increasingly
> resistant.
> When I examined this situation more closely, I realized I had some
> major de-schooling to do of my own thinking. I had to examine how
> mainstream ideas had infiltrated my thinking about how it's my *job* to
make
> sure she knows certain things.
> And your post almost exactly states my thinking on it.
> Maybe you'll not be able to understand unless you go through it. But I
was
> wrong in my attitude and it only harmed my dd. She was not truly allowed
> the freedom she neede in this area (i.e., NOT unschooling) until I had
this
> breakthrough in my thinking and attitude.
> I need to go now......I hope you can look at this with an open mind!
> Susan
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>