Ren Allen

It would seem that not all children would pick up reading naturally,
because most people's experience causes them to panick when the child
is NATURALLY a later reader.
If there is no pressure to read, if there is no shame in not being
able to read, then I believe that all children (of those that have
the capability to read) will read naturally, in their own way and
time.
If a child is struggling, they aren't ready.

In your 3 out of 4 scenario Teresa, I would venture to say that child
would have learned quite naturally given more time. Some children
want to read for the wrong reasons..they don't know that. Undue
pressure has caused them to feel bad (not necessarily from the
parent) and they want it even though they may not be neurologically
ready.
Even a child with real live disabilities can learn in their own way
and time, naturally. It will be much later and a much different way
than other readers perhaps, but then that's what unschooling is all
about, uniqueness. Honoring the individual no matter what the
differences are or when the reading happens is so important.

And I think if a child really, really wants to read, the parent needs
to be creative enough to find what method makes it fun and easy. If
the child isn't pushing themSELVES, then you risk damage.

My Jared could easily be categorized as a child that "struggles" with
reading. Truth is, he just doesn't care that much yet. Instead of
trying to find some amazing method that will help his "disabilities"
(which I don't believe exist in this child) I am being patient.
He'll read when he's ready, of that I'm quite sure. (He'll be 10 in a
couple of weeks)
My biggest challenge is how to ward of well meaning family and
friends that are convinced I'm ruining him by not making him learn to
read!

Ren

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/12/2003 7:14:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
starsuncloud@... writes:

> In your 3 out of 4 scenario Teresa, I would venture to say that child
> would have learned quite naturally given more time. Some children
> want to read for the wrong reasons..they don't know that. Undue
> pressure has caused them to feel bad (not necessarily from the
> parent) and they want it even though they may not be neurologically
> ready.
> Even a child with real live disabilities can learn in their own way
> and time, naturally. It will be much later and a much different way
> than other readers perhaps, but then that's what unschooling is all
> about, uniqueness. Honoring the individual no matter what the
> differences are or when the reading happens is so important.
>

What about adult illiteracy? Not so much of the ones who've been to school
and just didn't "learn" to read. What about the older people who worked on
farms and were never really sent to school much and their parents didn't have
time/energy/thought to actually teach them to read. I know that some of course
did learn to read and are very educated. BUT there are some grown elderly men
of several generations ago that could NOT read.

Do you think it was because of a disability that they never really learned on
their own?

Was it because they didn't want it badly enough?

Was it because they were never "taught"?

Your post on it being a natural thing that would come in time just made me
really think. I knew an elderly man when I was growing up that would look at
the newspapers (I thought reading them when I was much littler), write his name
all the time on papers (just for fun it seemed). Never once did it occur to
me that he couldn't read. Not even when he bought grits at the store instead
of oatmeal because the box looked the same (days before the pretty pictures
bombarded us).

I later learned that he was horrified that I had found out he couldn't read
the day he opened the box of grits with me standing there. He wanted to be a
reader, he just never learned. This was a very smart man, he held a job for
many years that no one can understand how he kept others from knowing he
couldn't read.

At one time there were a LOT of non readers. Do you think it was from not
many books around? Lack of things to learn with? Or simply a lack of
"teaching"?

Our unschooling minds tell us it must be something else, because lack of
teaching does not mean a lack of learning, unless the ability to read isn't
natural.

I'm not arguing either side, just thinking about it and wondering what others
think about the non readers in the world, past and present.

Oh, the gentleman above, he lived to be 79 and never learned to read and was
very ashamed of that fact.

glena



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

[email protected]

I thought of all of that too, Glena. I wrote a long reply.. but I didnt
send it. Whats the use?? I said I didn't want to argue, and I don't. But.
along with your questions, I have this to add

My daddy is 60 years old. He dropped out of school at 14 to work on the
farm, he was in the 8th grade. He is a functioning illiterate. He can read at a
very rudimentary level. He lived with a wife who loved to read, read aloud
to all of us OFTEN.. We read aloud to our daddy very often.. We would ( and
still do) read his mail aloud to him. Our home was filled with books and
magazines. Now he has 10 grandchildren who love to read to him. ( oh, except for the
4 yo) He held a job as a supervisor of a textile manufacturer for 15 years.
He faked his way along. He has been a successful tree farmer for 20 years.
He is a millionaire (maybe a multi one) Why didn't he learn to read?
Reading is not natural for my daddy. It confuses and befuddles him, it is
frustrating and exhausting.


Teresa


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/13/03 7:58:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rubyprincesstsg@... writes:

> What about adult illiteracy? Not so much of the ones who've been to school
>
> and just didn't "learn" to read. What about the older people who worked on
> farms and were never really sent to school much and their parents didn't
> have
> time/energy/thought to actually teach them to read. I know that some of
> course
> did learn to read and are very educated. BUT there are some grown elderly
> men
> of several generations ago that could NOT read.
>

Funny you should mention this. After reading the "natural" vs. "learned"
theories regarding reading, I too thought of people I knew/know who are
illiterate. I can't argue either side and really feel it was one or the other. I guess
maybe it is dependent on the person. How's that for evasive?

Anyway, much like the man in the post, my maternal grandfather could not
read. Having left school at the age of 8 or 9, to bury his father and begin to
work to help feed his 11 siblings, he never read beyond a very minimal level. He
always had newpapers, but he was looking at the pictures not reading the news.
When I would sit on his lap and ask him to read to me, he always said, "No,
you read to me...show me how smart you are." I was probably about 8 or 9 when I
realized I was reading to him, because he couldn't read to me. I cried. I
thought it was horrible and unfair that no one had taught him how. I didn't
understand how he got through life without it. He never learned. It became
unimportant to him, because he was able to work around it. I never told him I knew he
couldn't read. He was a strong and proud Irishman, who I know found shame in
his illiteracy. But by the same token, he was too proud to try and learn.

As for the natural position, well I can say I really honestly don't remember
not being able to read. But even my parents say no one ever taught me. It was
just something I could do. So perhaps for me it was natural. I read long
before I ever went to school. So I wasn't taught by the system.

While I have no answer to whether it is or isn't natural to learn to read, I
wonder why the process has to be one or the other. Perhaps it is both. A
natural tendancy to learn to read??? I don't know.

Rhonda - and her 2 cents


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/13/03 8:58:21 AM, rubyprincesstsg@... writes:

<< What about the older people who worked on
farms and were never really sent to school much and their parents didn't have
time/energy/thought to actually teach them to read. >>

My grandfather and grandmother went to school, farm schools, just until 2nd
grade, and both could read, so I'm not sure who you're thinking of. I have
seen houses (and not just in the 50's, in the 70's) in which there was not one
scrap of printed word. In Protestant houses there's usually at least a Bible,
but in Catholic houses, sometimes zip. Not newspapers. How will kids learn to
read if there's nothing to learn WITH?

<< BUT there are some grown elderly men
of several generations ago that could NOT read. >>

Several generations ago there were no closed-caption TV shows being broadcast
freely into the air. Several generations ago there weren't free
newspapers/flyers/advertisements outside every grocery store. There weren't labels and
printed boxes and billboards and streetsigns everywhere.

<<Do you think it was because of a disability that they never really learned
on
their own?
<<Was it because they didn't want it badly enough?
<<Was it because they were never "taught"?>>

You're making an incredibly spurious argument to try to defend your position
that learning to read won't come to every unschooled child whose parents read
to him, who have lots of books and other written-word materials all around.

<<I knew an elderly man when I was growing up that would look at
the newspapers (I thought reading them when I was much littler), write his
name
all the time on papers (just for fun it seemed). Never once did it occur to
me that he couldn't read.>>

I had one aunt who couldn't read at all. She was crushed to powder by school
and mean,cruel, abusive parents who told her early on she was stupid, and hit
her a LOT.

The conditions I believe led to her illiteracy exist in not ONE unschooling
household.

My dad couldn't read very quickly or very well, but he could read. He was
crushed by school and shamed and punished for not reading early enough to suit
them. He was told he should be as good as his younger brothers, who were good
students. They were also right handed and were encouraged to be right handed.
My dad was left handed, and FORBIDDEN to be left handed, and punished for
using his left hand.

The conditions which led to his hesitancy and discomfort about reading exist
in not ONE unschooling household.

<<At one time there were a LOT of non readers. Do you think it was from not
many books around? Lack of things to learn with? >>

Yes. Nobody EVER rode a bicycle before they were invented, and nobody has
learned to ride a bicycle in the absence of a bicycle ever since.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/13/2003 12:03:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

> My grandfather and grandmother went to school, farm schools, just until 2nd
>
> grade, and both could read, so I'm not sure who you're thinking of. I have
> seen houses (and not just in the 50's, in the 70's) in which there was not
> one
> scrap of printed word. In Protestant houses there's usually at least a
> Bible,
> but in Catholic houses, sometimes zip. Not newspapers. How will kids learn
> to
> read if there's nothing to learn WITH?
>
I'm thinking of kids of farmers who went to school sporadically or not at
all, or even kids of others who it was required that they enter the workforce at
an early age.

What about if there IS printed material around, some books, a Bible,
newspapers? I know that this elderly gentleman that I referred to had daily
newspapers as an adult and lots of books around.


<You're making an incredibly spurious argument to try to defend your position

that learning to read won't come to every unschooled child whose parents read

to him, who have lots of books and other written-word materials all around.>

I'm not making any argument at all, I merely asked what others thought of
this and what experiences they might have encountered in their lives. I haven't
made a decision yet on whether I think every single person can/will read.
That's why I was asking for others experiences.

<<I
had one aunt who couldn't read at all.  She was crushed to powder by school
and mean,cruel, abusive parents who told her early on she was stupid, and hit

her a LOT>

That's so sad. The gentleman I knew really liked school, just didn't get to
go often or for very long

<<I
Yes.  Nobody EVER rode a bicycle before they were invented, and nobody has
learned to ride a bicycle in the absence of a bicycle ever since.>

Not many people are denied jobs because they can't ride a bike. Reading is
pretty important for most jobs, these days anyway. While bike riding is mostly
for recreational use (not always) and reading is OFTEN for pleasure as well,
I still don't think they are equal in terms of comparisons. One takes a lot
of physical muscle memory the other much more mental muscle memory.

Again, I'm not even sure what I think about this, just wondering about others
experiences and thoughts.

glena

.  







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

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/13/03 12:01:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
RJHill241@... writes:

> As for the natural position, well I can say I really honestly don't
> remember
> not being able to read. But even my parents say no one ever taught me. It
> was
> just something I could do. So perhaps for me it was natural. I read long
> before I ever went to school. So I wasn't taught by the system.
>

That was me too! And also Landon and Anna... They just "naturally" learned
to read. ( before they started school, no "lessons" from me at all) JP was in
school when he learned how to read, but it was also just a very easy thing
for him. He just picked it up. Ethan had a more difficult time ( much like my
younger sister, she can SOO identify with his struggles) His brained is
wired differently. Not a big deal, hes a great kid! He has his own strengths and
reading is not that important to him. I do NOT push it. never have, even
when he was in school.

Here is a good question to ponder.. I may do some research on it. If someone
does not attain a "good level" of reading skills ( I would say, for a frame
of reference, about a typical 5th-6th grade level) by the time they are ..
say.. 18, or an adult, will it be difficult for them to improve thier reading
skills as adults? I can see this type of scenario. Kid reads at a level
comfortable for them., they are not interested in reading better, because what
they know gets them by. They know how to read what they want to read and that
is all that is important to them. OK.. great! Kid is now an adult, wants to
go to college.. or maybe pursue a job that requires reading and comprehension
at a higher level than they have learned... I wonder how they would deal with
that... It's an interesting thought..

Teresa


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

Deniz Martinez

There seems to be a semantical issue here that is causing the
difference in opinions. We need agree what exactly is meant by
a "natural process" first before we can argue about whether a
particular process is indeed "natural" or not.

If we're using "natural" in its scientific, biological context, then
I would guess that most people here would agree that humans are
indeed "hard-wired" to walk, talk, and yes, LEARN. BUT, saying that
it is "natural" to learn is one thing, saying that it is "natural" to
read and write is quite another, because reading and writing are
CULTURE-SPECIFIC processes, NOT common human ones. If one is using
the word "natural" in its most strictest sense, then it's quite easy
to argue that the concept of symbolizing spoken words is hardly a
universal biologically-based human process. There are many, many
human cultures which have not yet developed a written language, even
though they have a rich oral language--how could that be, if reading
is supposedly a "natural" human function? Even amongst cultures that
have produced a writing system, there is a tremendous amount of
diversity in how the spoken language is symbolized--it's quite
different learning how to read English versus Chinese or Arabic, for
instance.

Here is a link to an article by G. Reid Lyon called "Reading is Not a
Natural Process". I don't actually agree with all of the points that
he makes, but there are a few good ones in there that are at least
worth pondering:

http://www.ascd.org/readingroom/edlead/9803/lyon.html

Cheers,
Deniz

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/13/03 10:36:50 AM, rubyprincesstsg@... writes:

<< <<I

Yes.  Nobody EVER rode a bicycle before they were invented, and nobody has

learned to ride a bicycle in the absence of a bicycle ever since.>


<<Not many people are denied jobs because they can't ride a bike. >>

I wouldn't hire someone who didn't understand analogies, personally.

<<While bike riding is mostly

for recreational use (not always) and reading is OFTEN for pleasure as well,

I still don't think they are equal in terms of comparisons. One takes a lot

of physical muscle memory the other much more mental muscle memory.>>

Unscoolers can't learn to read without much printed word around, and I know
of NO unschoolers in print-free environments, just as unschoolers can't learn
to ride a bike without a bike.

Using "several generations ago" arguments about literacy, and farm-laboror
arguments, seems to be ignoring the reality of the current availability in this
culture of written word.

Holly realized she could really read when she discovered she couldn't NOT
read. She tried to go a day without reading, but it turned out that she could
read a word just by seeing it. That's when she considered that she was truly a
reader.

A friend of mine with two young daughters (not school age, but she's not
planning to send them to school) informed her e-mail correspondents that she was
going text-free for one month in order to better understand the state of her
daughters' lack of reading ability—to see the world from their point of view.

She lasted two weeks. She couldn't not read either. It was everywhere.
And what was "natural" for that family anyway was that the mother and father
COULD read, fluently, and SHOULD read, for their own purposes and to interpret
the world for their not-yet-reading daughters.

Sandra

Deniz Martinez

--- In [email protected], RJHill241@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 8/13/03 7:58:44 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

> As for the natural position, well I can say I really honestly don't
> remember not being able to read. But even my parents say no one
> ever taught me. It was just something I could do. So perhaps for me
> it was natural. I read long before I ever went to school. So I
> wasn't taught by the system.
>
> While I have no answer to whether it is or isn't natural to learn
> to read, I wonder why the process has to be one or the other.
> Perhaps it is both. A natural tendancy to learn to read??? I don't
> know.
>
> Rhonda - and her 2 cents

Sure some people have a natural propensity to master reading easier
than others. Just as some people are "naturally" better at
manipulating numbers, or putting together music, or visualizing a two-
dimensional plane in three-dimensional space (something I'm terrible
at, LOL), some people's brains are better at memorizing and code-
cracking (two primary skills needed to learn written English). We all
have uniquely wired brains with their own particular strengths and
weaknesses--whether that wiring is largely the result of genetics, or
early environmental factors, or (most likely) a combination of both,
is still being debated, but it's undeniable that individual humans
have different levels of ease in tackling specific intellectual
skills, reading included.

I taught myself to read before the age of 2--so did my son, and my
almost-two-year-old daughter has just about figured out the code as
well. It's just something our brains have an easy time with, I don't
know why. I know plenty of highly intelligent people who had a
tremendous amount of difficulty learning how to read. I don't think I
was "smarter" than them because I read early, any more than I think I
was "dumber" than the kid who could draw beautiful portraits when I
was still making stick figures, or the kid who could play his violin
like a virtuoso when I was still making scratchy sounds on mine.
These are all different types of intelligences, which utilize
different parts of our brains. In that respect at least, it is
completely "natural" for some kids to have an easier time reading
than others, because contrary to what the public education system
would like parents to think, kids (and their brains!) really ARE
different, and it just doesn't make sense to expect them to master
the same sets of skills at all, let alone expect them to do it at the
same time and in the same amount of time.

Cheers,
Deniz

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/13/03 10:51:45 AM, denizmartinez@... writes:

<< reading and writing are

CULTURE-SPECIFIC processes, NOT common human ones >>

It is natural for humans to live in groups and develop cultures.

Is there a "natural" human shelter? Diet?

Which human language is most "natural"?

Humans have a complexity that makes "natural" involve itself in more than
just the abilities of a newborn in isolation.

Sandra

Deborah Lewis

Communication is natural.
Danged if everybody doesn't do it.
If you snorted and grunted at your kids they'd figure out what your
snorts and grunts meant.

Reading and writing are forms of communication.
If people need to read and write to communicate effectively then that's
what they do.
You understand what your dog wants when she wants something. You
understand it because it's natural for us to communicate. ( Natural for
dogs too) Maybe you don't get every bit of doggy vibe but the more
you're around that critter the more you understand her and vise versa.
I don't get every bit of human communication either. I get the sarcastic
bits and leave the touchy feely bits to someone else.

Are people really saying leaning to read isn't natural, on an unschooling
list, or am I at the Cliffs of Insanity?

Deb L

Deniz Martinez

--- In [email protected], Deborah Lewis
<ddzimlew@j...> wrote:
> Communication is natural.
> Danged if everybody doesn't do it.
> If you snorted and grunted at your kids they'd figure out what your
> snorts and grunts meant.
>
> Reading and writing are forms of communication.
> If people need to read and write to communicate effectively then
> that's what they do.

> Are people really saying leaning to read isn't natural, on an
> unschooling list, or am I at the Cliffs of Insanity?
>
> Deb L

You need to back off from the cliff, LOL! I'm in total agreement with
you that learning is natural, and certainly communication is also a
natural human function. But while verbal communication is something
that humans are hard-wired to do, written communication in and of
itself is not an equally inborn instinct--if it was, then all human
cultures would write just as all human cultures speak, but they
don't, do they?

The combination of instinctually wanting to learn and wanting to
communicate is what ultimately drives a human surrounded by writing
to want to learn to read. But while WANTING to learn to read is
indeed a natural inclination for these people, actually being ABLE to
do so is another matter. Not all brains are equally capable of
achieving the same level of mastery of this particular skill. Some
people might call this a "learning disability", others might just
realize that this is natural variation amongst human brains--the
point is that reading is a skill, something to be learned, not
something that you're born knowing how to do. And just as some
people have an easier time learning to draw, or play an instrument,
or do algebra, so too do some people have an easier time learning to
read.

To quote Dr. Lyon yet again:

"We now have strong evidence that it is not the ear that understands
that a spoken word like "cat" is divided into three sounds and that
these discrete sounds can be linked to the letters C-A-T, it is the
brain that performs this function. In some youngsters, the brain
seems to have an easy time processing this type of information.
However, in many children, the skill is only learned with
difficulty....

Does this mean that children who have a difficulty understanding that
spoken words are composed of discrete individual sounds that can be
linked to letters suffer from brain dysfunction or damage? Not at
all. It simply means that the neural systems that perceive the
phonemes in our language are less efficient than in other children.
This difference in neural efficiency can also be hypothesized to
underlie the individual differences that we see every day in learning
any skill such as singing, playing an instrument, constructing a
house, painting a portrait, and the like. In some cases, our NICHD
studies have taught us that the phonological differences we see in
good and poor readers have a genetic basis...."

So yes, it's natural for an unschooled child who is surrounded by
written material and supported by loving parents to want to learn to
read, and to usually then indeed learn how to read to one degree or
another. But it's also natural for these children to learn to read at
different times, and different speeds, and ultimately at different
levels of skill and proficiency.

Learning is natural, and communicating is natural, so for our
children wanting to learn to read is natural. So, perhaps to some
degree then, you can say learning to read is a natural thing. But is
learning to read WELL natural? Just as not all children could learn
to play a piano masterfully just by being sat in front of one and
having recorded music played for them, not all children could learn
to read proficiently simply by having books placed in front of them
and being read to. Some kids can, but obviously not all can.
Sometimes a more proactive approach is required to learn these sorts
of skills beyond a rudimentary level. Where the unschooling
philosophy comes in here is that the CHILD should be the one who asks
for this additional instruction, rather than the parent pushing the
instruction on the child.

Okay, enough babbling from me for now, LOL...
Deniz :)

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/13/03 12:51:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
denizmartinez@... writes:

> There seems to be a semantical issue here that is causing the
> difference in opinions. We need agree what exactly is meant by
> a "natural process" first before we can argue about whether a
> particular process is indeed "natural" or not.
>

Deniz, that is pretty much what I felt too, but didnt the post the response
in which I said it. It's all in one's definition of "natural"

Teresa


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

Deborah Lewis

***Are people really saying leaning to read isn't natural on an
unschooling list***

Honestly, I learned to read leaning on an unschooling list. Didn't
everyone?
Natural leaning.

Deb L, who should try leaning to spell.

Kelly Lenhart

<< reading and writing are CULTURE-SPECIFIC processes, NOT common human ones
>>

>It is natural for humans to live in groups and develop cultures.

It seems to be, yes. Humans who are denied contact with other humans cease
to function in a healthy way.

>Is there a "natural" human shelter? Diet?

There doesn't seem to be, no. Shelter and diet depend on culture, which is
dependent on available resources, climate and history.

>Which human language is most "natural"?

Spoken language is universal, written is not. Other than that, I would say
no language is more "natural" than any other.

>Humans have a complexity that makes "natural" involve itself in more than
>just the abilities of a newborn in isolation.
>Sandra

And I think that is the point many are making. Reading is not "natural" in
a human sense. But it is "natural" in the context of our Western culture.
It is an assumed part of our make up. Like living in detached houses,
driving cars, etc.

And we here, in an unschooling context, are questioning just how much of a
part of our lives reading needs to take up. Is it, in fact, something that
ALL humans need to do, or something that is a part of our cultural make up?
And if it IS cultural, then that only supports the idea that "pushing
reading" like pushing any other learning, is NOT something we need to worry
about.

If it is something our children need, in our culture, they will get it
through unschooling.

Kelly

Fetteroll

on 8/13/03 5:04 PM, Deborah Lewis at ddzimlew@... wrote:

> You understand what your dog wants when she wants something.

And much of that is visual, not sound based.

There is body language.

Pointing.

The Inuits, way up in the barrens of the north where there are no land
marks, build their own land marks out of large flat rocks stacked on top of
each other. Sometimes they look like humans pointing. Sometimes other
things. They're called inuksuk. (Actually 1 is an inuksuk. 2 are inuksuuk. 3
or more are inuksuit.) The inuit may need help understanding what each
means, but perhaps it makes sense that there's an instinct to recognize
"That means something," even if what it means needs to be learned.

Do people naturally, the moment they see it the first time, understand that
shrinking down in size means submissive? Do they figure it out? Do they need
it to be taught?

(I suspect it's instinctual to make that display. I suspect it takes a few
instances for people (and other animals?) to figure it out without anyone
telling them what it means. It's meaning will become obvious from the
context. And probably some people are better at figuring it out than
others.)

At some "point" in development, kids look at your finger when you're
pointing at something. At some later point they look where you're pointing.
If they never see pointing, will they have made that connection? (Merely
something to ponder since it's probably impossible to find out. There
*might* be cultures where poiting is taboo. But could there possibly be a
culture that didn't need some way of indicating "look over there"?)

Perhaps graphical representation is merely one step beyond visual language.
We (and dogs though perhaps in a different way) already have the capacity to
understand that one thing can represent another. But just as with spoken
language, people need others to help them understand what the abstract
sounds and symbols mean.

If a human culture doesn't require something that's natural, does that mean
that it's unnatural?

Joyce

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/13/2003 12:35:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
grlynbl@... writes:


> Here is a good question to ponder.. I may do some research on it. If
> someone
> does not attain a "good level" of reading skills ( I would say, for a frame
> of reference, about a typical 5th-6th grade level) by the time they are ..
> say.. 18, or an adult, will it be difficult for them to improve thier
> reading
> skills as adults? I can see this type of scenario. Kid reads at a level
>
> comfortable for them., they are not interested in reading better, because
> what
> they know gets them by. They know how to read what they want to read and
> that
> is all that is important to them. OK.. great! Kid is now an adult, wants
> to
> go to college.. or maybe pursue a job that requires reading and
> comprehension
> at a higher level than they have learned... I wonder how they would deal
> with
> that... It's an interesting thought..
>

My husband is one of those guys. He never read in high school----he had a
friend who helped him out by explaining every book and character. He was a decent
enough student; he just didn't read. He didn't read for pleasure. He didn't
read assignments.

When we met, he saw me read all the time. I'd suggest book after book and
maybe read a passage of something I thought he'd like. He started reading---and
he read SOOOO S-L-O-W-L-Y---I couldn't imagine he'd EVER finish a book! He just
kept reading, for pleasure.

Now he's still not a fast reader, and he'll probabaly never read as fast as I
do, but he's a MUCH faster/better reader.

Like anything else: if you like it, the more you DO it, the better you get at
it. No matter what the age. No matter what the activity. If you're shamed or
uncomfortable or just don't like it, you won't.

~Kelly


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

[email protected]

grlynbl@... writes:
> Why didn't he learn to read?
> Reading is not natural for my daddy. It confuses and befuddles him, it is
> frustrating and exhausting.
>
>
> Teresa
>


You know, my opinion on this is that reading and writing is a tool
that humans developed, and not everybody likes to use, or is good at using, that
tool.

I hate to use hammers, the other day I smashed my finger, hammered the
nail wrong, pulled it out and made a big hole in the wall....etc. I don't
like that tool.

But, I love reading and writing, and use it often, to communicate,
learn, share ideas, lots of good stuff.

Not all of us NEED to use hammers. And, I have to work way too hard
*than I want to* to learn how to do it better. I'm close to giving up. Or
limiting my use of it, at least. I don't like smashed fingers. ;-) Lots of
people do that with reading and writing, too. We look down on that, as a
society, but I don't think we should.

Unschooling is about the freedom to learn how to use the tools you
need to live the life you want.

Some people simply don't like using the tool of reading, or writing,
they've decided to only learn how to use it, *this way*, or *that far*.
Putting aside cultural bias for a second, why is reading or writing any different
than using a hammer? It's not. If some kids grow up never learning either
tool, the world will NOT stop spinning. Late reader, never reader, late hammerer,
never hammerer, lol, who cares?

What's natural or not is a whole other subject, now isn't it?

*evil grin*

~Aimee


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

Crystal

Kid is now an adult, wants
> to
> go to college.. or maybe pursue a job that requires reading and
> comprehension
> at a higher level than they have learned... I wonder how they would deal
> with
> that... It's an interesting thought..
>
***********
> Like anything else: if you like it, the more you DO it, the better you get
at
> it. No matter what the age. No matter what the activity. If you're shamed
or
> uncomfortable or just don't like it, you won't.
>
> ~Kelly
************


My husband is beginning to read, too. He can read, just not in English. He
reads all the time but only things in Portuguese. He knows he would be a
supervisor at his job if he could read English so lately he's been reading
the daily newspaper at work to help with his reading skills. He just
figured out that "ph" makes the "f" sound--LOL. He doesn't understand why,
though. Portuguese is a hard language, too. It's hard to get your tongue
to move correctly to pronounce the words.

Crystal, who thought "natural" reading meant naked, or at least in cotton
underwear

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/14/2003 11:02:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
AimeeL73@... writes:

> Late reader, never reader, late hammerer,
> never hammerer, lol, who cares?

AH! Unfortunately, a LOT of people---that's why SOOO many $$$ are being
shoveled into public and private schools and special ed/therapy/psychiatrists'
offices. It IS more important that kids learn to read. It's NOT important at all
that they learn to hammer.

Dogs and horses and gardening and remodeling and children and conferences
aren't as important as algebra and chemistry and Shakespeare. That's the way of
the country.

~Kelly


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

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/13/03 10:25:48 PM, mina@... writes:

<< >Humans have a complexity that makes "natural" involve itself in more than

>just the abilities of a newborn in isolation.

>Sandra


And I think that is the point many are making. Reading is not "natural" in

a human sense. >>

Meaning WHAT?
"I a human sense" means with culture and and language and artifacts.

There is a very cool article in the current National Geographic (August 2003)
about an Amazon tribe which has not been studied. They're studying them in
their absence (which is still too much, but better than they would have done
thirty years ago, for SURE) knows about this other tribe and says they're wild.

A tribe without many artifacts! A few.
I doubt they could be said to be "without much culture," though.

http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0308/feature1/index.html
<A HREF="http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0308/feature1/index.html">
Into the Amazon @ National Geographic Magazine</A>

Not the whole article, and not all the photos! But if you get that magazine
or can borrow one, it's worth a look. I saw it at the dentist's office, and
though my mother-in-law gives us all their back issues in batches a time or two
a year, I might go spring for this one to read it all now.

Interestingly, I'd been discussing with the dental tech about irritating
sounds--nails on blackboards, squeaking balloons (which don't bother me), metal on
hard surface (which DOES bother me), how it might be worse at high elevation
and thin atmosphere, and I had said "Maybe in the Amazon there are people who
have never heard any high-pitched or irritating noises." I walked out to
wait for x-ray discussion time, and there on top of the magazine pile was an
article about Amazon tribes without metal.

So even without printed word or written language there is still a culture for
children to learn and they learn it by being a part of it, not by being
removed from it. That's what The Continuum Concept is all about.

http://www.continuum-concept.org/
<A HREF="http://www.continuum-concept.org/">The Liedloff Continuum Network -
Home Page</A>

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/13/03 10:25:48 PM, mina@... writes:

<< If it is something our children need, in our culture, they will get it

through unschooling. >>

I agree strongly.
Sorry I got off on the Amazon and didn't come back to the "I think you're
right" part.

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/14/03 4:51:46 AM, kbcdlovejo@... writes:

<< > Here is a good question to ponder.. I may do some research on it. If
> someone
> does not attain a "good level" of reading skills ( I would say, for a frame
> of reference, about a typical 5th-6th grade level) by the time they are ..
> say.. 18, or an adult, will it be difficult for them to improve thier
> reading
> skills as adults? I can see this type of scenario. Kid reads at a
level
>
> comfortable for them., they are not interested in reading better, because
> what
> they know gets them by. They know how to read what they want to read and
> that
> is all that is important to them. OK.. great! Kid is now an adult, wants
> to
> go to college.. or maybe pursue a job that requires reading and
> comprehension
> at a higher level than they have learned... I wonder how they would deal
> with
> that... It's an interesting thought.. >>

Do you KNOW any unschooled non-readers? An account of the lastest reader I
know of is here:

http://sandradodd.com/reading
<A HREF="http://sandradodd.com/reading">Learning to Read Naturally</A>

The second article, "I can Breathe again..."

I know this guy. He just turned nineteen. Holly and Marty were at the
birthday party last night--Pizza Hut, then the ice skating rink, then Denny's.
Wow.

Liam reads for fun, and novels.

He and his sister still live at home. They have a younger sister, 14,
they're helping take care of (as both parents and both twins are working various
different times and places) and an older brother living on his own now.

My husband, Keith, read constantly until his eyes went bad. He still can
read but needs more careful conditions, and has glasses. He probably woudln't
need glasses, but he got acid splashed in his eyes when he was early-20's and
working in a geo lab, and then four years or so ago he had a detached retina.
Probably from that SCA fighting, getting hit on the help with a rattan sword
just too many times.

Marty, our least wordy/reading kid, picked up and is most of the way through
a Henry Treece historical kids' novel. He was really happy to know we have
more of them upstairs. They're violent, for kids' novels. Vikings and Saxons
and axes and swords and drownings and animals. I was Marty's age when I was
reading them. I was reading them because they were at the school library and
I was working through everything medieval. I was reading them because it was
escape from my family and from school. Marty reads because he likes the
story, and he likes the story even better than continuuing that new Star War's
video game, and even better than hanging out with his friends, sometimes.

So for Marty that book is more wonderful and more valuable than it was for
me. For him it's the best of several goods. For me it was escape from various
irritants.

Sandra

Sandra

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/14/03 10:17:16 AM, crystal.pina@... writes:

<< He just

figured out that "ph" makes the "f" sound--LOL. He doesn't understand why,

though. >>

Greek.
All the "ph" words are from Greek.

<<Crystal, who thought "natural" reading meant naked, or at least in cotton

underwear>>

Maybe without glasses, too. That means I can no longer read naturally. Darn
it.
Maybe naturally with really big print.

Sandra

Kelly Lenhart

In a message dated 8/13/03 10:25:48 PM, mina@... writes:
<< If it is something our children need, in our culture, they will get it
through unschooling. >>

>I agree strongly.
>Sorry I got off on the Amazon and didn't come back to the "I think you're
>right" part.

>Sandra

No problem, and I'm off to look up that article.

I, for one, find the differences in cultures AMAZING. There is a book I was
given when pregnant with my now 2 year old called Our Babies, Our Selves all
about how different cultures do different things with their infants and
toddlers because of the different expectations on adults. We have seperate
rooms for our kids because in the US we expect the individual to be the
norm. In other countries, co-sleeping is the norm because the family unit
is the "base."

I highly recommend the book. Talk about questioning our assumptions. Great
stuff.

Kelly

[email protected]

denizmartinez@... writes:
> Okay, enough babbling from me for now, LOL...
> Deniz :)

I've loved all of your posts, need more time in a day to read those links you
sent tho.....


~Aimee


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

[email protected]

mina@... writes:
> And we here, in an unschooling context, are questioning just how much of a
> part of our lives reading needs to take up. Is it, in fact, something that
> ALL humans need to do, or something that is a part of our cultural make up?
> And if it IS cultural, then that only supports the idea that "pushing
> reading" like pushing any other learning, is NOT something we need to worry
> about.
>
> If it is something our children need, in our culture, they will get it
> through unschooling.
>
> Kelly
>


Bingo, baby. Couldn't say it ANY better.

Altho I would add that this may sound subversive, radical,
strange....basically hard to accept. If I told any of my friends with kids that I didn't find
reading that important (it's not any more important than art, or music, or
history), they would think I'd cracked my skull. ;-)

~Aimee


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

[email protected]

kbcdlovejo@... writes:
> It IS more important that kids learn to read. It's NOT important at all
> that they learn to hammer.
>
> Dogs and horses and gardening and remodeling and children and conferences
> aren't as important as algebra and chemistry and Shakespeare. That's the way
> of
> the country.
>
> ~Kelly


As I like to say, facetiously, perhaps, "But not in MY world." lol
Altho I do have As You Like It on my shelf and on my to read list. :-)
I happen to actually LIKE Shakespeare.

~Aimee


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

Kelly Lenhart

> If I told any of my friends with kids that I didn't find
>reading that important (it's not any more important than art, or music, or
>history), they would think I'd cracked my skull. ;-)
>~Aimee


I'm a writer, and a voracious reader. It has been SOOOOO hard for me to
step back and just let my son "read" as he wishes. He's seven, knows how to
read, and reads mostly from video games and game guides. It's been
amazingly difficult for me to make the transition to "He's reading fine,
reads what he wants, it's got great vocabulary, etc." from, "But he needs to
be reading "books."

I'm getting there. Really, I am.

Kelly