Luz Shosie and Ned Vare

on 8/24/02 2:31 PM, [email protected] at
[email protected] wrote:

Pam Tellew wrote:
> And by the way, I was a teacher who did what I did for the
> kids, as did many of my colleagues. Frustrating system to work in but to
> malign all teachers, Ned, no fair.)

Maybe we all need someone's permission to post nowadays, but I feel I have a
right to respond to the above.

I was a teacher for three years in private schools, and Luz was a certified
public school teacher with the usual content-free Masters degree. Both of us
know it is a "frustrating system" and that the only thing keeping it going
is money -- not "doing it for the children." Unschooling is purely "for the
children," it doesn't pay a dime.

(shall we compare our dedication to the children? My total pay for all three
years full time teaching was: first year 0, second year $2k, third year $3k
= total $5k)

Luz and I both feel well qualified to assess the teaching trade and, like
Frank Smith, we feel free to "malign" bad teaching and unwanted teaching and
unnecessary teaching, when we encounter them, because of the damage they do.
We also would applaud good teaching, of course.

Here's what Pam said about Frank Smith:
> He said he was against the damage schools do but that
>homeschooling parents could do damage too and maybe it would be even worse
>because homeschooled kids wouldn't have other kids to complain to.<

What I believe he is saying is that it's the "schooling" that is damaging,
whether it's done in schools or at home. I take that as an endorsement of
unschooling -- the absence of schooling. Smith's other objection seems to be
that homeschooled kids sometimes don't have enough friends, so I repeat my
suggestion that parents have an obligation to help their children find
friends, if only to complain to. :^)

Over two thousand years ago, Socrates told us that if someone started
charging money for teaching the youth things that are well known to
virtually every adult in the society, it would be fraud. Today, that fraud
is well established in our country. Schooling has been taken over and
adulterated by government for political purposes and enforced by laws of
compulsion.

Ned Vare
we think; therefore we unschool

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/24/02 9:30:36 PM, nedvare@... writes:

<< Luz and I both feel well qualified to assess the teaching trade and, like
Frank Smith, we feel free to "malign" bad teaching and unwanted teaching and
unnecessary teaching, when we encounter them, because of the damage they do.
We also would applaud good teaching, of course. >>

You said the school system was seamless and ALL is just done for the money
and never for the kids. If you had never made such extreme statements
people wouldn't be unhappy with the posts.

If you ever worked for nothing, you can't say all OTHER teachers taught for
money, not for the good of the kids.

My first year's salary was $6,800 but that was before the big inflation, and
before salaries went to starting at $22,000 and suchlike. Texas paid a lot
(meaning over $24,000 for starting) before other places in the southwest did,
it seemed. Still, if people don't care anything about kids they usually can
find a MUCH easier job and one that pays more, working in some state office
or something.

Frank Smith spoke eloquently, and he was talking about how people learn and
about the ease and joy with which interesting things are learned. There was
a contrast implied and in the background, but it wasn't an overtly
school-bashing talk at all. It dealt with interests and curiosity.

Sandra

Fetteroll

on 8/24/02 11:31 PM, Luz Shosie and Ned Vare at nedvare@... wrote:

> Luz and I both feel well qualified to assess the teaching trade and, like
> Frank Smith, we feel free to "malign" bad teaching and unwanted teaching and
> unnecessary teaching, when we encounter them, because of the damage they do.

Frank Smith is not writing to a list full of unschoolers. His audience is
people involved in schooling. He's trying to convince teachers and those
concerned about changing schools -- *not* parents considering homeschooling
-- that schooling methods based on drill and kill and testing are flawed and
harmful.

(And I wouldn't characterize Frank Smith's presentation in his Book of
Learning and Forgetting (I didn't even know the other existed) as maligning
teaching but as cogent argument against rote learning. He respects the fact
that his audience is concerned and cares about children and teaching and
schools.)

What's your purpose in maligning schools *here* to *this* audience of
unschoolers and those wanting to move towards unschooling? How is your
purpose compatible with the list's description at Yahoo?

People do share their *personal* experiences with school. It's part of the
process of letting go. They'll get sympathy and support and the sharing of
similar personal experiences. It's the first step for some. (Some skip right
over it.)

One of the purposes of this list -- maybe the primary purpose -- is to help
people find the answer to "So, where do I go from here?" What is your
purpose in repeatedly directing the spotlight back to that first step and
back behind where people came from? How is it helping people move forward?

Your reponses, lack of responses to many direct questions, and behavior seem
to indicate that you don't understand the purpose of this list. Considering
your writing on unschooling I find that incredibly difficult to believe so
the next logical conclusion is that you don't *respect* the purpose of this
list. That you think it should serve some other purpose.

Why? Explain it to me. Explain *something* to me. *Don't* tell me why you
think schools need maligned. I get it. (About a 100 posts ago. I am equally
not dumb.) Tell me why you think *this* audience needs to focus so heavily
on schools. Tell me how it helps someone move onward to something completely
new.

Joyce