[email protected]

***Snd the best way to use this is to never assume anything. Ask questions about what you don't know. Ask first. And keep asking until you get the answers.***

Okay, so when 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." did you really mean that you didn't allow her to IM and email her friends without her words first being proofread by you?

Checking emails for safety reasons is a totally different issue from checking emails because correct spelling is "important for your child's future." The former would probably strike many people as reasonable but not so much the latter. And you were specifically talking about spelling, not about safety. If you had said something vague like "I think it's very important to check my young daughter's emails before she sends them" that would be open to the question "oh, why do you do that?" But when the topic is spelling, and you say clearly that you insist on proofreading because spelling's an important convention, then there's no assuming going on... just responding.

I've learned on lists like this that if I can step back from the defensiveness and insult welling up in me when someone disputes something I've said, I may just find myself agreeing with them and making a very important paradigm shift. I know it's difficult, but it's very worth it. :-)

Patti

tessimal

--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., <patti.schmidt2@v...> wrote:
> ***Snd the best way to use this is to never assume anything. Ask
questions about what you don't know. Ask first. And keep asking
until you get the answers.***
>
> Okay, so when 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." did you really mean that you didn't allow her to IM and
email her friends without her words first being proofread by you?

I already answered this: Did I say ALL the time? Did I say that she
could ONLY do these three things with me ALWAYS checking her
spelling? No. I was referring to one specific very brief period in
her life, our lives, when she did this, for a few months at age 8
more than 7 years ago. She was only allowed to use ICQ and IM
transmissions with supervision.

The one she used the most often and the one I supervised most closely
was a chess site that she liked because she was getting very good at
chess. And it had accompanying chat/IMing. I had already discovered
that some of the boys, claiming to be 12-13, used very sophisticated
langauge patterns and vocabulary and spelled meticulously, usually a
sign of someone much older than 12-13. And I soon found that the
messaging on this site was deteriorating into vulgarity and sexual
innuendo, so we discussed it and she determined that it was no longer
a fun site.

She left that site but she continued some ICQ and IM messaging. But
since anyone can be faking it on these kinds of transmissions I
monitored them. Not so for e-mail, actually, though I would help her
with spelling if she asked, which she often did. Which is how this
all got started in the first place, because she asked for help,
wanted to spell correctly. She became very adept at using spellcheck
and various dictionaries and soon no longer needed any help from me.

I haven't checked her spelling in years now. The brief period when I
did this was also when I was running my business with my computer, my
only computer then, and so I also monitored to make sure that nothing
happened to my system, which was very important.

<>Checking emails for safety reasons is a totally different issue
from checking emails because correct spelling is "important for your
child's future."<>

My statement about spelling being important for your child's future
came after I had clearly stated that I felt that the convention of
spelling, along with other grammar and punctuation conventions should
not be pushed because they are not indicators of intelligence, which
related to a comment someone else had made, slurring folks who did
not spell correctly on message boards.

<>The former would probably strike many people as reasonable but not
so much the latter. And you were specifically talking about
spelling, not about safety. If you had said something vague like "I
think it's very important to check my young daughter's emails before
she sends them" that would be open to the question "oh, why do you do
that?" But when the topic is spelling, and you say clearly that you
insist on proofreading because spelling's an important convention,
then there's no assuming going on... just responding.<>

The whole thing goes back to a post that apparently everyone has long
forgotten, though it was only yesterday. Time flies when you are
being attacked! It is possible, of course, that the person who came
after me on this was only trying to deflect from my comments about
class and spelling and labeling people as stupid or lacking in
intelligence because they could not spell.

I still want to know why we are supposed to allow our children to do
what they want when they want, but we have different rules completely
for adults here? And there's still this underlying assumption that
somehow, by osmosis, or by plowing through thousands of posts, all
new members are supposed to know exactly what the list moderator and
owner mean by their specific version of "unschooling."

I admit to being a little bit forewarned about the incongruity on
this list when I read, "As discussed on this list and at the
Unschooling.com website, unschooling is *not* defined as the free
learning kids do outside of parent-directed learning, nor is it done
on a part-time basis." This told me some things that unschooling was
NOT, but did not begin to define what it was. And, gee, I thought
what my daughter was doing with spelling was just that: parent-
directed learning while she was engaged in a learning activity of her
choice.

The other statement that telescoped subtle incongruity was: "An
unschooled child is free to choose the what, when, where and how of
their learning -- from mud puddles to Shakespeare to Spongebob
Squarepants!" As I said, I'm coming to your house for the throwing
rocks through windows phase of learning, or the melting candles on
carpet phase, or any of the other expensive and dangerous phases.

No child under the care of loving and responsible parents is totally
free to choose the what, when, where and how of their learning. For
some things they might choose could also get the parents thrown in
jail, or will cost a lot to repair the damage done while choosing
some less constructive learning paths. Maybe rich people's kids get
that kind of total freedom, but I'm not rich.

Norma

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/21/02 12:47:24 PM, tessimal@... writes:

<< "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." >>

<< Did I say ALL the time? Did I say that she
could ONLY do these three things with me ALWAYS checking her
spelling? No. >>

Yes you did. By the tense you used and the fact that the satement was
unqualified you said you did it, period. No exceptions were noted.

BECAUSE you used to teach you
UNDERSTAND the importance of spelling
THUS you allowed her...
AS LONG AS (which mean "if and only if")

It's clear grammatically and mathematically.

You've defended it saying you mean to keep her safe.
If you think better spellers are safer online than poor spellers, then
there's that prejudice about spelling again! <g> (Prejudice about spelling
is understandable, as some said, which is one of the things that started all
this.)

-=-I still want to know why we are supposed to allow our children to do
what they want when they want, but we have different rules completely
for adults here? -=-

My children are considerate and generous with their time and attention.
If they're being rude I ask them not to be. If they say they're going to do
something which seems unsafe or not right for the circumstances, I question
them. (Their friends, too.)

-=-And there's still this underlying assumption that
somehow, by osmosis, or by plowing through thousands of posts, all
new members are supposed to know exactly what the list moderator and
owner mean by their specific version of "unschooling." =-

By reading the description at yahoogroups, or at www.unschooling.com

How did you come to this list if not from one of those two gates? If you
were passed the address by a friend, your friend could have clued you as to
where the description of the list was.

-=-And, gee, I thought
what my daughter was doing with spelling was just that: parent-
directed learning while she was engaged in a learning activity of her
choice.-=-

So you DID see the description? Before you joined the list or when it was
posted here?

Parent directed learning is not unschooling.
What the description meant was that if a child's homeschooling is parent
directed but the parent says "and in their spare time we unschool," that's
not the unschooling we're talking about. There are people who use ABeka but
then claim "but in the summer and on weekends we unschool."

<<The other statement that telescoped subtle incongruity was: "An
unschooled child is free to choose the what, when, where and how of
their learning -- from mud puddles to Shakespeare to Spongebob
Squarepants!" As I said, I'm coming to your house for the throwing
rocks through windows phase of learning, or the melting candles on
carpet phase, or any of the other expensive and dangerous phases. >>

You're assuming and suggesting neglect and stupidity.
If you would read more than you post, you would see hundreds of examples of
learning which don't involve any rocks through windows or wax on carpet.
YOUR definition of unschooling seems to involve those things. I've never
seen them done on purpose. There is some wax on the carpet in my bedroom in
one place, but the kids didn't do it.

-=-No child under the care of loving and responsible parents is totally
free to choose the what, when, where and how of their learning. For
some things they might choose could also get the parents thrown in
jail, or will cost a lot to repair the damage done while choosing
some less constructive learning paths. -=-

Your imagination and your ill wishes are not as valuable in informational
terms here as the REAL accounts of experiences of unschoolers with teenagers
who have never been in trouble, who have never damaged anything, who are
happy and well adjusted teenagers who are already making very responsible
decisions about their lives.

IF your daughter has never broken anything valuable or been in jail, do you
believe that is only because you controlled her? If not, what are you
implying? That if you hadn't controlled her she would have been in jail?

I doubt it. But if you believe that, as you seem to from your unflattering
suggestions that our kids will or must be, then I don't think you are seeing
the unschooling we're talking about at all.

That's okay. I've been helping people find other unschoolers and share their
experiences since my oldest was little, because I had so needed that kind of
input, and waited two months for the next issue of Growing Without Schooling
to learn more about unschooling.

Now as much information as was in an issue of that magazine is written online
every single day.
There are others on this list, too, who have been doing this and writing
about it for five, ten years. And they're not doing it to hurt you, or
anyone. They're doing it to help children and families have more peaceful
and productive unschooling lives.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/21/02 1:47:23 PM Central Standard Time,
tessimal@... writes:

> As I said, I'm coming to your house for the throwing
> rocks through windows phase of learning, or the melting candles on
> carpet phase, or any of the other expensive and dangerous phases.
>

I guess I can't understand why an unschooling child would want to do anything
destructive or dangerous in the manner you are describing. If they have been
making choices all their lives and have had open discussion of their choices
and their right to choose, if they are respected and have thus learned to be
respectful, why would they want to destroy their parents' property? Call me
naive, but I don't think there must be a throwing rocks through the window
phase of learning.

Elizabeth

susan marie

oh.. you mean the physics of why a brick will break glass rather than go
through it, but if it was still sand, it would, and of course bricks are
mud, and mud through sand is okay, but add heat.. gosh, all those broken
windows for nothing. <sigh> I guess I still need to learn a little
more about this unschooling thing.

oh, and melting candles on the carpet isn't any fun at all. been there,
done that, no more carpeting, lots of flashlights.
~
we had a field trip to the Hindu temple the other day. very cool. the
man who was our host told us we had to leave our shoes outside of the
sanctuary. first, because everyone sits on the carpeting and it needs to
be kept clean. but more importantly, because it was symbolic of leaving
one's ego at the door before entering sacred space. to me, this
community is sacred space. perhaps we should all leave our shoes at the
door.

peace,
susan
(happily wiggling her toes, wearing comfy socks but no shoes)


On Thursday, November 21, 2002, at 06:00 PM, ejcrewe@... wrote:

> In a message dated 11/21/02 1:47:23 PM Central Standard Time,
> tessimal@... writes:
>
> > As I said, I'm coming to your house for the throwing
> >  rocks through windows phase of learning, or the melting candles on
> >  carpet phase, or any of the other expensive and dangerous phases. 
> > 
>
> I guess I can't understand why an unschooling child would want to do
> anything
> destructive or dangerous in the manner you are describing.  If they
> have been
> making choices all their lives and have had open discussion of their
> choices
> and their right to choose, if they are respected and have thus learned
> to be
> respectful, why would they want to destroy their parents' property? 
> Call me
> naive, but I don't think there must be a throwing rocks through the
> window
> phase of learning.
>
> Elizabeth
>
> ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
>
> If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please
> email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the
> list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address
> an email to:
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
peace,
Susan

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."
- Margaret Mead


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

Tia Leschke

Call me
> naive, but I don't think there must be a throwing rocks through the window
> phase of learning.

Hasn't happened here. There *was* a baseball throught the window once,
years ago, but it was definitely an accident. I guess maybe my 15 year old
will probably be exploring physics that way any day now, though, since I'm
so neglectful. I don't even check his spelling! %^ )
Tia

Fetteroll

on 11/21/02 2:44 PM, tessimal at tessimal@... wrote:

> I still want to know why we are supposed to allow our children to do
> what they want when they want, but we have different rules completely
> for adults here?

The rules are common sense and the same for children and adults.

Children have the freedom to choose what they want to do. If my daughter
decides to take an art class, she signs up because she wants to do art, not
because she wants to do whatever.

People who join a list about a specific topic are presumably coming to
discuss or read about that topic.

This list happens to be about unschooling.

> And there's still this underlying assumption that
> somehow, by osmosis, or by plowing through thousands of posts, all
> new members are supposed to know exactly what the list moderator and
> owner mean by their specific version of "unschooling."

I like defining unschooling as natural learning. It's the way kids learned
from the moment they were born. Some people define unschooling as not doing
school. Some people define it as child-led learning. I find the defintions a
lot more useful to people who already understand unschooling. They are
shorthand ways of saying things we already understand but they are
misleading and leave out a huge amount of information for those who don't
already understand. For instance people will hear not doing school and
conclude they can't let their kids do workbooks.

Some people also want to stretch unschooling into parenting so figuring out
how to be our children's partners in life as well as learning also gets
discussed. (Unschoolers who don't want to stretch unschooling into parenting
can find standard parenting discussed oodles of places on the internet.
There are very few places where "unschooling parenting" gets discussed and
this happens to be one of them.)

Learning the definition of unschooling by reading about unschooling is like
a toddler learning English. Kids pick up the rules of word order just by
listening and using English. And it works a whole lot better than being
taught the rules of English.

> This told me some things that unschooling was
> NOT, but did not begin to define what it was.

The first paragraph of the introduction tries to give a flavor of how
unschooling gets discussed here. If it doesn't make sense to you then it's
probably a pretty good indicator that your defintion is very different. And
the last line of the first paragraph is:

> If this sounds like it's for you or you'd like to
> find out more about how video games and life in general are filled with
> learning, come join us!

So does a place that advertises:

> Unschooling is the confidence to trust that young people will learn what they
> need from living their lives in freedom and joy. An unschooling parent is a
> facilitator and cheerleader who embraces life and learning with curiosity and
> enthusiasm. An unschooled child is free to choose the what, when, where and
> how of their learning -- from mud puddles to Shakespeare to Spongebob
> Squarepants!

sound like a place you'd like to hang out in?

The second paragraph is intended to help people who arrive with some of the
common other definitions of unschooling that are popping up in the general
population. It was to help people figure out if this list would be useful to
them. The misunderstandings have gone way down since the description was put
up.

> And, gee, I thought
> what my daughter was doing with spelling was just that: parent-
> directed learning while she was engaged in a learning activity of her
> choice.

As someone pointed out, parent-directed learning isn't part of the scope of
this list.

> No child under the care of loving and responsible parents is totally
> free to choose the what, when, where and how of their learning. For
> some things they might choose could also get the parents thrown in
> jail, or will cost a lot to repair the damage done while choosing
> some less constructive learning paths. Maybe rich people's kids get
> that kind of total freedom, but I'm not rich.

Then your imagination is leading you to conclude that being free to choose
means choosing to stop thinking and stop caring and being free from
information and other people's feelings.

We have families here whose children are free to choose and whose children
do take decision making seriously. My daughter could drip wax onto the
carpet or throw rocks through windows but she chooses not to because she'd
see what would be gained by it (the result) wouldn't balance out what would
be lost (things ruined).

Lots of kids who have been controlled get destructive when control is
released. But that's a response to the control not to the freedom.

Children having free choice doesn't make much sense in our society.
Decisions of when to control children are based on what we're certain will
happen rather than anyone's real experience with what will happen. For
example it's easy to conclude that kids won't learn unless they're forced
because most (schooled) kids avoid anything that looks like learning when
they aren't in school. But the conclusion is based on the assumption that
having to go to school has no effect on kids behavior. That how schooled
kids behave is how kids behave. Obviously unschoolers know differently.

And parents who have raised their children with the freedom to choose in
their lives also know differently: that control does alter people's natural
behavior and assumptions based on the behavior of controlled children (which
is most children!) doesn't apply to children without those controls.

Joyce

[email protected]

In a message dated 11/22/02 6:19:38 AM, fetteroll@... writes:

<< Lots of kids who have been controlled get destructive when control is
released. But that's a response to the control not to the freedom. >>

The wildest kids I've evern personally experienced, as a kid and as an adult
dealing with other people's kids have been those who were also the most
controlled.

Too many families father-train their kids. "You better not let your dad
catch you doing that."
"If *I* ever see you doing that..."

They don't give them easily understandable and real reason for behavior.
They give them sets of rules all topped off with "When I'm there, you must
behave this way." The counter argument to that is "When I'm not there, do
the opposite if you want."

When kids' behavior is based on their own consciences and their own real
understandings of why it's politer or safer or kinder to do this or that,
there IS no counter argument. There is no downtime.

Sandra