spending time with children
[email protected]
Here are some of the findings, which may resonate with your household:
* 54 percent said they had little or no time to spend in physical
activities with their children, such as taking a walk or playing catch in the backyard.
* Parents in about 3.5 million U.S. households spend an hour or less a week
in some type of physical activity with their children.
* 50 percent of all parents either don't have enough time or wished they
had more time to read to their kids or help with their homework or other
educational activities.
* Although some 56 percent of parents acknowledged that their kids are
worried about war and terrorism, fully 33 percent admitted they had not yet talked
to their little ones about these big issues.
* 50 percent of parents and caregivers confessed they haven't talked to
their children in the
I found this list in a lead story here:
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/homerealestate/package.jsp?name=fte/complainto
fparents/complaintofparents
* 54 percent said they had little or no time to spend in physical
activities with their children, such as taking a walk or playing catch in the backyard.
* Parents in about 3.5 million U.S. households spend an hour or less a week
in some type of physical activity with their children.
* 50 percent of all parents either don't have enough time or wished they
had more time to read to their kids or help with their homework or other
educational activities.
* Although some 56 percent of parents acknowledged that their kids are
worried about war and terrorism, fully 33 percent admitted they had not yet talked
to their little ones about these big issues.
* 50 percent of parents and caregivers confessed they haven't talked to
their children in the
I found this list in a lead story here:
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/homerealestate/package.jsp?name=fte/complainto
fparents/complaintofparents
coyote's corner
This is going into my Homeschool/Legal file.
I fear that Brianna's bio-mom will start a fuss because we unschool.
I can't imagine our lives w/ Brianna in school. That would simply suck!!
Brianna's been writing her story - it's so imaginative! She sure has her own way of spelling - so what! The thoughts, the story is so cool! She wouldn't be writing this if she were in govt. sanctioned school. She wouldn't be the girl she is if she were in school.
We spend 99% of our time together. I love it!
Yes, there are times when the house is "disgraceful"
Yes, there are times when I wish for "alone" time.
But then I think....."When she's grown, I'll be alone then."
So I thank the powers that be that I have this wonderful, exasperating, comical, creative bundle of love and joy.
She's my favorite person in the world.
Janis
I fear that Brianna's bio-mom will start a fuss because we unschool.
I can't imagine our lives w/ Brianna in school. That would simply suck!!
Brianna's been writing her story - it's so imaginative! She sure has her own way of spelling - so what! The thoughts, the story is so cool! She wouldn't be writing this if she were in govt. sanctioned school. She wouldn't be the girl she is if she were in school.
We spend 99% of our time together. I love it!
Yes, there are times when the house is "disgraceful"
Yes, there are times when I wish for "alone" time.
But then I think....."When she's grown, I'll be alone then."
So I thank the powers that be that I have this wonderful, exasperating, comical, creative bundle of love and joy.
She's my favorite person in the world.
Janis
----- Original Message -----
From: SandraDodd@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 9:03 AM
Subject: [Unschooling-Discussion] spending time with children
~~~~ 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.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
I guess people can't get there unless they have Netscape (and even then, it's
a weird "go) so here, I've swiped the article. It's not very long:
A Mom or Dad's No. 1 Complaint
The No. 1 complaint of parents? They don't have enough time--good, quality
time--to spend with their children.
The demands of long work hours, housework, and other responsibilities have
encroached on the time they have to spend with their kids, The Associated Press
reports of a new study of 1,000 parents and caregivers with children under 18
who are living at home. The study, which was released by the Boys & Girls
Clubs of America and the Pennsylvania-based nonprofit group KidsPeace, was
overseen by Harvard University psychiatrist Dr. Alvin Poussaint.
What's more, fully 94 percent of those surveyed are aware that there is a
relationship between the amount of meaningful time parents spend with their kids
and the way those kids deal with major issues, such as substance abuse and
discipline. Knowing this doesn't make it any easier to carve out a few extra
hours in the day to spend on the swings in the park or reading books together at
bedtime.
Here are some of the findings, which may resonate with your household:
* 54 percent said they had little or no time to spend in physical
activities with their children, such as taking a walk or playing catch in the backyard.
* Parents in about 3.5 million U.S. households spend an hour or less a week
in some type of physical activity with their children.
* 50 percent of all parents either don't have enough time or wished they
had more time to read to their kids or help with their homework or other
educational activities.
* Although some 56 percent of parents acknowledged that their kids are
worried about war and terrorism, fully 33 percent admitted they had not yet talked
to their little ones about these big issues.
* 50 percent of parents and caregivers confessed they haven't talked to
their children in the past year about sexual pressures or sexual activity.
The primary obstacle to all this: busy work schedules.
What's a parent to do? First, be aware of the situation. Second, recognize
your child's need for your presence in his or her life. Third, figure out a way
to make it happen.
"They can listen to their children. They can talk, not to their children,
they can talk with their children," C.T. O'Donnell, the president and CEO of
KidsPeace told AP. "They can take walks in park. They can spend meaningful,
interactive reading time with their kids."
a weird "go) so here, I've swiped the article. It's not very long:
A Mom or Dad's No. 1 Complaint
The No. 1 complaint of parents? They don't have enough time--good, quality
time--to spend with their children.
The demands of long work hours, housework, and other responsibilities have
encroached on the time they have to spend with their kids, The Associated Press
reports of a new study of 1,000 parents and caregivers with children under 18
who are living at home. The study, which was released by the Boys & Girls
Clubs of America and the Pennsylvania-based nonprofit group KidsPeace, was
overseen by Harvard University psychiatrist Dr. Alvin Poussaint.
What's more, fully 94 percent of those surveyed are aware that there is a
relationship between the amount of meaningful time parents spend with their kids
and the way those kids deal with major issues, such as substance abuse and
discipline. Knowing this doesn't make it any easier to carve out a few extra
hours in the day to spend on the swings in the park or reading books together at
bedtime.
Here are some of the findings, which may resonate with your household:
* 54 percent said they had little or no time to spend in physical
activities with their children, such as taking a walk or playing catch in the backyard.
* Parents in about 3.5 million U.S. households spend an hour or less a week
in some type of physical activity with their children.
* 50 percent of all parents either don't have enough time or wished they
had more time to read to their kids or help with their homework or other
educational activities.
* Although some 56 percent of parents acknowledged that their kids are
worried about war and terrorism, fully 33 percent admitted they had not yet talked
to their little ones about these big issues.
* 50 percent of parents and caregivers confessed they haven't talked to
their children in the past year about sexual pressures or sexual activity.
The primary obstacle to all this: busy work schedules.
What's a parent to do? First, be aware of the situation. Second, recognize
your child's need for your presence in his or her life. Third, figure out a way
to make it happen.
"They can listen to their children. They can talk, not to their children,
they can talk with their children," C.T. O'Donnell, the president and CEO of
KidsPeace told AP. "They can take walks in park. They can spend meaningful,
interactive reading time with their kids."
Fetteroll
I thought this was interesting in light of recent Pat Farenga discusions:
http://www.holtgws.com/unschooling.htm
http://www.holtgws.com/unschooling.htm
> What Is Unschooling?
>
>
> This is also known as interest driven, child-led, natural, organic, eclectic,
> or self-directed learning. Lately, the term ³unschooling² has come to be
> associated with the type of homeschooling that doesn¹t use a fixed curriculum.
> When pressed, I define unschooling as allowing children as much freedom to
> learn in the world, as their parents can comfortably bear. The advantage of
> this method is that it doesn¹t require you, the parent, to become someone
> else, i.e. a professional teacher pouring knowledge into child-vessels on a
> planned basis. Instead you live and learn together, pursuing questions and
> interests as they arise and using conventional schooling on an ³on demand²
> basis, if at all. This is the way we learn before going to school and the way
> we learn when we leave school and enter the world of work. So, for instance, a
> young child¹s interest in hot rods can lead him to a study of how the engine
> works (science), how and when the car was built (history and business), who
> built and designed the car (biography), etc. Certainly these interests can
> lead to reading texts, taking courses, or doing projects, but the important
> difference is that these activities were chosen and engaged in freely by the
> learner. They were not dictated to the learner through curricular mandate to
> be done at a specific time and place, though parents with a more hands-on
> approach to unschooling certainly can influence and guide their children¹s
> choices. Unschooling, for lack of a better term (until people start to accept
> ³living² as part and parcel of learning), is the natural way to learn.
> However, this does not mean unschoolers do not take traditional classes or use
> curricular materials when the student, or parents and children together,
> decide that this is how they want to do it. Learning to read or do quadratic
> equations are not ³natural² processes, but unschoolers nonetheless learn them
> when it makes sense to them to do so, not because they have reached a certain
> age or are compelled to do so by arbitrary authority. Therefore it isn¹t
> unusual to find unschoolers who are barely eight years old studying astronomy
> or who are ten years old and just learning to read.
>
>
> From, Teach Your Own
Pamela Sorooshian
On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 05:44 AM, Fetteroll wrote:
Learning to read was as natural as learning to walk, talk, or eat for
my kids.
Learning to "do quadratic equations" would be natural too, if someone
was hanging out with mathematical people who do them all the time. Just
like learning to shear a sheep would be natural if mom and dad were
sheep shearers.
We have to make an effort to learn some things that we don't get
exposed to "naturally" in our daily lives, sure. But would you put
READING in that category? Seems odd to me.
-pam
>> Learning to read or do quadraticWHAT?
>> equations are not “natural” processes, but unschoolers nonetheless
>> learn them
>> when it makes sense to them to do so, not because they have reached a
>> certain
>> age or are compelled to do so by arbitrary authority.
Learning to read was as natural as learning to walk, talk, or eat for
my kids.
Learning to "do quadratic equations" would be natural too, if someone
was hanging out with mathematical people who do them all the time. Just
like learning to shear a sheep would be natural if mom and dad were
sheep shearers.
We have to make an effort to learn some things that we don't get
exposed to "naturally" in our daily lives, sure. But would you put
READING in that category? Seems odd to me.
-pam
Jon and Rue Kream
>> I define unschooling as allowing children as much freedom to**And here all this time I thought it was about how much freedom the child
> learn in the world, as their parents can comfortably bear.
wanted. I didn't know I should be focusing on what was comfortable for me.
Gee, that's great. It'll make my life much easier.
>>though parents with a more hands-on**Huh. Hands-on approach. Are there unschoolers who don't take a hands-on
> approach to unschooling certainly can influence and guide their children¹s
> choices.
approach to their children? Never thought it meant I should influence and
guide their choices, though. I try to support their choices. I guess I'm
doing it wrong.
I wonder why so many people are confused about what unschooling is? ~Rue
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/12/03 11:52:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:
a difficult as learning to walk would be for a child with disabled legs.. or
as difficult as a child with a cleft palette learning to talk. There are
disablitlies in some folks brains that make reading as hard to master as physical
disablites make walking and talking challenging.
Teresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pamsoroosh@... writes:
> Learning to read was as natural as learning to walk, talk, or eat forIt's not nearly that easy for many children. For some, learning to read is
> my kids.
>
a difficult as learning to walk would be for a child with disabled legs.. or
as difficult as a child with a cleft palette learning to talk. There are
disablitlies in some folks brains that make reading as hard to master as physical
disablites make walking and talking challenging.
Teresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Pamela Sorooshian
On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 08:56 AM, grlynbl@... wrote:
allowed to learn on their own timetable and in their own way, are you
saying we should make generalizations about everybody else based on
disabilities some children have in their brains?
Special needs are "special" because they aren't "general."
What was said, again, was:
" Learning to read or do quadratic equations are not "natural"
processes...."
Are you going to argue, as an unschooler, that learning to read is not
a natural process, in general?
The entire BASIS of unschooling is that learning is as natural to
humans as swimming is to a fish or flying is to a bird.
--pam
> It's not nearly that easy for many children. For some, learning toIgnoring that fact that MANY times it would be natural if kids were
> read is
> a difficult as learning to walk would be for a child with disabled
> legs.. or
> as difficult as a child with a cleft palette learning to talk.
> There are
> disablitlies in some folks brains that make reading as hard to master
> as physical
> disablites make walking and talking challenging.
allowed to learn on their own timetable and in their own way, are you
saying we should make generalizations about everybody else based on
disabilities some children have in their brains?
Special needs are "special" because they aren't "general."
What was said, again, was:
" Learning to read or do quadratic equations are not "natural"
processes...."
Are you going to argue, as an unschooler, that learning to read is not
a natural process, in general?
The entire BASIS of unschooling is that learning is as natural to
humans as swimming is to a fish or flying is to a bird.
--pam
Deborah Lewis
Well, that was irritating.
Is he afraid of ruffling parental feathers or does he have commitment
issues? <g>
***eclectic,***
Unschooling and eclectic homeschooling are the same thing?
***When pressed, I define unschooling as allowing children as much
freedom to
learn in the world, as their parents can comfortably bear.***
When pressed he can't bear to make parents think too hard, even for the
sake of their kids. How often does he feel "pressed" when defining
unschooling?
***though parents with a more hands-on
approach to unschooling ***
I'd like to know what he thinks a hands-off approach to unschooling would
look like.
***when the student, or parents and children together,
decide that this is how they want to do it. ***
"Student" is an interesting choice here, and he still can't let go of the
parental control thing.
Pam addressed this part :
***Learning to read or do quadratic
equations are not ³natural² processes, ***
And I too, am having a hard time understanding how he wrote about
"natural learning" but then goes on to say learning to read isn't a
natural process.
Deb L
Is he afraid of ruffling parental feathers or does he have commitment
issues? <g>
***eclectic,***
Unschooling and eclectic homeschooling are the same thing?
***When pressed, I define unschooling as allowing children as much
freedom to
learn in the world, as their parents can comfortably bear.***
When pressed he can't bear to make parents think too hard, even for the
sake of their kids. How often does he feel "pressed" when defining
unschooling?
***though parents with a more hands-on
approach to unschooling ***
I'd like to know what he thinks a hands-off approach to unschooling would
look like.
***when the student, or parents and children together,
decide that this is how they want to do it. ***
"Student" is an interesting choice here, and he still can't let go of the
parental control thing.
Pam addressed this part :
***Learning to read or do quadratic
equations are not ³natural² processes, ***
And I too, am having a hard time understanding how he wrote about
"natural learning" but then goes on to say learning to read isn't a
natural process.
Deb L
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/12/03 12:28:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:
does not happend "naturally" with all children, unschooled or not. is it
natural "in general" I don't really know, I would have to do some kind of
scientific study.. lol. For my own experience, reading was natural in 2 out 3 of
myself and my sibs.. Reading came naturally for 3 out of 4 of my children.
I have seen many unschoolers on this list ask for "tips", suggestions,
support, with children who WANT to read, but are struggling. Obviously, it does
not happen "naturally" with all unschooled kids.
Why is stating a fact, whether it it in regards to a little or a lot of
people, considered arguing? It's just a fact.
Teresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pamsoroosh@... writes:
> Are you going to argue, as an unschooler, that learning to read is notNo, I am not trying to argue anything. I simply stated a fact that reading
> a natural process, in general?
>
does not happend "naturally" with all children, unschooled or not. is it
natural "in general" I don't really know, I would have to do some kind of
scientific study.. lol. For my own experience, reading was natural in 2 out 3 of
myself and my sibs.. Reading came naturally for 3 out of 4 of my children.
I have seen many unschoolers on this list ask for "tips", suggestions,
support, with children who WANT to read, but are struggling. Obviously, it does
not happen "naturally" with all unschooled kids.
Why is stating a fact, whether it it in regards to a little or a lot of
people, considered arguing? It's just a fact.
Teresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/12/03 10:04:02 AM, grlynbl@... writes:
<< It's not nearly that easy for many children. For some, learning to read
is
a difficult as learning to walk would be for a child with disabled legs.. or
as difficult as a child with a cleft palette learning to talk. >>
I don't believe that. There are not many alternate ways to talk or walk, but
the brain is VAST and not everyone reads the same way. There are LOTS of
ways to interpret information, and children can figure out the one that works for
them.
Before vocational therapy was ever thought of EVER, people who were missing
limbs learned to feed themselves and hold paintbrushes and pencils. That's
because there are other ways to hold a spoon or a paintbrush, and you don't HAVE
to have a fully functioning hand to paint.
<< There are
disablitlies in some folks brains that make reading as hard to master as
physical
disablites make walking and talking challenging. >>
There are experts in helping them keep up with other kids in school. They
fail, these experts, because those kids rarely ever catch up before they're
grown. Yet because they have college degrees and paychecks, they are "experts."
There are no "experts" in learning to read naturally. John Holt hadn't seen
people learn to read without ever going to shool at all, except those few who
learned early and just hadn't been YET. So no expert can say "Yes, just as
we thought" about the FACT that my children read well, yet they didn't read
"on time," and they don't read by the same mental methods.
If it makes someone feel better to say that some kids won't learn to read
naturally, WHY does that make that person feel better?
Sandra
<< It's not nearly that easy for many children. For some, learning to read
is
a difficult as learning to walk would be for a child with disabled legs.. or
as difficult as a child with a cleft palette learning to talk. >>
I don't believe that. There are not many alternate ways to talk or walk, but
the brain is VAST and not everyone reads the same way. There are LOTS of
ways to interpret information, and children can figure out the one that works for
them.
Before vocational therapy was ever thought of EVER, people who were missing
limbs learned to feed themselves and hold paintbrushes and pencils. That's
because there are other ways to hold a spoon or a paintbrush, and you don't HAVE
to have a fully functioning hand to paint.
<< There are
disablitlies in some folks brains that make reading as hard to master as
physical
disablites make walking and talking challenging. >>
There are experts in helping them keep up with other kids in school. They
fail, these experts, because those kids rarely ever catch up before they're
grown. Yet because they have college degrees and paychecks, they are "experts."
There are no "experts" in learning to read naturally. John Holt hadn't seen
people learn to read without ever going to shool at all, except those few who
learned early and just hadn't been YET. So no expert can say "Yes, just as
we thought" about the FACT that my children read well, yet they didn't read
"on time," and they don't read by the same mental methods.
If it makes someone feel better to say that some kids won't learn to read
naturally, WHY does that make that person feel better?
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/12/03 11:18:57 AM, ddzimlew@... writes:
<< ***eclectic,***
Unschooling and eclectic homeschooling are the same thing? >>
Eclectic is an English word pre-dating it's particular use by the schism off
unschoolers and unit studies grups.
"Eclectic" describes my books and my closet and my collection of friends.
If that was a John Holt quote, he can't possibly be held to having been
careful to avoid using a word some homeschoolers are using as a new mantle.
<<When pressed he can't bear to make parents think too hard, even for the
sake of their kids. How often does he feel "pressed" when defining
unschooling? >>
Maybe income matters. I'm willing to make parents think hard for the sake of
their kids, but I'm usually a total volunteer. He's charging by the hour for
phone conversations. I'm spending two or three hours a day helping strangers
I'll never see. He wants to collect his check at the end. I just want to
sleep without feeling like I wimped out.
<<***though parents with a more hands-on
approach to unschooling ***
<<I'd like to know what he thinks a hands-off approach to unschooling would
look like. >>
I've seen it. It's really ugly.
A family we know took a verbally precocious (socially retarded, to this day)
nine year old out of school, and showed her were all their college textbooks
and reference books were. They said "read those and if you have any questions,
ask us."
Darned if she didn't decide to go back to school.
I expect that was their intent. (That and/or they didn't have enough
interpersonal intelligence to interact with her OR to pass on good genetics in that
department.)
Sandra
<< ***eclectic,***
Unschooling and eclectic homeschooling are the same thing? >>
Eclectic is an English word pre-dating it's particular use by the schism off
unschoolers and unit studies grups.
"Eclectic" describes my books and my closet and my collection of friends.
If that was a John Holt quote, he can't possibly be held to having been
careful to avoid using a word some homeschoolers are using as a new mantle.
<<When pressed he can't bear to make parents think too hard, even for the
sake of their kids. How often does he feel "pressed" when defining
unschooling? >>
Maybe income matters. I'm willing to make parents think hard for the sake of
their kids, but I'm usually a total volunteer. He's charging by the hour for
phone conversations. I'm spending two or three hours a day helping strangers
I'll never see. He wants to collect his check at the end. I just want to
sleep without feeling like I wimped out.
<<***though parents with a more hands-on
approach to unschooling ***
<<I'd like to know what he thinks a hands-off approach to unschooling would
look like. >>
I've seen it. It's really ugly.
A family we know took a verbally precocious (socially retarded, to this day)
nine year old out of school, and showed her were all their college textbooks
and reference books were. They said "read those and if you have any questions,
ask us."
Darned if she didn't decide to go back to school.
I expect that was their intent. (That and/or they didn't have enough
interpersonal intelligence to interact with her OR to pass on good genetics in that
department.)
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/12/03 11:35:29 AM, grlynbl@... writes:
<< I simply stated a fact that reading
does not happend "naturally" with all children, unschooled or not. >>
You stated an opinion.
<< is it natural "in general" I don't really know, I would have to do some
kind of
scientific study.. lol. >>
Really?
The only way you will believe what you experience yourself directly is to
rely on 'scientific study'?
That's not how unschooling is unfolding. It can't be studied scientifically
without testing a bunch of kids who would be harmed by the testing itself.
<<I have seen many unschoolers on this list ask for "tips", suggestions,
support, with children who WANT to read, but are struggling. Obviously, it
does
not happen "naturally" with all unschooled kids>>
What you call "obvious" is not obvious in an objective way.
When people are worried, and when kids are struggling, it has invariably had
to do with their age and with outside pressures and inquiries. I know of not
ONE single story, ever, of a later reader who wasn't at all worried and whose
parents weren't worried who grew to manhood without being able to read.
I know of many stories of people who had some rough times because they
panicked BECAUSE of school/age/comparison, and would have learned to read more
easily and possibly sooner without that crap.
<<Why is stating a fact, whether it it in regards to a little or a lot of
people, considered arguing? It's just a fact.>>
When it's not a fact. When you put a little fact-costume on an opinion,
that's just arguing.
Sandra
<< I simply stated a fact that reading
does not happend "naturally" with all children, unschooled or not. >>
You stated an opinion.
<< is it natural "in general" I don't really know, I would have to do some
kind of
scientific study.. lol. >>
Really?
The only way you will believe what you experience yourself directly is to
rely on 'scientific study'?
That's not how unschooling is unfolding. It can't be studied scientifically
without testing a bunch of kids who would be harmed by the testing itself.
<<I have seen many unschoolers on this list ask for "tips", suggestions,
support, with children who WANT to read, but are struggling. Obviously, it
does
not happen "naturally" with all unschooled kids>>
What you call "obvious" is not obvious in an objective way.
When people are worried, and when kids are struggling, it has invariably had
to do with their age and with outside pressures and inquiries. I know of not
ONE single story, ever, of a later reader who wasn't at all worried and whose
parents weren't worried who grew to manhood without being able to read.
I know of many stories of people who had some rough times because they
panicked BECAUSE of school/age/comparison, and would have learned to read more
easily and possibly sooner without that crap.
<<Why is stating a fact, whether it it in regards to a little or a lot of
people, considered arguing? It's just a fact.>>
When it's not a fact. When you put a little fact-costume on an opinion,
that's just arguing.
Sandra
Fetteroll
on 8/12/03 1:26 PM, grlynbl@... at grlynbl@... wrote:
position. Think of it in lawyer speak. They present arguments or
counterarguments for or against a position.
you were all unschooled and had the freedom to read without the outside
pressure that it had to happen by a particular age.
(Ask the judge to strike that from the record.)
without outside help? And how do you define outside help? We talk to kids
and give them feedback on how well we're understanding them and they learn
to speak. Is that outside help? And how do you know that if the outside help
hadn't been given that your 4th child wouldn't have learned to read?
natural?
Most kids learn to ride bikes. (Well, they pretty much have to! There really
isn't a way to teach it. 99% of it is getting muscles used to the balance
and coordination.) But don't some of them want to before they are physically
able? And aren't they frustrated?
There are kids who can't speak as soon or as well as they'd like to. Some
may have a slower development in the part of the brain needed for speech.
Does that mean speech isn't natural? Or not natural for them?
Joyce
> No, I am not trying to argue anything.Argue isn't a bad word! Argue can mean explain, support and defend your
position. Think of it in lawyer speak. They present arguments or
counterarguments for or against a position.
> For my own experience, reading was natural in 2 out 3 ofNot supportive evidence for this scenario. (Being lawyerly here ;-) Unless
> myself and my sibs..
you were all unschooled and had the freedom to read without the outside
pressure that it had to happen by a particular age.
(Ask the judge to strike that from the record.)
> Reading came naturally for 3 out of 4 of my children.How are you defining naturally? Do you mean effortlessly? Or do you mean
without outside help? And how do you define outside help? We talk to kids
and give them feedback on how well we're understanding them and they learn
to speak. Is that outside help? And how do you know that if the outside help
hadn't been given that your 4th child wouldn't have learned to read?
> I have seen many unschoolers on this list ask for "tips", suggestions,Is wanting something but not being able to do it a sign that the skill isn't
> support, with children who WANT to read, but are struggling. Obviously, it
> does not happen "naturally" with all unschooled kids.
natural?
Most kids learn to ride bikes. (Well, they pretty much have to! There really
isn't a way to teach it. 99% of it is getting muscles used to the balance
and coordination.) But don't some of them want to before they are physically
able? And aren't they frustrated?
There are kids who can't speak as soon or as well as they'd like to. Some
may have a slower development in the part of the brain needed for speech.
Does that mean speech isn't natural? Or not natural for them?
Joyce
Pamela Sorooshian
On Tuesday, August 12, 2003, at 10:26 AM, grlynbl@... wrote:
it, that IS the beginning of arguing.
So - instead of assuming you meant to argue, I ASKED you if you
intended to argue that it is not true that "learning to read is a
natural process."
Is learning to walk a natural process? Is learning to talk a natural
process? Does the fact that there are children who have specific
disabilities that make learning to walk or talk difficult or impossible
mean we should not say, "Learning to walk and talk is a natural
process?"
I'm thinking an "unnatural" process would be one where the child never
would never develop an interest and/or never find a way to learn it on
his/her own timetable and in his/her own way if someone didn't impose
it on him/her. An unnatural process would be one that doesn't take
place "naturally" in the course of life, but is inserted unnaturally
into the child's life.
-pam
> Why is stating a fact, whether it it in regards to a little or a lot ofWhen someone makes a statement and you immediately flatly contradict
> people, considered arguing? It's just a fact.
it, that IS the beginning of arguing.
So - instead of assuming you meant to argue, I ASKED you if you
intended to argue that it is not true that "learning to read is a
natural process."
Is learning to walk a natural process? Is learning to talk a natural
process? Does the fact that there are children who have specific
disabilities that make learning to walk or talk difficult or impossible
mean we should not say, "Learning to walk and talk is a natural
process?"
I'm thinking an "unnatural" process would be one where the child never
would never develop an interest and/or never find a way to learn it on
his/her own timetable and in his/her own way if someone didn't impose
it on him/her. An unnatural process would be one that doesn't take
place "naturally" in the course of life, but is inserted unnaturally
into the child's life.
-pam
Julie Solich
> ***When pressed, I define unschooling as allowing children as muchIt's a pretty broad definition isn't it? Unschooling could be anything from
> freedom to
> learn in the world, as their parents can comfortably bear.***
a child having freedom in every area of his life to being able to choose to
begin his parent chosen curriculum at 9:45am instead of 9:30am.
I wonder what he says when he isn't pressed? <g>
Julie
>the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner,
> ~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
>
> If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email
Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
>email to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an
> [email protected]
>
> Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
Betsy
**... to say that some kids won't learn to read naturally, ...**
"Natural" and "naturally" are fairly broad, vague words that we may not
all be interpreting in the same way.
Some folks may be using "learn to read naturally" as meaning "learn to
read unassisted". But, to me, it is natural for children to have
assistance. After all it is natural for human children to be nurtured
by parents, to closely watch their parents and to learn using their
parents behavior as examples. I would personally also include "help"
and "explanations" and "demonstrations" as part of natural learning. I
think it's natural for kids to learn from parents, siblings and caring
members of the community.
Betsy
**
How are you defining naturally? Do you mean effortlessly? Or do you mean
without outside help? And how do you define outside help? We talk to kids
and give them feedback on how well we're understanding them and they learn
to speak. Is that outside help? And how do you know that if the outside help
hadn't been given that your 4th child wouldn't have learned to read?**
Ah, Joyce said some of what I was trying to say.
"Natural" and "naturally" are fairly broad, vague words that we may not
all be interpreting in the same way.
Some folks may be using "learn to read naturally" as meaning "learn to
read unassisted". But, to me, it is natural for children to have
assistance. After all it is natural for human children to be nurtured
by parents, to closely watch their parents and to learn using their
parents behavior as examples. I would personally also include "help"
and "explanations" and "demonstrations" as part of natural learning. I
think it's natural for kids to learn from parents, siblings and caring
members of the community.
Betsy
**
How are you defining naturally? Do you mean effortlessly? Or do you mean
without outside help? And how do you define outside help? We talk to kids
and give them feedback on how well we're understanding them and they learn
to speak. Is that outside help? And how do you know that if the outside help
hadn't been given that your 4th child wouldn't have learned to read?**
Ah, Joyce said some of what I was trying to say.
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/13/03 2:08:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ecsamhill@... writes:
was not the only person who took the work "natural" to be literal... like, it
would just "HAPPEN! BAM!" .. ( for everyone, that is, for some, yes it does)
Teresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
ecsamhill@... writes:
> Some folks may be using "learn to read naturally" as meaning "learn toYES YES YES.. thats along the lines of what I believe. I am so glad, I
> read unassisted". But, to me, it is natural for children to have
> assistance. After all it is natural for human children to be nurtured
> by parents, to closely watch their parents and to learn using their
> parents behavior as examples. I would personally also include "help"
> and "explanations" and "demonstrations" as part of natural learning. I
> think it's natural for kids to learn from parents, siblings and caring
> members of the community.
>
> Betsy
>
was not the only person who took the work "natural" to be literal... like, it
would just "HAPPEN! BAM!" .. ( for everyone, that is, for some, yes it does)
Teresa
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/13/03 6:07:56 PM, grlynbl@... writes:
<< > Some folks may be using "learn to read naturally" as meaning "learn to
blessings of the group to teach reading, or for the justification from the group for
giving up on unschooling.
Why would someone come here wanting that?
<< I am so glad, I
was not the only person who took the work "natural" to be literal... like, it
would just "HAPPEN! BAM!" .. ( for everyone, that is, for some, yes it does)>>
Nothing happens BAM were learning is concerned. There is interest,
observation, exposure, trial and error, question and answer. None of that needs
lessons, a curriculum, or a phonics method.
There is nothing unnatural about a person figuring something out in those
ways. It's the way people learn about unschooling all the time. Interest,
observation, exposure, trial and error, question and answer. There's enough
reading online already to last someone weeks, without what's being added daily.
Yet some are determined to look for evidence that unschooling doesn't work.
This is a funny place to look for it.
Sandra
Sandra
<< > Some folks may be using "learn to read naturally" as meaning "learn to
> read unassisted". But, to me, it is natural for children to haveI'm wondering whether for some people here they're not fishing for the
> assistance. >>
blessings of the group to teach reading, or for the justification from the group for
giving up on unschooling.
Why would someone come here wanting that?
<< I am so glad, I
was not the only person who took the work "natural" to be literal... like, it
would just "HAPPEN! BAM!" .. ( for everyone, that is, for some, yes it does)>>
Nothing happens BAM were learning is concerned. There is interest,
observation, exposure, trial and error, question and answer. None of that needs
lessons, a curriculum, or a phonics method.
There is nothing unnatural about a person figuring something out in those
ways. It's the way people learn about unschooling all the time. Interest,
observation, exposure, trial and error, question and answer. There's enough
reading online already to last someone weeks, without what's being added daily.
Yet some are determined to look for evidence that unschooling doesn't work.
This is a funny place to look for it.
Sandra
Sandra
Deniz Martinez
--- In [email protected], SandraDodd@a... wrote:
sure. But I do think that it's unfair to assume that everyone who
questions whether reading is a truly natural process must somehow
not "get" unschooling. I think of myself as a fullblown, whole-
hearted, John Holt-worshipping radical unschooler (and the only
person who is going to tell me otherwise has been dead for 18 years)--
but for the reasons that I've stated in my posts, I do personally
think that reading needs to be "taught," in a way.
Now hold on, before people start flaming me or taking my words out of
context, let me clarify that remark by saying that most people seem
perfectly capable of teaching this to themselves!! BUT, there do seem
to be some people who need a little extra help figuring it all out.
Where I believe the unschooling philosophy comes into play here is
whether the child is given the freedom to seek this help out on his
own, or whether the parents get pushy and try to force instruction on
the child.
If my child still wasn't reading when he was 13 or 14, I might be a
bit concerned, and as a loving parent I might sit down with him and
ask him if he's having any specific difficulties, and ask him if he
would like any help. If he told me that he was fine and didn't want
any help, then I would probably leave it at that. What I wouldn't do
is start buying him phonics workbooks or sign him up for a reading
tutor or anything like that, unless of course he asked me to. I would
leave it up to HIM to decide if his inability to read was a concern
to him, and what if anything he would like others to do to help him
out. Maybe not everyone on this list agrees with that approach, but
who says that we all have to agree on every single thing?
Every philosophy, every movement, has room for differing opinions,
different interpretations, different methods of implementation. Does
everyone in the Green Party agree on every single point? Does every
Muslim pray the exact same way? Obviously there are a few basic
tenets which are at the core of a philosophy and are pretty much
undebatable, but there are plenty of other specifics which should be
open to evolving debate.
If we want to label ourselves unschoolers we should probably all
agree that learning in general is a natural process--that's a core
part of the unschooling philosophy. But, that doesn't
mean that we can't still debate (and disagree about) specifics, such
as whether all human brains are equitably wired to easily decode
written symbols for spoken language, and whether all brains are
naturally inclined to "read" symbols for music and math as well for
that matter. Those are legitimate questions to explore, and those who
choose to ponder such things shouldn't be written off as being un-
unschooling.
Cheers,
Deniz
> I'm wondering whether for some people here they're not fishing forMaybe some people are fishing for that, I really couldn't say for
> the blessings of the group to teach reading, or for the
> justification from the group for giving up on unschooling.
>
> Why would someone come here wanting that?
sure. But I do think that it's unfair to assume that everyone who
questions whether reading is a truly natural process must somehow
not "get" unschooling. I think of myself as a fullblown, whole-
hearted, John Holt-worshipping radical unschooler (and the only
person who is going to tell me otherwise has been dead for 18 years)--
but for the reasons that I've stated in my posts, I do personally
think that reading needs to be "taught," in a way.
Now hold on, before people start flaming me or taking my words out of
context, let me clarify that remark by saying that most people seem
perfectly capable of teaching this to themselves!! BUT, there do seem
to be some people who need a little extra help figuring it all out.
Where I believe the unschooling philosophy comes into play here is
whether the child is given the freedom to seek this help out on his
own, or whether the parents get pushy and try to force instruction on
the child.
If my child still wasn't reading when he was 13 or 14, I might be a
bit concerned, and as a loving parent I might sit down with him and
ask him if he's having any specific difficulties, and ask him if he
would like any help. If he told me that he was fine and didn't want
any help, then I would probably leave it at that. What I wouldn't do
is start buying him phonics workbooks or sign him up for a reading
tutor or anything like that, unless of course he asked me to. I would
leave it up to HIM to decide if his inability to read was a concern
to him, and what if anything he would like others to do to help him
out. Maybe not everyone on this list agrees with that approach, but
who says that we all have to agree on every single thing?
Every philosophy, every movement, has room for differing opinions,
different interpretations, different methods of implementation. Does
everyone in the Green Party agree on every single point? Does every
Muslim pray the exact same way? Obviously there are a few basic
tenets which are at the core of a philosophy and are pretty much
undebatable, but there are plenty of other specifics which should be
open to evolving debate.
If we want to label ourselves unschoolers we should probably all
agree that learning in general is a natural process--that's a core
part of the unschooling philosophy. But, that doesn't
mean that we can't still debate (and disagree about) specifics, such
as whether all human brains are equitably wired to easily decode
written symbols for spoken language, and whether all brains are
naturally inclined to "read" symbols for music and math as well for
that matter. Those are legitimate questions to explore, and those who
choose to ponder such things shouldn't be written off as being un-
unschooling.
Cheers,
Deniz
[email protected]
SandraDodd@... writes:
take that post at face value, and if it gets messy later, then I'll take the
egg on my face.
If a kid wants to learn how to read, is struggling, and wants and asks for
help, and you help, that is still unschooling. That's still child led learning.
I don't withhold assistance when he asks me for it. Sometimes the help you
give is just explaining that maybe they really don't need help, but hey,
sometimes they do. Help to look at something in a different way, or to remind them
that they can give something a break for a while and come back to it later. I
call it turning the key. My hubby sometimes says something that just turns
the key and unlocks something for me, and I love it when that happens, cause I
was really stuck in a brain rut. Alex doesn't need the turn as often as I do,
tho.
That's just respectful parenting at work there. No throwing the kid in the
deep end to make them learn how to swim required, right? And, no keeping them
away from water, either. Am I missing something?
~Aimee
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> <<>Some folks may be using "learn to read naturally" as meaning "learn toWow, that's not how I saw that post at all. Maybe I'm just niave, but I'll
> >read unassisted". But, to me, it is natural for children to have
> >assistance. >>
>
> I'm wondering whether for some people here they're not fishing for the
> blessings of the group to teach reading, or for the justification from the
> group for
> giving up on unschooling.
>
> Why would someone come here wanting that?
take that post at face value, and if it gets messy later, then I'll take the
egg on my face.
If a kid wants to learn how to read, is struggling, and wants and asks for
help, and you help, that is still unschooling. That's still child led learning.
I don't withhold assistance when he asks me for it. Sometimes the help you
give is just explaining that maybe they really don't need help, but hey,
sometimes they do. Help to look at something in a different way, or to remind them
that they can give something a break for a while and come back to it later. I
call it turning the key. My hubby sometimes says something that just turns
the key and unlocks something for me, and I love it when that happens, cause I
was really stuck in a brain rut. Alex doesn't need the turn as often as I do,
tho.
That's just respectful parenting at work there. No throwing the kid in the
deep end to make them learn how to swim required, right? And, no keeping them
away from water, either. Am I missing something?
~Aimee
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Susan Fuerst
>>>If my child still wasn't reading when he was 13 or 14, I might be abit concerned, and as a loving parent I might sit down with him and
ask him if he's having any specific difficulties, and ask him if he
would like any help. <<<
Well, Natural Parenting Magazine and John Holt have this reply to you:
"Another version of 'good' teaching is one who waits to be asked. Holt
proposed the dictum of 'no question, no teaching'. Unless someone has
asked a question, there is no mandate for teaching."(from "What is a
good teacher?" Education Heretics Press)
Susan
Deniz Martinez
--- In [email protected], "Susan Fuerst"
<fuerst@f...> wrote:
to care about their child's health and well-being. All I said is that
I would TALK with my child, and I then said that I would NOT teach
him UNLESS he asked. I wasn't talking about being a teacher, I was
talking about being a concerned parent. It's my job as a parent to
read my child's nonverbal actions and determine if I need to
intervene in my capacity as his caretaker--that means if I notice
that my child is always squinting and putting his books right up to
his nose, I don't need to wait for him to ASK "Mommy, why are the
words so fuzzy?" before I sit him down and ask HIM if he's having
trouble seeing clearly.
Deniz
<fuerst@f...> wrote:
>be a
> >>>If my child still wasn't reading when he was 13 or 14, I might
> bit concerned, and as a loving parent I might sit down with him andyou:
> ask him if he's having any specific difficulties, and ask him if he
> would like any help. <<<
>
> Well, Natural Parenting Magazine and John Holt have this reply to
>Holt
> "Another version of 'good' teaching is one who waits to be asked.
> proposed the dictum of 'no question, no teaching'. Unless someonehas
> asked a question, there is no mandate for teaching."(from "What is aThere is no mandate for teaching, but there IS a mandate for parents
> good teacher?" Education Heretics Press)
> Susan
to care about their child's health and well-being. All I said is that
I would TALK with my child, and I then said that I would NOT teach
him UNLESS he asked. I wasn't talking about being a teacher, I was
talking about being a concerned parent. It's my job as a parent to
read my child's nonverbal actions and determine if I need to
intervene in my capacity as his caretaker--that means if I notice
that my child is always squinting and putting his books right up to
his nose, I don't need to wait for him to ASK "Mommy, why are the
words so fuzzy?" before I sit him down and ask HIM if he's having
trouble seeing clearly.
Deniz
Susan Fuerst
Deniz,
Here is a quote from you:
original post), but it seemed to me that you would be presenting this
because you have a concern that this child wasn't meeting your
expectation for his or her learning. (Honestly, as I type this, I see
you went into the world of hypotheticals, so maybe it's not worth any
more discussion.)
DO you know of any unschooled 14 year olds who cannot read? I know
Tia's Lars had a hard time, but Tia will say it was her teaching
intervention that slowed down the process, and (I think) that Lars
reads as well as he wants and needs to for his life these days.
And the whole thing reminded me of earlier in my journey...when I
thought I "got" it, but I managed to add a load of stress to Katy, my
oldest, because I failed to believe she would read when she wanted to.
Because I was and continue to be a concerned parent, but I'm not
concerned that my kids will not learn to read. I do truly believe that
they will and are learning what they need.
I am thrilled that Katy and I have restored our trust. I am not
concerned about her reading or not reading, I know she can and will.
She now will come to me to ask a word from what she is reading. She
will now yell out the letters across the house when she doesn't know the
word. I have weeded out every one of my own issues that I have become
aware of to this point...and I have let them go.
I tried to "sit and talk with her." It added to her pressure and she
reacted to my unconscious dissatisfaction with her abilities. It was a
roadblock.
If a child has opportunities with written language and doesn't read by
14, it is probably due to roadblocks put in the child's path....perhaps
even the unnecessary "concern" of a parent.
Since youe scenario was hypothetical, I say forget the age number...if
you truly trust your child's learning, you aren't likely to need to
initiate that conversation.
Susan
Here is a quote from you:
>be a
> >>>If my child still wasn't reading when he was 13 or 14, I might
> bit concerned, and as a loving parent I might sit down with him andIt seemed to me that in this scenario, (and I don't have the whole
> ask him if he's having any specific difficulties, and ask him if he
> would like any help. <<<
>
original post), but it seemed to me that you would be presenting this
because you have a concern that this child wasn't meeting your
expectation for his or her learning. (Honestly, as I type this, I see
you went into the world of hypotheticals, so maybe it's not worth any
more discussion.)
DO you know of any unschooled 14 year olds who cannot read? I know
Tia's Lars had a hard time, but Tia will say it was her teaching
intervention that slowed down the process, and (I think) that Lars
reads as well as he wants and needs to for his life these days.
And the whole thing reminded me of earlier in my journey...when I
thought I "got" it, but I managed to add a load of stress to Katy, my
oldest, because I failed to believe she would read when she wanted to.
Because I was and continue to be a concerned parent, but I'm not
concerned that my kids will not learn to read. I do truly believe that
they will and are learning what they need.
I am thrilled that Katy and I have restored our trust. I am not
concerned about her reading or not reading, I know she can and will.
She now will come to me to ask a word from what she is reading. She
will now yell out the letters across the house when she doesn't know the
word. I have weeded out every one of my own issues that I have become
aware of to this point...and I have let them go.
I tried to "sit and talk with her." It added to her pressure and she
reacted to my unconscious dissatisfaction with her abilities. It was a
roadblock.
If a child has opportunities with written language and doesn't read by
14, it is probably due to roadblocks put in the child's path....perhaps
even the unnecessary "concern" of a parent.
Since youe scenario was hypothetical, I say forget the age number...if
you truly trust your child's learning, you aren't likely to need to
initiate that conversation.
Susan
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/15/03 2:32:53 PM, fuerst@... writes:
<< If a child has opportunities with written language and doesn't read by
14, it is probably due to roadblocks put in the child's path....perhaps
even the unnecessary "concern" of a parent. >>
Liam McClure was a bit older, and his roadblock was a life of comparison to
his twin sister who learned EVERYTHING early, easy, fast, soon. He seemed
often to just not want to do whatever it was Renee was doing. Had he been a
single birth, I think there would be lots of differences in his life. He was
the younger twin, not by ten minutes, but by weeks (later
germination/implantation/start), and he was the runt of the two for quite a while. He never went
to school, and his mom wasn't pressing him, but he had other reasons to look
the other way, sometimes.
Sandra
<< If a child has opportunities with written language and doesn't read by
14, it is probably due to roadblocks put in the child's path....perhaps
even the unnecessary "concern" of a parent. >>
Liam McClure was a bit older, and his roadblock was a life of comparison to
his twin sister who learned EVERYTHING early, easy, fast, soon. He seemed
often to just not want to do whatever it was Renee was doing. Had he been a
single birth, I think there would be lots of differences in his life. He was
the younger twin, not by ten minutes, but by weeks (later
germination/implantation/start), and he was the runt of the two for quite a while. He never went
to school, and his mom wasn't pressing him, but he had other reasons to look
the other way, sometimes.
Sandra
Deniz Martinez
--- In [email protected], "Susan Fuerst"
<fuerst@f...> wrote:
my son taught himself to read before he was 2, and my almost-2-year-
old daughter is starting to as well.
I think I qualified this hypothetical with a later post, giving the
specific example of perhaps noticing that the child appeared to be
having vision problems. Regardless, my main point was that I don't
see anything wrong with a parent being concerned about their child's
well-being, and if a child is still not reading at a relatively late
age, AND he's been obviously trying very hard but still having
great difficulty with it, it COULD (could! as in, probably not, but
maybe) be a sign of a physical or neurological problem that a parent
needs to have addressed. Again, obviously that scenario is rather
rare, but we can't dismiss it completely.
Perhaps I am extra sensitive to this possibility because I myself
have a visual handicap (I'm blind in my right eye thanks to being
born with a congential cataract), so to me the possibility of a child
having some sort of handicap is not merely theoretical, it's quite
possible and maybe more so for my children since these things can
often be hereditary. Now in my case, it obviously didn't affect my
ability to read, because I too was reading before age 2! It DOES
greatly affect my spatial reasoning skills however, because I have no
depth perception and my field of perception is skewed to one side.
Cheers,
Deniz
<fuerst@f...> wrote:
>and
>
> Deniz,
> Here is a quote from you:
> >
> > >>>If my child still wasn't reading when he was 13 or 14, I might
> be a
> > bit concerned, and as a loving parent I might sit down with him
> > ask him if he's having any specific difficulties, and ask him ifhe
> > would like any help. <<<LOL, no, this isn't a personal problem at all. As I mentioned before,
> >
> It seemed to me that in this scenario, (and I don't have the whole
> original post), but it seemed to me that you would be presenting
> this because you have a concern that this child wasn't meeting your
> expectation for his or her learning. (Honestly, as I type this, I
> see you went into the world of hypotheticals, so maybe it's not
> worth any more discussion.)
my son taught himself to read before he was 2, and my almost-2-year-
old daughter is starting to as well.
I think I qualified this hypothetical with a later post, giving the
specific example of perhaps noticing that the child appeared to be
having vision problems. Regardless, my main point was that I don't
see anything wrong with a parent being concerned about their child's
well-being, and if a child is still not reading at a relatively late
age, AND he's been obviously trying very hard but still having
great difficulty with it, it COULD (could! as in, probably not, but
maybe) be a sign of a physical or neurological problem that a parent
needs to have addressed. Again, obviously that scenario is rather
rare, but we can't dismiss it completely.
Perhaps I am extra sensitive to this possibility because I myself
have a visual handicap (I'm blind in my right eye thanks to being
born with a congential cataract), so to me the possibility of a child
having some sort of handicap is not merely theoretical, it's quite
possible and maybe more so for my children since these things can
often be hereditary. Now in my case, it obviously didn't affect my
ability to read, because I too was reading before age 2! It DOES
greatly affect my spatial reasoning skills however, because I have no
depth perception and my field of perception is skewed to one side.
Cheers,
Deniz