Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Math questions/unschooling-def.
[email protected]
In a message dated 04/05/2000 6:44:33 PM !!!First Boot!!!, fxfireob@...
writes:
<<
i guess the difference in my personal understanding of unschooling and the
one
you've put forth is that in my mind unschooling lies squarely in ones
attitude
and is not dogmatic in any real way but flows and utilizes everything. >>
OK. I respect that that's how you want to think about it and it sounds
terrific to me.
The only thing I would add is that some days my "attitude" is better than
others -- sometimes I am a very relaxed hser, some days not so relaxed, some
days it all works together, some days not.
Cook or text books -- they are all books to me -- I agree. But, no matter
how _I_ do it, if I want to call it unschooling (and sometimes I do not
because I think it just confuses some people when they really only want to
have a pretty surface-y conversation anyway -- like, how's the hsing going?
great. OK, see you.) on any given day, then I feel free to. I don't feel I
have to eschew text or cook books or fit anyone else's definition in order to
"qualify." But that's me.
Some people question a lot of things that I don't. Whether "subjects" should
be taught at all, whether "classes" should be taken, what approach those
classes should take, what books are informative and what are too textbook-y,
etc. My day-to-day answer to these and other questions is to do what works.
There is not a big philosophical overlay.
For instance, some people say they have been damaged by their school
experience. Personally, I don't feel that way. But I can see how it can
happen. But that's not where I am starting from and so I don't have some of
the negative reactions to school-y stuff that some people have. They are
right for them and, I think, we are doing right for us.
Many, many, many shades of grey (or is it gray? :) ) and they are all OK with
me. And I think if you want to call yourself an unschooler and you are any
of those shades, good for you, call yourself whatever you want.
Maybe it's something that is too individual to actually define for everyone.
Maybe we can only define it for ourselves.
Take care.
Nance
writes:
<<
i guess the difference in my personal understanding of unschooling and the
one
you've put forth is that in my mind unschooling lies squarely in ones
attitude
and is not dogmatic in any real way but flows and utilizes everything. >>
OK. I respect that that's how you want to think about it and it sounds
terrific to me.
The only thing I would add is that some days my "attitude" is better than
others -- sometimes I am a very relaxed hser, some days not so relaxed, some
days it all works together, some days not.
Cook or text books -- they are all books to me -- I agree. But, no matter
how _I_ do it, if I want to call it unschooling (and sometimes I do not
because I think it just confuses some people when they really only want to
have a pretty surface-y conversation anyway -- like, how's the hsing going?
great. OK, see you.) on any given day, then I feel free to. I don't feel I
have to eschew text or cook books or fit anyone else's definition in order to
"qualify." But that's me.
Some people question a lot of things that I don't. Whether "subjects" should
be taught at all, whether "classes" should be taken, what approach those
classes should take, what books are informative and what are too textbook-y,
etc. My day-to-day answer to these and other questions is to do what works.
There is not a big philosophical overlay.
For instance, some people say they have been damaged by their school
experience. Personally, I don't feel that way. But I can see how it can
happen. But that's not where I am starting from and so I don't have some of
the negative reactions to school-y stuff that some people have. They are
right for them and, I think, we are doing right for us.
Many, many, many shades of grey (or is it gray? :) ) and they are all OK with
me. And I think if you want to call yourself an unschooler and you are any
of those shades, good for you, call yourself whatever you want.
Maybe it's something that is too individual to actually define for everyone.
Maybe we can only define it for ourselves.
Take care.
Nance