[email protected]

About misbehaving:
Like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.
I had my son and grandson at the park the other day. A few other families
were there, too. The slides are long tubes, and the boys enjoy climbing up
them. The other moms scolded their kids; they could only go DOWN the slides.
To them, my boys were misbehaving.
I was at a height/position advantage to see the top; if some other kid had
climbed the steps, and was approaching the slide, I'd scoop my kid out of the
way and let the other kid go first, so there wasn't a safety issue. There
was plenty of equipment for the kids to share, as well, so they weren't
"holding up the show" by taking the time to go up.
I started to "allow" my son up the slide when the physical therapist
recommended it when he was little and had difficulty flexing his foot. I
continue to let him do it because it's fun.
Mary J

[email protected]

<<About misbehaving:
Like beauty, it's in the eye of the beholder.>>

I found this quote yesterday. "Intellectual misbehavior" was a new concept
to me, so I saved it!


"The first half of this verse tells us that a child must be disciplined with
the rod and reproved for his misbehavior. Misbehavior may be manifested in a
multitude of ways, including intellectual misbehavior."

<A
HREF="http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/early_academics_and_unschooling.h

tm">On Early Academics</A>

http://www.triviumpursuit.com/articles/early_academics_and_unschooling.htm

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/11/03 1:22:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mc1mommy@...
writes:

> . The slides are long tubes, and the boys enjoy climbing up
> them. The other moms scolded their kids; they could only go DOWN the
> slides.
> To them, my boys were misbehaving.
>

My boys love that too. And usually a reminder once in a while to make sure
no one is coming down is all it takes. I know one Mom who gives two spanks
at the end of the day for this offense. Actually she doesn't it is the
father her husband that does, he is also the preacher at one of the many
churches in the area.
Pam G.


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

Bill and Diane

I started to explain one day to a little girl that going UP the slide
was a bad idea--it was crowded and she could get hurt--it's better to do
it when there aren't other kids around. Her mom lit into me and said she
could NEVER go up the slide because then she'd want to do it all the
time. DUH! She does want to do it all the time, and my kids want to do
it only when it's safe. :-P

:-) Diane

>>. The slides are long tubes, and the boys enjoy climbing up
>>them. The other moms scolded their kids; they could only go DOWN the
>>slides.
>>To them, my boys were misbehaving.
>>

Ren Allen

"Many people say things wrong grammatically; eventually it becomes
common
and accepted."

So is it really possible for anything to be "wrong" in language?
Perhaps it's just evolution. Makes me feel better about my
grammatical incorrectness anyway....:)

Ren

mamaaj2000

--- In [email protected], "Ren Allen"
<starsuncloud@n...> wrote:
> "Many people say things wrong grammatically; eventually it becomes
> common
> and accepted."
>
> So is it really possible for anything to be "wrong" in language?
> Perhaps it's just evolution. Makes me feel better about my
> grammatical incorrectness anyway....:)

That's how linguists think:

"You will by now have noticed that linguists' views of grammar differ
from that of, say, your typical language teacher. We can describe
this difference concisely by saying that linguists try to describe
how people actually use language, while language teachers typically
try to prescribe how people should use language according to
arbitrarily determined "standards". To be a savvy language user, a
person must understand both kinds of rules."

That's from
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~tsanchez/Ling10June4handout.html

You can wander for days at http://www.ling.upenn.edu!

--aj

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/25/04 8:52:52 PM, starsuncloud@... writes:

<< So is it really possible for anything to be "wrong" in language?

Perhaps it's just evolution. >>

Dictionaries didn't always exist. The first few that came along were what
they call (in language-study terms) "prescriptive." The dictionaries existed to
tell how things SHOULD be, so if something was wrong, or "not a word" in the
view of the creators of the dictionary, they left it out. They told you
what you SHOULD be saying/spelling/believing about what words did.

In the 20th century there started to be "descriptive" dictionaries, which
listed words as they WERE being used, not primarily as a way to maintain language
in a static form (a conservative view of the purpose of language study and
teaching) but to acknowledge that it changes and to document the changes as they
are happening.

Before that (The American Heritage Dictionary is an example of a descriptive
dictonary), dictionaries pretty much reflected the language that had been
current a few decades before, because by the time someone got to the
dictionary-writing stage, he was likely to be an elderly-getting old coot who had been
haranguing people all his life about how horrible their speech and writing were,
because it wasn't like his grandfathers, or like the old coots who taught him
when he was young.

That's conservatism, in language.

Then there's the "Whatever, if someone used it yesterday, let's ALL use it"
group, and that's no better.

The way things grow and change the most smoothly, I think, is if there are
conservative saying "don't change it" and progressives saying "change it!" and
the changes that happen are half way between their positions. Then the tension
(in a physical sense of tension holding things together) keeps it from just
falling apart and keeps it from stagnating. Halfway between dying of no
growth and fallng apart from no roots is where language (or government or culture
or businesses or families or...) move along in a stable fashion.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/26/2004 11:21:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> The way things grow and change the most smoothly, I think, is if there are
> conservative saying "don't change it" and progressives saying "change it!"
> and
> the changes that happen are half way between their positions. Then the
> tension
> (in a physical sense of tension holding things together) keeps it from just
> falling apart and keeps it from stagnating. Halfway between dying of no
> growth and fallng apart from no roots is where language (or government or
> culture
> or businesses or families or...) move along in a stable fashion.
>

I like this! May I use it on another board-we were just disscussion the
evolution vs. the destruction of the English (USA) language!

Peace,
Sang


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/04 12:50:48 AM, Sanguinegirl83@... writes:

<< I like this! May I use it on another board-we were just disscussion the
evolution vs. the destruction of the English (USA) language! >>

Sure.
Anything I write and put in public can be quoted.
If I want to keep writing to myself, I can use pencil on paper and stick it
under my pillow. <g>

Sandra

[email protected]

-=-> If we're already living it, why read
> rhetoric and theory?
>
> Sandra

-=-But, at the same time, if you're already living it, why reject it? -=-

What has anyone rejected?

I am not Presbyterian, but I haven't rejected it. I never was Presbyterian.
I'm not vegan. I don't want to study it to decide whether to reject it.
I'm happy eating what I'm eating.

If the way someone lives seems like Buddhism to you and all you think
they're lacking is the label, how many times would you suggest to them that what
they were calling mindfulness was the same as Zen Buddhism, and why were they
rejecting Buddhism?

-=- To me when you take it
beyond your approach to your children's education...it becomes a
parenting thing not a schooling thing. -=-

If it was never a schooling thing to begin with, then it was always a whole
life thing, and there is no life-sized thing involving parents and children
that doesn't also involve parenting.

-=- The part I don't get is how the
term non-coercive parenting could have negative connotations to
someone who is wholly unschooling (batman!).-=-

Does the term American Libertarian Party have any connotations to you
whatsoever?
Whether it does or not, can you call your desire to grow whatever you want
to in your yard and water it whenever and however you want to libertarianism?
SHOULD you? That name exists and belongs to the people who actually have a
political entity called the American Libertarian Party.

If someone's doing something kind of like boy scouts, it does NOT make them
boyscouts.

If there is (and there is) something specifically called
NonCoerciveParenting NCP that was named that and has had those initials used as thought it were
a political party or a formal organization, then only those who
subscribe/join/follow that group should use their term/initials. It seems to be an all or
nothing kind of thing, focused on the coercion question. Focused HARD on
that, like a magnifying glass focuses sunlight on an ant.

That is not the focus of unschooling.

-=-tcs parents have to let kids do whatever they want without
regard to their own or others feelings-=-

Some of us have been told (in AOL forum days) clearly that others' feelings
were their own damned problem, and that coercing a child for ANY reason was
just the evillest thing ever. And if a person's life decisions will all hinge
on non-coercion, there it is.

-=-Just for the record, I'm not lobbying for the people here to call
this kind of unschooling NCP. -=-

"Just for the record" should only be used when there is no evidence to the
contrary.
Going on about something and suggesting that people WOULD stop avoiding the
use of a term if they only understood it correctly IS lobbying.

-=-The only reason I
brought this up was that it felt to me like everyone in the room was
looking at an elephant and saying...what should we call it??....-=-

We have unschooling in the room, and have been calling it that for years.
There's no problem IN the room, the problem is outside the room, where
people are calling elephants unschooling, and prairie dogs elephants, and ABeka
unschooling on Fridays, and politics not-politics and lobbying not lobbying.

If you prefer TCS/NCP approaches, go for it!

Pressing things to meld and blend won't work when one group says "no
personal examples" while the other is saying "avoid theoretical and hypothetical
questions and stories."

Sandra


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

cordjax

> If the way someone lives seems like Buddhism to you and all you
think
> they're lacking is the label, how many times would you suggest to
them that what
> they were calling mindfulness was the same as Zen Buddhism, and
why were they
> rejecting Buddhism?
>
Okay, this is a good illustration, I get your point. I didn't
realize my post would come across as me beating a dead horse. I
just thought we were having an interesting discussion...trying to
flush out how/why we perceived NCP differently. I apologize if it
came across as me trying to get you to label yourself something. It
was more a curiousity about what you found distastful about the
label.

> If there is (and there is) something specifically called
> NonCoerciveParenting NCP that was named that and has had those
initials used as thought it were
> a political party or a formal organization, then only those who
> subscribe/join/follow that group should use their term/initials.

I guess in my mind non-coercive parenting is a more generic term
than TCS. I'm not a Libertarian, and when TCS folks go off on non-
parenting tangents, I very often think they are lunatics! But, in
my mind (granted I may be doing a take what you want and leave the
rest thing) NCP isn't a formal thing/organization....I thought of it
more as terminology than as an organized movement. That may be
because I haven't been around it all from the beginning, maybe I'm
wrong on that.

> Some of us have been told (in AOL forum days) clearly that others'
feelings
> were their own damned problem, and that coercing a child for ANY
reason was
> just the evillest thing ever. And if a person's life decisions
will all hinge
> on non-coercion, there it is.

Okay well, we have clearly had different experiences then, and I
think this is our biggest barrier to communicating well on the
topic. Yet another reason to stop beating a dead horse.

> Going on about something and suggesting that people WOULD stop
avoiding the
> use of a term if they only understood it correctly IS lobbying.

Point taken.


> We have unschooling in the room, and have been calling it that
for years.
> There's no problem IN the room,

No, not a problem at all. But, there was a discussion going on in
the room about whether another term would help distinguish those
that have let unschooling permiate into their whole lives from those
that took an unschooling approach to education, but still had
parental controls in areas like food, chores, etc. All I was doing
was saying (as part of that conversation...not out of the blue) was
that in my view that's called non-coercive parenting. And, when you
said...nah, don't like that term...too much baggage from old
lists/posting/etc. too closely tied to TCS and all those
Liberatarian lunatics. I guess I should have said okay, I see and
dropped it. So, why didn't I? (asking myself this) Actually I think
I know why (just writing as I think here) if you had said that...I
think I would have gotten it. But, what you said was....ncp is
this....and described something that isn't ncp *to me*. So, I felt
some need to defend my view of ncp....I guess so that people
wouldn't think I was advocating what you were describing. Oh,
man...am I doing it again??


the problem is outside the room, where
> people are calling lobbying not lobbying.

Well, I"m actually trying to come in the room Sandra. And, I hope
you won't kick me out for sending one too many posts on this topic!
(oh shoot, this one might make two too many!)

>
> If you prefer TCS/NCP approaches, go for it!

I guess I came at this a little backwards from a lot of the others
here. I started reading/thinking/experimenting with TCS, read for
over a year thinking...this is really cool and interesting...but I
have no desire to actually try it...way too scary! Then, suddenly I
did feel like I wanted to try it. One of the reasons I felt less
overwhelmed with the thought of trying it then, was that it was
summer....so I didn't have to figure out the school coercion part!
So, it started with the biggies being sleep, food and media. Then,
I found unschooling.com and realized....oh, boy...I really want to
take plunge! So, for a year now, I've been trying to figure out how
to do that and each and every day I read on the unschooling.com
boards my resolve got stronger. The problem for me was that I
really, really, really wanted to be the one at home with the kids.
And no matter how many ways I tried to turn things upsidedown and
backwards to see my way clear to do that, I was stuck. My husband
was a high school teacher before he left that to stay home with our
kids...and if he were to go back to that it would pay less than half
of what I make. It just doesn't make sense. He's been doing some
handyman business now that the kids are all in school, but that
isn't panning out to have the potential to support the family
either. Anyway, we have finally decided to go fot it anyway and are
taking the kids out of school, with my husband at home. Obviously,
I'll be part of it too...since we all know unschooling doesn't just
happen during school hours, but it is really hard for me to let go
of the fantasy of being the one with them all day, every day.

TCS opened my eyes to possibilies that intrigued me. But, it is the
unschooling.com crew that showed me that it could really work...with
real people, real kids, real families. So I hope you won't mind if
I stay!

Carolyn

[email protected]

In a message dated 4/28/2005 5:01:12 PM Mountain Daylight Time,
cordjax@... writes:

-=-It was more a curiousity about what you found distastful about the
label. -=-



Nothing distasteful about the label at all.
The label belongs to a group already, and this is not that group.
It's a fine label. It's something else.


-=-I guess in my mind non-coercive parenting is a more generic term
than TCS. -=-

TCS, KFC, USA, WAF, NCP--those all belong to groups that wanted a cool set
of initials to identify their group, I think, and they should have them. None
of them's generic.

-=- But, there was a discussion going on in
the room about whether another term would help distinguish those
that have let unschooling permiate into their whole lives from those
that took an unschooling approach to education, but still had
parental controls in areas like food, chores, etc.=-

AH! But an adjective to go onto the unschooling, not a replacement for the
unschooling part.

-=- I guess I should have said okay, I see and dropped it. So, why didn't
I?=-

Masochistic? Clueless? We have requests to drop the whole thing even if we
have to coerce people to get them to shush up about it. <g>

-=- But, what you said was....ncp is
this....and described something that isn't ncp *to me*. -=-

What it is to you is fine for you.
What it is for the owners of this list is pertinent to its acceptance by the
owners of the list, and will affect whether we honor the requests to change
the subject.

-=-Obviously,
I'll be part of it too...since we all know unschooling doesn't just
happen during school hours, but it is really hard for me to let go
of the fantasy of being the one with them all day, every day.
=-

My husband makes twice what I would make if I'd kept teaching too, so I know
the feeling, only I got the fantasy end of it. Sorry your husband is
getting the fun part, but I'm glad you have the means to make enough money that you
don't both have to work!

Sandra

Sandra


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