[email protected]

In a message dated 11/19/02 9:36:06 PM Central Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:

<< Have you BEEN on a school-at-homers (doh!) list? >>

Oh wow. I just realized that the Christian unschooling list I used to place
my radical posts at had the WORST spellers ever.
Bad punctuation, grammar etc... Not that mine is always so hot, but this was
BAD.
Maybe there is some link to people that blindly follow a religion and brain
capacity?
As if we didn't already know that, hehe.
And this isn't in reference to anyone that is religious!! Please don't take
offence, I'm talking about the blind followers that never question
anything.....

Ren
Unschooling support at pensacolaunschoolers.com
And remember,
"A life lived in fear is a life half lived"

tessimal

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., starsuncloud@c... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/19/02 9:36:06 PM Central Standard Time,
> Unschooling-dotcom@y... writes:
>
> << Have you BEEN on a school-at-homers (doh!) list? >>
>
<>Oh wow. I just realized that the Christian unschooling list I used
to place my radical posts at had the WORST spellers ever. Bad
punctuation, grammar etc... Not that mine is always so hot, but this
was BAD. Maybe there is some link to people that blindly follow a
religion and brain capacity? As if we didn't already know that, hehe.
> And this isn't in reference to anyone that is religious!! Please
don't take offence, I'm talking about the blind followers that never
question anything.....<>

Ren:

Ah, spelling, one of our favorite "conventions," and a big piece of
class discrimination in this country, all instituted by the master
institution of power and control......SCHOOL! When the founding
fathers, many of whom owned slaves, were writing our hallowed
Declaration of Independence and Constitution, spelling in this
country was quite happenstance. If what one wrote was generally
understood by others then no one worried much about the spelling.
But as "schooling" came into favor, specifically as the wealthy
created and supported their elitist schools, we began to see class
distinctions made regarding those who spelled one way and those who
spelled any other way; the King's or Queen's English, versus that of
the common man. And thus the convention of spelling began to take on
its role as one of many class distinguishers, separators, of those
who were elite, better schooled, than the rest of the lower class
citizens of this country. If anyone ever does any geneaological
research and reads early documents and records one quickly discovers
that even our cherished family names were spelled many different ways
not all that long ago in history.

That being said, I used to teach English and French, so I do
understand the importance of this convention for my child's future.
Thus I allowed her to IM and email and ICQ her friends starting at a
very young age, as long as she let me check her spelling when she did
this. She quickly learned how to do this herself and has become
quite a good speller. And she is now as fast to jump in, commenting
about someone's lack of intelligence based on their spelling, as
anyone else these days, much to my chagrin. I have to remind her
that it isn't an intelligence factor, just a convention, though one
that is pretty important to lots of people, usually people who
control many powerful positions in our lives. And grammar and
punctuation serve the same purpose in our bag of "conventions."

I also worked with students and adults, including my husband, who
were born with hard-wiring glitches, like hubby's dyslexia, that
prevented him from reading and spelling well, and from doing some
pretty basic math, too. He found it so frustrating as a child, when
no one had diagnosed his problem and no one offered any special help,
that he simply chose to not learn spelling, thus not to communicate
in writing any more than he had to, and not to do math, and he could
not really read well until he was 21. He grew up and remains someone
who thinks of himself as stupid because of these early learning
failures; a very self-limiting way to grow up, in my opinion. And
after struggling for many years on his own he finally figured out a
way to make words work in his brain at age 21, and has been reading
ever since. But he chose to not catch up on spelling and math.

He is not stupid or ignorant. And I suspect that there are many like
him in his generation and those older than him, older than me. And
probably quite a few undiagnosed in the younger generations, too.
But after being treated as a stupid though well-behaved, well-
mannered, quiet black boy all the way through school and life he has
paid a big price in utter and total lack of self-esteem, a price
exacted by all who pointed fingers at his failing the test of
our "conventions" and "constructs."

I knew better immediatedly when I talked with him and recognized that
his verbal language skills and patterns were outstanding. He had
good contextual and advanced vocabulary, excellent sentence
structure, but he could not write, could not spell, nor could he do
some pretty basic math, at all. Yes, this has severely limited some
of his life choices. But I still appreciate what is wonderful about
him. Just as I am sure all of us hope that someone will appreciate
what is special about all our children as they grow into their
independent lives.

In short, I guess we all have to ask what is really important. Is it
what others think of us? That we live our lives so that others think
highly of us? So that we conform to all the current conventions? Or
that we are true to ourselves? And without self-esteem how can our
children ever find their own way? I truly believe that was the
primary poison that has tainted the biggest portion of his life and
his life choices. Understandable, but sad nonetheless; and also not
my job to fix! But that doesn't get in the way of my love for him.
I don't need a good speller on my arm to feel good about myself.

I also remember one extraordinary lecturer in an Ed Psych class in
college who stood up on the table in the middle of the kiva as he
told us about his life. He had struggled with reading and writing
and math all his life, was flunking out of school when the Korean
conflict came along and he managed to slip in under the wire and
enlisted. To do so he had to study the test for several weeks and
memorize what he had to write to answer the questions correctly. He
served and survived and took his G.I. Bill money to go to college,
getting himself in by the skin of his teeth. He said he got through
one course at a time by going to the library and sitting there and
literally memorizing the books he had to read, copying every chapter,
every page, until he had memorized the information. And he ended up
with a Ph. D. in Educational Psychology. He was by far one of the
best lecturers I had in college, and one I will never forget. So,
again, conventions do not determine intelligence, but may restrict
job opportunities.

I hope that as self-directed educators, unschooling moms and dads,
that we will not burden our children with too much condemning baggage
about who is and who isn't intelligent based on these kinds of
conventions. Conforming to spelling conventions is very helpful in
our modern information intense world, but does not indicate who has
the most brain power. Plenty of people around the world, from many
different countries and cultures, who have never had the luxury of
all the educational options our children enjoy are very intelligent
people, despite their lack of educated conventions.

I know your comments were not meant to be so serious, but it is a
subject very near and dear to me, so I just wanted to reply, hoping
that the glasses through which we view others, here and around the
globe, are not clouded by our own elitist conventions. Thanks.

Norma
CATCH/Cincinnati Area Teaching Children at Home
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SosinkyHS

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/20/02 6:33:00 AM, tessimal@... writes:

<< I also remember one extraordinary lecturer in an Ed Psych class in
college who stood up on the table in the middle of the kiva as he
told us about his life. >>

You must have gone to the University of New Mexico. <g>

<<Ah, spelling, one of our favorite "conventions," and a big piece of
class discrimination in this country, all instituted by the master
institution of power and control......SCHOOL! >>

School didn't invent spelling. School didn't invent the class system. In
England, it might have been being able to read French and Latin, in addition
to accent and "family," but in the U.S. the ideal is that school is a way for
people to rise out of being Tennessee hillbillies or West Texas oil-rig
worker/truck driver whose parents were itinerate cotton pickers.

Villifying schools is creating a scapegoat for problems which existed before
public schools did.

Standard spelling IS important these days, and it's also more accessible wi
thout school than it EVER has been, ever.

Sandra

tessimal

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
> You must have gone to the University of New Mexico. <g>

Though I lived in the Sandias for 27 years and miss them every day, I
did not go to UNM. The kiva I referred to was at Michigan State
University, and even in the mid-sixties when I was an undergrad
there, they called the auditoriums in several classroom buildings
kivas.

<>School didn't invent spelling. School didn't invent the class
system. In England, it might have been being able to read French and
Latin, in addition to accent and "family," but in the U.S. the ideal
is that school is a way for people to rise out of being Tennessee
hillbillies or West Texas oil-rig worker/truck driver whose parents
were itinerate cotton pickers.<>

Since the convention of spelling is only one of many other
conventions, including punctuation and grammar, and all of these in
English are so complex that even the best writers today regularly
rely on dictionaries and handbooks, this convention didn't really
reach the general public until literacy and easy access to books
became common. No, schools didn't invent this convention, just
promoted it handily. As a former English teacher I don't condemn
this, just suggest that it's not such a good idea to judge people
based on their ability to spell or correctly use grammar and syntax,
especially in our most difficult language, American English.

<>Villifying schools is creating a scapegoat for problems which
existed before public schools did.<>

And the problems you are referring to are?

<>Standard spelling IS important these days, and it's also more
accessible without school than it EVER has been, ever.<>

Good dictionaries have been around for a long time. And many,
including the likes of Abraham Lincoln, did not go to school to learn
to spell. Yes, those who have computers usually have spellcheckers,
which can make spelling conventionally easier, but I often find that
these create as many problems as they solve. Same with grammar
checkers. Both of these can change the meaning of what someone is
trying to say if that person doesn't reference dictionaries and
handbooks to be sure they are using the right word the right way, and
that their grammar and syntax convey the intended meaning. The goal
is to say what you want to say and have it read and interpreted the
way you intended it, which is difficult to do under the best of
circumstances, especially in English.

I certainly wouldn't want to discourage anyone from learning to
spell, to use a dictionary, and to understand and apply grammar and
syntax. But I also would prefer that folks don't judge other people
based on those skills alone. Calling someone names or commenting on
intelligence or lack of intelligence based on spelling skills is not
nice. Just as our children have many talents, not all of them
recognized by government or formalized education, so too do many
people have wonderful knowledge to share with us, even if they don't
always follow recognized spelling and grammar conventions.

I think that the IM "languages" that many teens use is wonderful,
very creative, and wouldn't want to discourage them from continuing
to create new ways to communicate using this medium. But
conventional spelling still has its place. I am not trying to
convince folks to abandon the conventions, just be more open to all
kinds of intelligence and not to be so quick to judge intelligence
based on spelling. Many the great "intelligent" man, perhaps a
leader in his time, was supported on the page by a good secretary or
an editor who made the great man and his writing look good by
correcting all the conventions.

Norma

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/20/02 9:09:28 AM, tessimal@... writes:

<< And the problems you are referring to are? >>

class prejudice and spelling

<<Good dictionaries have been around for a long time. >>

That's the first time I've ever heard anyone say that, unless by "a long
time" you mean a hundred years or so.

From a pretty good summary of English language history:

"The last major factor in the development of Modern English was the advent of
the printing press. William Caxton brought the printing press to England in
1476. Books became cheaper and as a result, literacy became more common.
Publishing for the masses became a profitable enterprise, and works in
English, as opposed to Latin, became more common. Finally, the printing press
brought standardization to English. The dialect of London, where most
publishing houses were located, became the standard. Spelling and grammar
became fixed, and the first English dictionary was published in 1604. "

That dictionary wasn't extensive, and it wasn't widely available. NO books
were widely available to poor people until fairly lately.

http://www.wordorigins.org/histeng.htm
(source of above quote)

The printing press quite predates government schools for poor kids.

-=But I also would prefer that folks don't judge other people
based on those skills alone. Calling someone names or commenting on
intelligence or lack of intelligence based on spelling skills is not
nice. -=-

Yes, that's fine.

But when an unschooler is criticized for being a slacker and (allegedly) not
caring whether their children learn to write or not, and if the person
presenting the criticism can't spell or write, THEN that can be a profound
irritation to the unschooler in question.

I saw a quote from a local list (not my locale) today, saying those who don't
teach composition are violating state law. Here's one quote:
" I am only sugesting knowlege of who one speeks to or what one speeks
about gives weight to consideration. "

And last night the superintendent of the Albuquerque Public Schools was on TV
saying he just wanted the kids to "do good in school." I don't think he
meant for them to perform selfless acts. He meant "do well." Does that
matter? Will it matter when people who respect him for his degrees and
criticize me for "risking my children's future" can't tell the difference?

My husband wasn't a great speller years ago. He's gotten better, from
writing. He used to think that whatever he knew at the end of high school
was what he was stuck with forever. The fact that his learning continued and
even sped up after he was out of school helped him accept unschooling
immediately.

We don't razz our kids for misspellings, EVER. But they have free access to
reading and writing opportunities and they ask for help when they want it,
and they learn more every single day.

But school has never touched them directly and STILL they want to spell and
write in such a way that they won't be seen as kids, or as ignorant. It's
not from shame or pressure (unless in small bits, like the time in an online
game when someone told Marty he wrote like a ten year old, and he said "I AM
a ten year old!"

I would rather read good ideas with bad spelling than polished and well
punctuated nonsense. But I can understand the frustration of those who must
read criticism of unschoolers written by those who are sure structure is the
only right way, but who can't themselves write standard English.



Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/20/2002 7:33:00 AM Central Standard Time,
tessimal@... writes:

> Thus I allowed her to IM and email and ICQ her friends starting at a
> very young age, as long as she let me check her spelling when she did
> this.

This is unschooling?

Tuck


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/20/02 10:09:33 AM, tuckervill@... writes:

<< > Thus I allowed her to IM and email and ICQ her friends starting at a
> very young age, as long as she let me check her spelling when she did
> this.

-=--This is unschooling? >>

I'm always willing to check my kids' spelling when they want it.

Last night Marty called out from the other room for "mysterious" and
"intervene."

But I've seen CUTE IMs between Holly and other people that she has sent me,
and hers is all invented spelling, but readable.

I was a little surprised by someone saying they required their children to
have their IMs proofread before sending. I think that's extreme. Nobody
proofreads mine, and it's EASY to make typos when you're typing full speed.

Sandra

tessimal

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., tuckervill@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/20/2002 7:33:00 AM Central Standard Time,
> tessimal@y... writes:
>
> > Thus I allowed her to IM and email and ICQ her friends starting
at a
> > very young age, as long as she let me check her spelling when she
did
> > this.
>
> This is unschooling?
>
> Tuck

Tuck:

There are a whole lot of questions you didn't ask here so I'm not
going to assume anything, but your precise definition
of "unschooling" is...?

Norma

tessimal

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
<>I was a little surprised by someone saying they required their
children to have their IMs proofread before sending. I think that's
extreme. Nobody proofreads mine, and it's EASY to make typos when
you're typing full speed.<>

Do you guys always go around making so many assumptions without
asking questions first? Or did I just get lucky? Where did I
say "always"? And did I also say "forever"? And how old was my
daughter when I was doing this? And could there have been other
reasons that I wanted to: a) not invade her privacy without her
permission, and b) make sure that she was not corresponding with
anyone who, by my adult perception, might be an adult masquerading as
a child with malevolent intent? And whose computer and internet was
she using at that time to do this? And how did I make my living at
that time? Was that computer something I required for my work?
Don't know any of that, do you? Might help to ask first and not go
jumping off that big old Assumption Overhang.

Sorry that my definition of "unschooling" isn't exactly the same as
yours. But then how could you know that, not knowing all the things
I have listed above? Where's the oath I missed that says I can't
define the details of my own "unschooling" terms, that I have to
agree to a list of specific behavior that someone else decides is
right for my child? Doesn't that then make it "yourschoooling" and
not "unschooling"? And how would that differ from doing what the
government schools want?

And typos are readily distinguishable from most repeated spelling
errors. Typos most often have to do with hitting keys near (above,
beside, below) the correct key.

Norma

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/20/02 2:38:24 PM, tessimal@... writes:

<< And typos are readily distinguishable from most repeated spelling
errors. Typos most often have to do with hitting keys near (above,
beside, below) the correct key. >>

Tell us more.
(Not really. We know typos and misspellings.)

<< Where did I
say "always"? And did I also say "forever"? And how old was my
daughter when I was doing this? And could there have been other
reasons that I wanted to: a) not invade her privacy without her
permission, and b) make sure that she was not corresponding with
anyone who, by my adult perception, might be an adult masquerading as
a child with malevolent intent? And whose computer and internet was
she using at that time to do this? And how did I make my living at
that time? Was that computer something I required for my work?
Don't know any of that, do you? >>

Didn't matter what you didn't say. People responded to what you DID write,
which was you let her online IF she didn't send until you checked her
spelling (that's a paraphrase, and if it's wrong in detail, that might make a
difference).



Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/20/2002 3:20:03 PM Central Standard Time,
tessimal@... writes:

> There are a whole lot of questions you didn't ask here so I'm not
> going to assume anything, but your precise definition
> of "unschooling" is...?
>

Well, your language indicates to me that you hold the keys to the computer
and how she is to use it. In the absence of some poor behavior that would
require that (looking at porn, for example), I can't imagine why any
unschooler would require their child to get spelling corrected before she
could send IMs.

YMMV,
Tuck


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

tessimal

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., SandraDodd@a... wrote:
> << Where did I
> say "always"? And did I also say "forever"? And how old was my
> daughter when I was doing this? And could there have been other
> reasons that I wanted to: a) not invade her privacy without her
> permission, and b) make sure that she was not corresponding with
> anyone who, by my adult perception, might be an adult masquerading
as
> a child with malevolent intent? And whose computer and internet
was
> she using at that time to do this? And how did I make my living at
> that time? Was that computer something I required for my work?
> Don't know any of that, do you? >>
>
> Didn't matter what you didn't say. People responded to what you
DID write,
> which was you let her online IF she didn't send until you checked
her
> spelling (that's a paraphrase, and if it's wrong in detail, that
might make a
> difference).

Yes, it does make a difference. It is wrong. Period. Not what I
said. But then......what could I expect. Let's not dally over truth
here.

Ah, so now we have a list that declares reality by consensus. "The
emperor has new clothes!" Every single question I asked above is
relevant to what actually happened, not what you presume happened,
not what you chose to read between the lines, or by paraphrasing the
words. But then I would not want to mess up someone's fantasy with
facts since facts don't seem to concern those who have been verbal on
this topic.

I will console myself on my 57th birthday from hell (gotta go print
out my solar return and see what the heck is going on!) with
something one of my profs in a writing class once told me: "The
minute the words spread themselves on the page and the symbols enter
another person's eyes they are no longer mine. They belong to the
reader who will read into them exactly whatever he or she wants to
read. Never, or rarely does that come close to what was in my mind
when I wrote it. That is the nature of reality and the linguistics
we use to describe that reality."

And then there's something Tony Hillerman once said in a critique
group: "I always leave it up to my agent to try to sell the book,
and all the other rights, including the movie rights; then I pray
that if someone does buy the movie rights they will never make the
movie because I know it will only remotely resemble what I wrote,
what the book was about."

Norma
"Happy Birthday To Me! Happy Birthday To Me!"

tessimal

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., tuckervill@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/20/2002 3:20:03 PM Central Standard Time,
> tessimal@y... writes:
>
> > There are a whole lot of questions you didn't ask here so I'm not
> > going to assume anything, but your precise definition
> > of "unschooling" is...?
> >
>
<>Well, your language indicates to me that you hold the keys to the
computer and how she is to use it. In the absence of some poor
behavior that would require that (looking at porn, for example), I
can't imagine why any unschooler would require their child to get
spelling corrected before she could send IMs.<>

Thank you. At least I don't have to feel accountable for your lack
of imagination! And that's a very strange definition of unschooling
that you have provided there.

Norma

Fetteroll

on 11/20/02 4:36 PM, tessimal at tessimal@... wrote:

> Do you guys always go around making so many assumptions

I think it's a safe assumption that people read what we write. If a number
of people respond as though we said something we didn't then it's reasonable
to figure out how they managed to interpret it "wrong".

> without asking questions first?

If people read something pretty straight forward, I think it's unreasonable
to expect them to question it's unwritten context before responding.

Here's what you said:

> That being said, I used to teach English and French, so I do
> understand the importance of this convention for my child's future.
> Thus I allowed her to IM and email and ICQ her friends starting at a
> very young age, as long as she let me check her spelling when she did
> this.

To paraphrase, to show how it's being interpreted: Because you feel using
standard spelling is important to your child's future you allow her to email
only if you check her spelling first. In other words, she can't email unless
her spelling is first checked.

Posters can expect pretty strong reactions here to issues of controlling
children's decisions about themselves.

I think in general conversation there's a presumption that we're good people
and if we say something that might sound wrong, that others are to assume
that we're trying to make a long story short and cutting out all the stuff
that would explain how we were right to do what we did. (And then they talk
about us behind our backs! "Can you believe she said that??" ;-)

There are lots of people who don't make those assumptions here. Discussions
go beyond what we do to *why* we do them. There are no presumptions that
there are good reasons behind apparently nonunschooling, disrespectful of
children actions. *Everything* gets questioned so that people can understand
how unschooling works.

> There are a whole lot of questions you didn't ask here so I'm not
> going to assume anything, but your precise definition
> of "unschooling" is...?

I'm not Tuck, but my definition of unschooling includes children making
decision for themselves in a supportive environment. (Taking development
into account. I wouldn't expect a 2 yo, for instance, to understand my
explanation that being hit by a car could kill them.) That means that I will
give my daughter information but trust her to make decisions for herself. I
will point out that in general adults care more about standard spelling than
kids. I will let her know I'll check spelling. She gets feedback about the
usefulness of standard spelling by trying to interpret others nonstandard
spelling and any comments or questions about something she's written. From
that she decides when she wants spelling checked and when to let it go.

> And could there have been other
> reasons that I wanted to: a) not invade her privacy without her
> permission, and b) make sure that she was not corresponding with
> anyone who, by my adult perception, might be an adult masquerading as
> a child with malevolent intent?

Internet safety, privacy, treatment of other people's property are all
important but separate issues from allowing or not allowing emails before
spelling is checked.

In the midst of a spelling discussion, prefacing a statement with how
important spelling is to a child's future, why would a statement about
checking spelling before allowing a child to email be about anything other
than assuring a child gets the importance of standard spelling?

"The list" (as though it were a single entity) gets accused of being nit
picky. But clarity is important, saying what we mean is important when we're
trying to help people understand unschooling. It's not a "let's all share
what works for us and let each decide for herself what sounds good to her"
kind of list. It's a "understanding how freedom to live and learn can be put
into practice in real life" kind of list. And that takes being clear about
why we do what we do and looking at things from many angles to see if we're
seeing things clearly.

Anything that sounds like "I think this is important and I'm going to
control my child until she complies long enough to accept its importance" is
going to get questioned about whether that's unschooling or not.

Joyce

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/20/2002 11:44:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,
tessimal@... writes:
> Norma
> "Happy Birthday To Me! Happy Birthday To Me!"

Happy Birthday, Norma. I'm glad you were born!

~Kelly


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

Fetteroll

on 11/20/02 4:36 PM, tessimal at tessimal@... wrote:

> Where's the oath I missed that says I can't
> define the details of my own "unschooling" terms, that I have to
> agree to a list of specific behavior that someone else decides is
> right for my child?

It's not a matter of behaviors so much as a matter of philosophy. If a
behavior sounds like it doesn't match the philosophy, then it's helpful to
anyone trying to understand unschooling for it to be questioned.

> "The
> minute the words spread themselves on the page and the symbols enter
> another person's eyes they are no longer mine. They belong to the
> reader who will read into them exactly whatever he or she wants to
> read. Never, or rarely does that come close to what was in my mind
> when I wrote it. That is the nature of reality and the linguistics
> we use to describe that reality."

Which means there's a limit to how perfectly we can communicate, but it
doesn't mean there's nothing we can do to minimize misinterpretation. It
means we can try to write as clearly as possible, and avoid having people
rely on good presumptions about us to aid their interpretation of what we're
saying.

Joyce

tessimal

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Fetteroll <fetteroll@e...> wrote:
<>It's not a matter of behaviors so much as a matter of philosophy.
If a behavior sounds like it doesn't match the philosophy, then it's
helpful to anyone trying to understand unschooling for it to be
questioned.<>

Well, Joyce, it's much more helpful to get the facts, ask questions
if you use your brain and recognize that there might be some things
here that you don't know, don't understand, and that applies to about
anything in life, before anyone jumps to conclusions about anything.
Lacking facts your behavior, or anyone's behavior, that condemns
someone for not behaving exactly the way you think you would (though
how could you know since you didn't know the particulars of the
situation?) has nothing to do with philosophy. That's ATTITUDE, in
the street sense of that word.

<>Which means there's a limit to how perfectly we can communicate,
but it doesn't mean there's nothing we can do to minimize
misinterpretation. It means we can try to write as clearly as
possible, and avoid having people rely on good presumptions about us
to aid their interpretation of what we're saying.<>

This is an e-list, Joyce, not my book. Your e-list, or at least you
are moderator, as I understand it. The medium is not one for which
one takes a long time to write, rewrite, rethin, revise, and rewrite
20 more times, as I do in all my journalistic and literary work.
This is a spontaneous mode of communication. And the best way to use
it is to never assume anything. Ask questions about what you don't
know. Ask first. And keep asking until you get the answers.

Like, I am still waiting for that clearly spelled out set of
parameters that constitute "acceptable" unschooling here. I am
asking again, and again, and again. And I am not asking to be
condemned for what I chose to do with my daughter when she was 8
years old (she's 15 now) in a very specific situation. Neither is
anyone else who talks about what they did or are doing, I'm sure.
People don't join lists to be condemned. If I wasn't so certain of
what I was doing, hadn't done 7 years of successful "unschooling"
already, wasn't satisfied with the results, then I would be very
intimidated by this kind of vicious questioning about something so
totally nitpicky.

Part of being a thinking person is to read and listen and then to
realize what we don't know, what we need to know, and then to ask
questions to fill in some of those knowledge gaps. If we don't, and
we instead jump to conclusions, especially when those conclusions
imply negativity or some kind of bad behavior on the part of the
person communicating, then we are only showing our own ignorance of
the limitations of language, especially in this specific written
language medium.

Norma
"But I don't have to know an answer. I don't feel frightened by not
knowing things, by being lost in the mysterious universe without
having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can
tell, possibly. It doesn't frighten me." - Richard Feynman

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/21/2002 8:55:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
tessimal@... writes:
> Like, I am still waiting for that clearly spelled out set of
> parameters that constitute "acceptable" unschooling here. I am
> asking again, and again, and again.

Read the archives. It's been defined and defined. It's also available at the
unschool.com message boards over and over---as well as in the essays.

It's about trust and freedom. The words "I would allow" throw this group into
a tizzy. Expect that.

There are "watered-down" unschooling lists that aren't as radical as this
one. You might be happier there. Joyce can give you info on that if you'd
like.

~Kelly


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

tessimal

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., kbcdlovejo@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 11/21/2002 8:55:32 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> tessimal@y... writes:
> > Like, I am still waiting for that clearly spelled out set of
> > parameters that constitute "acceptable" unschooling here. I am
> > asking again, and again, and again.
>
<>Read the archives. It's been defined and defined. It's also
available at the unschool.com message boards over and over---as well
as in the essays. It's about trust and freedom. The words "I would
allow" throw this group into a tizzy. Expect that.<>

So, then, this is a closed list? Closed at some date when you had
enough people who already knew your specific definition of
unschooling and all its detailed ramifications? Why doesn't it say
that on the web page? Why does it say it's still an open list? I am
confused. If everyone here is supposed to know all the definitions
and newcomers get slammed when they ask, then this must be a closed
list. Sorry for invading your private club. Be sure to put up
the "closed to newcomers" sign from now on. I usually read those
things before I open the door.

Sorry, Kelly, but when it's my busines computer and my income depends
on it, then I am the one who allows or disallows its use by anyone.
Starting at age 10 my daughter had her own computer and has ever
since. I don't oversee or supervise anything on it. But my use of
the word allow had to do with using my computer, not whatever you all
decided to think I meant.

<>There are "watered-down" unschooling lists that aren't as radical
as this one. You might be happier there. Joyce can give you info on
that if you'd like.<>

I think I can stand up for myself here or anywhere else just fine.
Don't take to bullying much and won't hesitate to stand up to it.
And if this is how you treat your children and their choices in life
then you have some gall calling yourselves "unschoolers."

Norma
"Nature uses only the longest threads to weave her patterns, so each
small piece of her fabric reveals the organization of the entire
tapestry." - Richard Feynman

Deborah Lewis

I'm sorry if you're having a bad day. And on your birthday. Bummer.
I hope today is closer to what you were hoping for.

It seems like you're hugely upset over this discussion.

***Thus I allowed her to IM and email and ICQ her friends starting at a
very young age, as long as she let me check her spelling when she did
this.***

You said people assumed things about this without getting more
information. I don't think that's true. People assumed you check your
daughters spelling because that's exactly what you said. You seemed
angry that we didn't assume you were looking out for her safety, but
there was no reason for anyone to assume that. You said "IM and email
and ICQ her friends". We didn't assume she needed to be protected from
friends.

I'm very sorry you're having a bad day, I feel for you. But I really
don't think anyone responding to your post has been out of line, and I
think you might be overreacting.

No one here can force you to unschool in any particular way. If you're
not doing it the way others here are that's your own business. There
are good and helpful ideas here if you want them, but no one can make you
take them. You get to make up your own mind.

I'm surprised by the intensity of your responses to people here, and I'm
very sorry you're so upset. I hope things are well with you and that
you can take away what you can use and put aside the rest for now.
No one here wants to hurt you. This is just a discussion list.

If you'd like to duck out of the way now, I can say something
inflammatory and draw attention away from you.<g>

Probably all someone would have to say is Alan Rickman sucks, and WHAMO!
No more talk about Norma's spell checking.

But really, unschooling is going to be discussed on this list. That's
what it's for.

Happy belated birthday, Norma.

Deb L

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

Shyrley

On 21 Nov 02, at 13:53, tessimal wrote:


>
> Like, I am still waiting for that clearly spelled out set of
> parameters that constitute "acceptable" unschooling here. I am
> asking again, and again, and again. And I am not asking to be
> condemned for what I chose to do with my daughter when she was 8 years
> old (she's 15 now) in a very specific situation. Neither is anyone
> else who talks about what they did or are doing, I'm sure. People
> don't join lists to be condemned. If I wasn't so certain of what I
> was doing, hadn't done 7 years of successful "unschooling" already,
> wasn't satisfied with the results, then I would be very intimidated by
> this kind of vicious questioning about something so totally nitpicky.

It would seem to me that unschooling is letting your child decide
what they want to learn or not learn. Actually, thats a poor
definition considering that learning is part of life and happens all the
time and I don't *let* my child do anything, they decide for
themselves.
My 7yo sat down yesterday and did a maths workpage that I had
printed off for him. He asked for a page of multiplications. I found
one on the net and printed it. I then helped him when he asked for
help. Thats Unschooling. The other two printed out cheats for
'Grand Theft Auto' and then proceeded to spend the entire day
trying thm out on the game. Thats unschooling too.
This morning the 7 yo asked me to do pages of 'A's' written as dots
so he could learn to write the letter A...(if anyone knows where I
can find some of them on the web I'd be grateful as I had to do
them by hand).
Helping your child with spelling or maths or physics or cooking or
knitting is all unschooling. It ceases to be unschooling when you
'make' or 'expect' a child to do a certain thing.
I overheard a HS'er telling her child that if he didn't learn to read by
the age of 10 then he was stupid and she'd send him back to
school. She thought she was unschooling cos she let him choose
the books. But she wasn't as she was pressurising him to read.

I think (and this is my opinion) that some people are afraid to 'let
go' of the school attitude and therefore feel slightly threatened when
this is pointed out to them. Sometimes the critisism helps them
realise, other times they defensively hold on to their own
interpretation and find posts threatening or unpleasant even if they
are not meant to be.

Ummm, I've now forgotten the point I was trying to make and two of
my kids are fighting so I'll leave it there for wiser heads to tell me
what I meant :-)

Shyrley


"You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you are all the same."

Betsy

**Ah, so now we have a list that declares reality by consensus. "The
emperor has new clothes!" Every single question I asked above is
relevant to what actually happened, not what you presume happened,
not what you chose to read between the lines, or by paraphrasing the
words. But then I would not want to mess up someone's fantasy with
facts since facts don't seem to concern those who have been verbal on
this topic. **

If you want to argue, please go back and read your original post. Your
word choice gave a very controlling impression.

To argue just based on your knowledge of your life and it's reality
without taking the time to see what might have given this idea is a
really pointless form of discussion. It may *sound* reasonable, but
we'll just end up talking past each other.

People CAN get the wrong impression from what you write. That doesn't
make them stupid OR insensitive. Go back and look at what you said that
generated this response.

We're looking at your initial words. You need to look at them, too, or
you will never understand what we are talking about.

Betsy

Betsy

**This is an e-list, Joyce, not my book. Your e-list, or at least you
are moderator, as I understand it. The medium is not one for which
one takes a long time to write, rewrite, rethin, revise, and rewrite
20 more times, as I do in all my journalistic and literary work.
This is a spontaneous mode of communication. And the best way to use
it is to never assume anything. Ask questions about what you don't
know. Ask first. And keep asking until you get the answers.

**

Why are you acting as if interpretational errors are 100% the fault of
the reader if the writing is so spontaneous? Can't writers also be
making errors?



Betsy

Betsy

**"The list" (as though it were a single entity) gets accused of being nit
picky. But clarity is important, saying what we mean is important when we're
trying to help people understand unschooling. It's not a "let's all share
what works for us and let each decide for herself what sounds good to her"
kind of list. It's a "understanding how freedom to live and learn can be put
into practice in real life" kind of list. And that takes being clear about
why we do what we do and looking at things from many angles to see if we're
seeing things clearly.**


Hey, Joyce! I really like the clarity of this.

I would even recommend that you take from "It's not a..." to "... put
into practice in real life kind of list" and think about adding it to
the group description at yahoo groups.

Betsy

Shyrley

On 21 Nov 02, at 7:58, Deborah Lewis wrote:


> If you'd like to duck out of the way now, I can say something
> inflammatory and draw attention away from you.<g>
>
> Probably all someone would have to say is Alan Rickman sucks, and
> WHAMO! No more talk about Norma's spell checking.
>
Now thats just going *too* far.........!!!!!!!!

Shyrley


"You laugh at me because I'm different. I laugh at you because you are all the same."

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/21/02 6:55:31 AM, tessimal@... writes:

<< Well, Joyce, it's much more helpful to get the facts, ask questions
if you use your brain .... has nothing to do with philosophy. That's
ATTITUDE, in
the street sense of that word. >>

If you save this a while you'll be ashamed that you suggested Joyce doesn't
use her brain.

And the attitude is all yours.

Part of REAL writing (as opposed to practice writing, like book reports for a
teacher) is taking responsibility for what you write. When you write on a
list like this, it affects other people's lives. People come here for ideas
about homeschooling, about parenting, about unschooling. Your words have as
good an opportunity to help other people clarify their own beliefs as mine or
Joyce's or ANYONE's do. If what you wrote was incomplete or unclear, then
explain further.

Partial information which isn't marked partial will be considered a full
communication. You wrote, and you hit send. That's what people do dozens of
times a day here.

When my kids write something that doesn't work out and people have
interpreted it another way, they explain and apologize, instead of accusing
the other people of not thinking, or blaming the other people for not
assuming there was lots of other side information being saved back.

I didn't teach them that either. They see writing as an extension of
themselves. They have never had "practice writing," only real writing.

Sandra

Tia Leschke

> >
> > Didn't matter what you didn't say. People responded to what you
> DID write,
> > which was you let her online IF she didn't send until you checked
> her
> > spelling (that's a paraphrase, and if it's wrong in detail, that
> might make a
> > difference).
>
> Yes, it does make a difference. It is wrong. Period. Not what I
> said. But then......what could I expect. Let's not dally over truth
> here.
>
> Ah, so now we have a list that declares reality by consensus. "The
> emperor has new clothes!" Every single question I asked above is
> relevant to what actually happened, not what you presume happened,
> not what you chose to read between the lines, or by paraphrasing the
> words. But then I would not want to mess up someone's fantasy with
> facts since facts don't seem to concern those who have been verbal on
> this topic.

It's really hard to learn anything with a chip on your shoulder.
Happy Birthday Norma.
Tia

Tia Leschke

>
> Sorry, Kelly, but when it's my busines computer and my income depends
> on it, then I am the one who allows or disallows its use by anyone.
> Starting at age 10 my daughter had her own computer and has ever
> since. I don't oversee or supervise anything on it. But my use of
> the word allow had to do with using my computer, not whatever you all
> decided to think I meant.

You were very specific that you were *allowing* her to send messages only
after you had checked the spelling. All the other issues about allowing her
to use the computer or not had nothing to do with that. How a misspelled
message would impact on your business or income was certainly not mentioned.

> <>There are "watered-down" unschooling lists that aren't as radical
> as this one. You might be happier there. Joyce can give you info on
> that if you'd like.<>
>
> I think I can stand up for myself here or anywhere else just fine.
> Don't take to bullying much and won't hesitate to stand up to it.
> And if this is how you treat your children and their choices in life
> then you have some gall calling yourselves "unschoolers."

You think that you've been badly treated because someone questioned a
statement you made. You call this bullying. I call it not wanting to
examine what you've said in light of the comments that have been made about
it. I call it wanting to blame other people for your anger.
Tia

Tia Leschke

> Well, Joyce, it's much more helpful to get the facts, ask questions
> if you use your brain and recognize that there might be some things
> here that you don't know, don't understand, and that applies to about
> anything in life, before anyone jumps to conclusions about anything.
> Lacking facts your behavior, or anyone's behavior, that condemns
> someone for not behaving exactly the way you think you would (though
> how could you know since you didn't know the particulars of the
> situation?) has nothing to do with philosophy. That's ATTITUDE, in
> the street sense of that word.

This is the heart of the problem, Norma. You see, *nobody* here has
condemned you. Nobody. A number of people have said that what you did (at
least as you wrote about it) was not unschooling. But nobody has condemned
*you*.
Tia

Deborah Lewis

>Probably all someone would have to say is Alan Rickman sucks, and
> WHAMO! No more talk about Norma's spell checking.
>
***Now thats just going *too* far.........!!!!!!!!***



Shyrley, how did I know you'd be the one to notice this? <G>

Deb L, who truly, madly, deeply loves Alan Rickman.