Alan & Brenda Leonard

> Yes, sometimes I feel that strewing is manipulative. I just try not to
> be too attached to the outcome.

Isn't that the difference, in the final analysis? If we're attached to the
outcome, then possibly there's manipulation involved. If we're just leaving
stuff out and around, in case anybody is interested, it's just interesting
clutter.

Do you folks have a lot cleaner houses than I do? Because my house seems to
be strewn, whether I do so intentionally or not!

brenda

rumpleteasermom

I haven't weighed in on the strewing thread much because I haven't had
to strew. My girls have been quite adept at finding their own
interests and finding new ones accidentally for quite a long time now.
I see now that had I been practicing purposeful strewing, they might
have gotten caught up in other things instead of their current
fascinations. For us, I think strewing what I found most interesting
would have had the effect of superimposing my likes over theirs.
Instead we have three very separate circles of intrest thet only
overlap partially. Had I kept them fully involved in the overlapping
parts, they may never have found the outer parts of the circles. And
then there is the circle of my dh's interest and Wyndham's interests
which cross ours in someplaces and not others.

Does that make sense to anyone? I know what I an trying to say but
I'm not sure others will get it.

Anyway, the consequence of having the five of us with varied i
nterests in one house has not led to an unstrewn house but no one
does it with the intent of seeing if anyone else is interested. It
just happens.

Bridget


--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Alan & Brenda Leonard <abtleo@e...>
wrote:

>
> Do you folks have a lot cleaner houses than I do? Because my house
seems to
> be strewn, whether I do so intentionally or not!
>
> brenda

Tia Leschke

> I see now that had I been practicing purposeful strewing, they might
>have gotten caught up in other things instead of their current
>fascinations. For us, I think strewing what I found most interesting
>would have had the effect of superimposing my likes over theirs.

I don't see why, if there were no expectations on your part. If they *had*
gotten interested in the things that you strewed about, they might have
gone different directions than they did, but if it was their choice,
where's the problem? Also, the strewing concept doesn't mean just putting
the stuff that interests *you* out there. It's putting stuff you think
might interest *them* in their path, to choose or not.

I sometimes wish that I had learned about the idea of strewing when Lars
was much younger, but chances are he'd be going the same direction now anyway.
Tia

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Tia Leschke <leschke@i...> wrote:

> I don't see why, if there were no expectations on your part. If
they *had*
> gotten interested in the things that you strewed about, they might
have
> gone different directions than they did, but if it was their choice,
> where's the problem? Also, the strewing concept doesn't mean just
putting
> the stuff that interests *you* out there. It's putting stuff you
think
> might interest *them* in their path, to choose or not.
>

That's just it, never in a million years would I have expected Rachel
to be interested in gardening. She found that on her own, now we both
garden. But had I strewn her towards the other things I thought she
was interested in, and used up all her time with that, she may never
have found gardening and neither would I.

I guess what I think boils down to this: You should only 'strew' if
the kidlets in question seem to be at loose ends. If they are finding
stuff on their own, strewing might just distract them from their own
path.

Bridget

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/28/02 10:40:42 AM, rumpleteasermom@... writes:

<< You should only 'strew' if
the kidlets in question seem to be at loose ends. If they are finding
stuff on their own, strewing might just distract them from their own
path. >>

My kids don't have loose ends. They're finding stuff all the time, and
NOTHING is a distraction, everything is an addition. Their "path" is
encompassing the whole world, it's not a narrow little trail. So I think a
parent considers their children to be on "a path" instead of open to all
input, the analogy becomes a limitation.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/28/2002 8:49:28 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:


> For us, I think strewing what I found most interesting
> would have had the effect of superimposing my likes over theirs.
>

Strewing what YOU found most interesting wouldn't be what we've been talking
about, though. That would simply be leaving your own clutter lying around, I
guess <G>.

That isn't what people mean by "strewing".

We're talking about strewing things that we think the KIDS will be interested
in. I mean, they wouldn't pick it up and fool with it if they weren't and,
with strewing, there is NO pressure on the kids to even give whateveritis a
second glance if they're not interested.

I was rummaging in a box yesterday and stumbled upon our huge container of
pattern blocks. They'd been buried in the bottom of this box and I pulled
them out and left them on the dining room table just because they hadn't been
available for a while (being buried in the bottom of a box) and I thought
maybe somebody might like to fool with them. My husband started playing with
them first and my daughter and her friend got in on it too, later. They're
still sitting there.

This wasn't superimposing my likes over theirs - it was making something
available IF they felt like using it. They could have left them sitting on
the table for a day or a week and everybody could have ignored them until
they got put away.

I also leave the new magazines lying around - so people can see that they've
arrived and choose to look them over, if they want to do so.

This morning, Rosie said, "THANKS Mommy, for finding the pattern blocks."
She hadn't asked for them, but was glad to see them resurface.

>>Had I kept them fully involved in the overlapping
parts, they may never have found the outer parts of the circles.
<<

Again - strewing doesn't mean keeping the kids involved in something you are
also involved in. It just means THINKING about them and knowing them, being
able to guess that something might interest them and leaving it out where
they can find it and decide for themselves if it does, in fact, interest
them.

>>Anyway, the consequence of having the five of us with varied i
nterests in one house has not led to an unstrewn house but no one
does it with the intent of seeing if anyone else is interested.
<<

So, if you were in the library and ran across a book that you thought would
interest your daughter -- you'd never bring it home and leave it on the table
where she'd be sure to find it? You'd object to that? You'd think that was
superimposing your own interests over that of the child?

Again, I think that some people's lifestyles are very very calm and they are
sort of "minimalist" families. If they brought in a book from the library,
they'd hand it to the kid and talk to them about it, etc. In my family, I
might put it on the shelf where we keep the library books and then let it go
from my mind -- knowing that the kids will be rummaging through that shelf
and will stumble across it and, if it interests them, they'll take a look at
it. I don't need to remember to introduce it to them - just need to leave it
somewhere they'll find it.

In other families, especially those with kids just out of school, even a
parent just suggesting a book to a kid might be "felt" by the kid as if it is
an assignment. So kids might be a bit resistant to recommendations by their
parents, for a while. Just leaving things lying around that you think might
interest them is a way to offer resources to them without them feeling
pressured.

--pamS


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

Fetteroll

on 5/28/02 10:02 AM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@... wrote:

> Had I kept them fully involved in the overlapping
> parts, they may never have found the outer parts of the circles.

To me that sounds more like directing their lives than strewing. Strewing is
just ... strewing. Like leaves on a path. Some they pick up. Some they walk
past.

In houses where there's a lot of wind, perhaps lots of leaves fall just from
living life. In other homes the strewing may need to be more parent
initiated. But they're still leaves strewn about to be picked up or walked
past.

Joyce

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/28/02 2:03:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< I guess what I think boils down to this: You should only 'strew' if
the kidlets in question seem to be at loose ends. If they are finding
stuff on their own, strewing might just distract them from their own
path. >>

I don't think you understand strewing at all. If a child is interested in
something, nothing can divert them. Strewing is simply a way of opening the
world to a child. A child does not come into this world understanding all the
possible choices available. A good unschooler is going to make sure the child
is exposed to CHOICES.
That doesn't equal interest or time.
I don't see how you think that placing available items around is going to
divert them from anything.
Strange way to look at it.
Maybe we should just clear our homes of any books, tv or anything interesting
because it might divert their interests?

Ren

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/28/2002 12:03:47 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:


> >>That's just it, never in a million years would I have expected Rachel
> to be interested in gardening. She found that on her own, now we both
> garden.<<

Once again this sounds like you have to do one thing or another -- as if
leaving a book about birds of prey out on the dining room table, thinking the
kids might enjoy the cool photographs, is preventing them from discovering
gardening. They'll still discover things "on their own" -- although one could
argue that you "strewed her path with gardening" just by having chosen to
live in a place where gardening is possible and happens.



But had I strewn her towards the other things I thought she >
> was interested in, and used up all her time with that, she may never
> have found gardrning and neither would I.

Why do you go to extremes like that, though? Who said they "used up all her
time with that?" I don't see leaving things lying around that kids MIGHT find
interesting as "using up all their time" any more than I see it as forcing
them to do things that interest their parents.

I once had a kid interested in gardening - no longer a passion, I'm sorry to
say - but when it was, she was especially interested in herb gardens. I
happened to go to a library that we didn't normally use and saw a beautiful
book about herb gardens around the world. I checked it out and left it on her
bed, so she'd be sure to see it.
How on EARTH did that detract from her life? How did it prevent HER from
finding her own interests? How did it use up all her time? How did it impose
my interests on her?

She had the choice to glance at the book and then ignore it. She could skim
through it. She could sit for hours and gaze at the pictures or carefully
read all the text. She had total control - I simply dropped something into
her path and let her decide if she wanted to pick it up or step over it.

>
> I guess what I think boils down to this: You should only 'strew' if
> the kidlets in question seem to be at loose ends. If they are finding
> stuff on their own, strewing might just distract them from their own
> path.

I don't think unschooled kids are usually that easily distracted from things
they are interested in. But usually they are interested in lots and lots of
things - they don't see the world in terms of following some particular
specific path ONLY. They're normally happy to take side trips - sometimes
just stopping for a minute at a vista point and sometimes traveling along a
different path for a while.

--pam


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

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., PSoroosh@a... wrote:

>
> So, if you were in the library and ran across a book that you
thought would
> interest your daughter -- you'd never bring it home and leave it on
the table
> where she'd be sure to find it? You'd object to that? You'd think
that was
> superimposing your own interests over that of the child?

No, but if I had been focused on 'strewing' the path in front of my
kids the way I think many here mean it, their paths would have been
vastly different than they are now. I often pick up things I think my
kids will be interested in when they are not with me. But I also make
sure to give them lots of space to find their own interests too.

All I'm saying is that having cool stuff around is good but
overwhelming them with cool stuff isn't.

Bridget

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
> on 5/28/02 10:02 AM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@j... wrote:
>
> > Had I kept them fully involved in the overlapping
> > parts, they may never have found the outer parts of the circles.
>
> To me that sounds more like directing their lives than strewing.

Maybe I'm not being clear. I could have kept them so well supplied in
things *I* thought they would be interested in and that they would
have been interested enough in to mess around with, that they would
not have had time to scope out their own true deep interests. Not
forced them to use or made them do, but simply supplied with the stuff
for.

Kind of like this: I'm marginally interested in radio so if that was
put in front of me, that's what I would do. But because my dh didn't
constantly strew radio in front of me, I have a marginal interest in
radio and had time to find a strong interest in textile arts on my
own. I still do both, but if my dh had kept me so involved in radio
by constantly giving me the 'stuff' for it, I would never have found
my other interests.

Bridget

[email protected]

I can't imagine where anybody could get this picture of what other people
here are doing:

>>No, but if I had been focused on 'strewing' the path in front of my kids
the way I think many here mean it, their paths would have been vastly
different than they are now. <<

What is it that you think people mean?

>>I often pick up things I think my kids will be interested in when they are
not with me. But I also make sure to give them lots of space to find their
own interests too. All I'm saying is that having cool stuff around is good
but overwhelming them with cool stuff isn't. <<

Strewing their paths with potentially interesting stuff is obviously not the
ONLY thing we're talking about -- Nobody said they were "focused" on doing
that and I think we've posted more than enough about supporting our kids'
interests for it to be abundantly clear that our kids DO find their own
interests.

If I give them some additional choices and they CHOOSE something different,
then they CHOSE it and that means they PREFERED it. You think it is better to
limit their choices (by not offering new and potentially interesting
possibilities) so that you don't risk distracting them off the path they
chose when they had fewer options.

None of us can offer unlimited choices, but to purposely withhold things that
the kids might really find interesting and enjoyable, for fear that it will
influence what they choose to do with their time?

I don't understand the thinking behind that position.

--pamS

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/28/02 4:57:10 PM Central Daylight Time, PSoroosh@...
writes:

Bridget writes:
> But had I strewn her towards the other things I thought she >
> > was interested in, and used up all her time with that, she may never
> > have found gardrning and neither would I.
>
> Why do you go to extremes like that, though? Who said they "used up all her
> time with that?" I don't see leaving things lying around that kids MIGHT
> find
> interesting as "using up all their time" any more than I see it as forcing
> them to do things that interest their parents.

I think you (Bridget) have confused the art of "strewing" with "steering." I
offer up all sorts of things to my kids, I bring home tons of cool things (I
think so anyway) and leave them on the living room book shelf, the coffee
table, kitchen table, and sometimes I just hand it right on over to the kids.
"I think you might like this." No strings attached. Now if I handed my
daughter a book or toy and said "I see you need something to do, hear you
go." with the expectation that she immediately "do" something, well then that
would be steering her towards something.
~Nancy



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

[email protected]

>>Kind of like this: I'm marginally interested in radio so if that was put in
front of me, that's what I would do. But because my dh didn't constantly
strew radio in front of me, I have a marginal interest in radio and had time
to find a strong interest in textile arts on my own. I still do both, but if
my dh had kept me so involved in radio by constantly giving me the 'stuff'
for it, I would never have found my other interests.
<<

I guess you're assuming that unschooled kids are like you'd be with your
husband. That just because he left a bunch of radio stuff in your path, you'd
fool with that instead of doing what you REALLY wanted to do. My kids
wouldn't do that - they wouldn't let something else interfere with what they
really want to do - not if they had true freedom to choose. Learning to
manage time is something unschooled kids REALLY get a handle on at a young
age because they do have so much freedom to choose what to do with their own
time. I've observed, first-hand, that they are often far better at it than
their own parents, in fact <G>.

--pamS

Tia Leschke

>
>No, but if I had been focused on 'strewing' the path in front of my
>kids the way I think many here mean it, their paths would have been
>vastly different than they are now.

I don't think that's at all what people mean. All these people have
lives. They aren't totally focusing on finding things for their kids to
do. I think what they're doing is exactly what you describe below, so
what's the problem?

>I often pick up things I think my
>kids will be interested in when they are not with me. But I also make
>sure to give them lots of space to find their own interests too.

Do you really think the "strewers" don't give their kids space to find
their own interests? I don't get that at all from their posts.


>All I'm saying is that having cool stuff around is good but
>overwhelming them with cool stuff isn't.

I haven't figured out how we got from strewing to overwhelming. It seems
to me that you're taking this right out to the extreme in order to argue
with it, and I can't figure out why.
Tia

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island

Tia Leschke

>
>Maybe I'm not being clear. I could have kept them so well supplied in
>things *I* thought they would be interested in and that they would
>have been interested enough in to mess around with, that they would
>not have had time to scope out their own true deep interests. Not
>forced them to use or made them do, but simply supplied with the stuff
>for.

Kids with deep interests aren't going to swayed from that path by stuff
strewn in their path, no matter how cool it is. In fact they're more
likely to just not even notice it.


>Kind of like this: I'm marginally interested in radio so if that was
>put in front of me, that's what I would do.

I might do stuff I'm marginally interested in for a bit, but I'm not likely
to let it take over my life unless it becomes a deep interest. If it does,
then that's cool. I'll go for it. What would be wrong with that? I can
always explore other interests at another time in my life if I don't have
time for it now.

>But because my dh didn't
>constantly strew radio in front of me, I have a marginal interest in
>radio and had time to find a strong interest in textile arts on my
>own. I still do both, but if my dh had kept me so involved in radio
>by constantly giving me the 'stuff' for it, I would never have found
>my other interests.

Do you really believe your dh could keep you that involved with something
that was only a marginal interest?

This concept reminds me a little of my son. He always says that he likes
to "keep his options open". It's a good concept, but I've been trying to
get across to him that keeping one option open often means closing another,
at least for the moment. Nobody can do it all.
Tia

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Eleanor Roosevelt
*********************************************
Tia Leschke
leschke@...
On Vancouver Island

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/28/02 8:01:55 PM Central Daylight Time,
rumpleteasermom@... writes:


> Kind of like this: I'm marginally interested in radio so if that was
> put in front of me, that's what I would do. But because my dh didn't
> constantly strew radio in front of me, I have a marginal interest in
> radio and had time to find a strong interest in textile arts on my
> own. I still do both, but if my dh had kept me so involved in radio
> by constantly giving me the 'stuff' for it, I would never have found
> my other interests.
>
> Bridget
>

I am interested in scrapbooking, reading, crosstitching... if one were "put
in front of me" that's not necessarily what I would do. "Kind of like this:
I'm marginally interested in radio so if that was
put in front of me, that's what I would do." Why? Why would THAT be what you
would do? And why do you assume that would be what your kids would do? I am
marginally interested in the t.v. show Stargate SG1, but if it is on and the
t.v. is in front of me, that's not necessarily what I would do! I so don't
understand the mentality of "well, someone gave this to me, I better do it!"
~Nancy



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

[email protected]

In a message dated 5/28/02 9:34:49 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< Kind of like this: I'm marginally interested in radio so if that was
put in front of me, that's what I would do. But because my dh didn't
constantly strew radio in front of me, I have a marginal interest in
radio and had time to find a strong interest in textile arts on my
own. I still do both, but if my dh had kept me so involved in radio
by constantly giving me the 'stuff' for it, I would never have found
my other interests. >>

You would actually spend more time on something you are marginally interested
in over something you are deeply interested in just because the items were
available?
Wow.
Sounds like someone that can't make choices for themselves.
I trust my children to make choices regardless of what is available.
And comments like :

"No, but if I had been focused on 'strewing' the path in front of my
kids the way I think many here mean it,"

Show me that you still don't have a "feel" for the list or what many on here
mean at all.
Every person that posted about strewing has done so with the intent of
offering choices, not coercing, it's obvious. I've read posts from these
same people at other lists and message boards and I KNOW that they have a
firm grip on what unschooling means and how to strew in a meaningful,
noncoercive, beautiful, bubbly way.
Why can't you get the feel for what these incredibly wise people are saying?
At this point I feel like any veteran unschooler that has solid unschooling
advice is going to get a negative response from you.
What do you get from this list? What have you learned from being here?
Do you enjoy the support of other unschoolers? I really, really wonder these
things.

Ren

Fetteroll

on 5/28/02 8:59 PM, rumpleteasermom at rumpleteasermom@... wrote:

> Maybe I'm not being clear. I could have kept them so well supplied in
> things *I* thought they would be interested in and that they would
> have been interested enough in to mess around with, that they would
> not have had time to scope out their own true deep interests. Not
> forced them to use or made them do, but simply supplied with the stuff
> for.

Could you provide quotes from people's posts that are giving this
impression?

What I see is half a dozen people describing a gentle process of providing
access to the world so kids have the ability to find new interests and one
person saying it's coming out as "so well supplied" and "forced them to use"
and "made them do" and "so involved" and "constantly giving me stuff."

Do your children pick up every leaf they see? Do you need to keep them off
leaf strewn paths to prevent them from being unable to choose for
themselves?

If you can't find quotes then it would show appreciation to all the time
people are spending to try to make this strewing point clear to go back and
reread the thread *knowing* that no one is saying what you are interpretting
so we can move onto something that's more useful to the the rest of the
list.

Joyce
Unschooling-dotcom moderator

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., PSoroosh@a... wrote:

>
> None of us can offer unlimited choices, but to purposely withhold
things that
> the kids might really find interesting and enjoyable, for fear that
it will
> influence what they choose to do with their time?
>
> I don't understand the thinking behind that position.
>
> --pamS

I guess because that isn't what I'm saying. The way some of you talk
about strewing sounds (to me anyway) as if you are saying that you
think about it all the time and are constantly finding things to
strew. And what I have said is that that would have made big changes
in how my kids had turned out. If I had spent any extra time
thinking about what to put in front of them and procuring it and
leaving it about for them, they would not have had any free time. I
knew them well enough to strew the right stuff to occupy them, but
that would have had the effect of using up their time and they would
never have developed these other hobbies. It is not a matter of me
forcing it, or of them not being able to find other things. And it's
not a matter of there not having been anything there, there was a lot
of stuff strewn in there path but it happened hanturally and without
my having to think about it at all.
But go back and read my description my adult viewpoint with a hobby
that I could have ended up highly involved in but didn't. It is very
easy for a parent to do that with a child (overwhelm them with a
portion their own interests) without even realizing it.

Bridget

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., PSoroosh@a... wrote:

> I guess you're assuming that unschooled kids are like you'd be with
your
> husband. That just because he left a bunch of radio stuff in your
path, you'd
> fool with that instead of doing what you REALLY wanted to do.

But that's just it, it would have been what *I* me really wanted to
do. I do like radios. But because he didn't constantly keep me
supplied with ways to mess with it without having to do the initial
work of finding them myself, I found other things that I like better.
Had he kept me in 'stuff' I would today be a radio maven and not be
doing the other thingsa at all because I would even know I liked
them.
I guess my question for you all is how you can be sure you aren't
steering when you mean to be strewing? Do you make sure your kids
don't get so caught up in on thing that they never experience any
others? How?
And I really am just telling you what could have happened had I been
actively strewing my girls paths. I'm not saying you shouldn't if you
feel the need to, only that I think it would have been a bad route for
us. So I really don't understand why you think I'm saying everyone
should stop.

Bridget

[email protected]

<<. I could have kept them so well supplied in
>things *I* thought they would be interested in and that they would
>have been interested enough in to mess around with, that they would
>not have had time to scope out their own true deep interests>>
But they may just find really fun, interesting connections between the new
thing and their current interests.
I'm marginally interested in bread baking (meaning I'm interested but not
enough to get started actually baking - lol) If my DH brought home a book on
bread, and I was reading say, email <gasp!> I highly doubt that I would stop
doing my deeply interesting thing to do something less interesting.
Unless I realized right then that bread is more interesting than email,
which is ok too. I can stray off my "path" at any moment in life.

~Elissa Cleaveland
"It is nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction
have
not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry." A. Einstein

[email protected]

No, but if I had been focused on 'strewing' the path in front of my
>kids the way I think many here mean it, their paths would have been
>vastly different than they are now.

But why would that be bad? (really want to know, this isn't rhetorical)
Isn't part of unschooling showing our kids that life isn't about one path,
one goal forever? I wan't my kids to understand that they have an infinite
number of options in their lives.
~Elissa Cleaveland
"It is nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction
have
not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry." A. Einstein

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Dnowens@a... wrote:
I so
don't
> understand the mentality of "well, someone gave this to me, I better
do it!"
> ~Nancy
>
>

It's not that at all. It's more, "Hey this is cool. I'll mess with
this while I have it cause I really like it." Not that I had to do it
but that it would have fed one interest and caused me to miss the
others that I have found since that I am willing to do all the work to
mess with.

Bridget

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., starsuncloud@c... wrote:

>
> You would actually spend more time on something you are marginally
interested
> in over something you are deeply interested in just because the
items were
> available?

No, that's not what I said. What I said was that I never would have
known about my interest in textile arts. I would have been having so
much fun with what was put in front of me that I never would have
looked for anything else.

Bridget

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Tia Leschke <leschke@i...> wrote:

>
> Do you really believe your dh could keep you that involved with
something
> that was only a marginal interest?

Yes, because it would have developed into a deep interest and I would
be a completely different person today. That's neither good nor bad,
but I really want to give my girls the time and freedom to find their
own 'other' interests instead of developing the first marginal one we
found into a major one. And we are back to the question I asked a
moment ago, how can you be sure that you are not feeding minor
interests and causing them to miss for lack of time other things they
might like better?

Bridget

rumpleteasermom

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Tia Leschke <leschke@i...> wrote:

>
> Do you really think the "strewers" don't give their kids space to
find
> their own interests? I don't get that at all from their posts.
>
>

Not necessarily, what I said was that if *I* me myself in our case,
had focused on strewing with even a little bit of thought, I could
have very easily taken up all of my girls time with really cool stuff
that they liked and then they would not have found many of their other
likes.

Bridget

[email protected]

. << If I had spent any extra time
thinking about what to put in front of them and procuring it and
leaving it about for them, they would not have had any free time.>>

If they were free to ignore everything then I don't see how it would take up
their free time. Yours maybe!
I don't strew how you are describing it above, I don't think anyone else
here who is attempting to explain it to you does it that way either. But
maybe you have this image and it's preventing you from really hearing what
we are describing.
<< I
knew them well enough to strew the right stuff to occupy them, but
that would have had the effect of using up their time and they would
never have developed these other hobbies. >>

But they may have developed different ones that they might very well have
enjoyed in addition or instead!

<<. And it's
not a matter of there not having been anything there, there was a lot
of stuff strewn in there path but it happened naturally and without
my having to think about it at all. >>
I don't really think about it either. If I see something they'll like, I'll
get it and bring it home. If they mention something, I'll make a mental note
to keep my eye out for it. Just like I do around birthday time and holiday
time. I don't keep lists, I don't spend hours searching online or reading
catalogs and I don't go to the mall everyday.

~Elissa Cleaveland
"It is nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction
have
not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry." A. Einstein

[email protected]

<<But go back and read my description my adult viewpoint with a hobby
that I could have ended up highly involved in but didn't. >>
But why? What is wrong with putting aside one hobby when something more
interesting comes along? and is more available at the time? Interests wax
and wane, sometimes one is more interested in one thing over another. This
is a GOOD thing. IT's variety, it's change, it's Life!

~Elissa Cleaveland
"It is nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction
have
not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry." A. Einstein

[email protected]

It's not that at all. It's more, "Hey this is cool. I'll mess with
this while I have it cause I really like it." Not that I had to do it
but that it would have fed one interest and caused me to miss the
others that I have found since that I am willing to do all the work to
mess with.

I really am not understanding. Why is it choosing one thing over another and
never doing the other again?
Aren't the interests that are currently being done causing you or the kids
to miss out on other potentially unknown interests? Or is it the fact that
someone else is introducing them that makes it feel to you like it couldn't
possibly be your own interest?
~Elissa Cleaveland
"It is nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods of instruction
have
not yet entirely strangled the holy curiosity of inquiry." A. Einstein