unlimited tv and computer time
Susan Van Cleave
So last week I decided to take the plunge and let the kids spend as much time as they wanted watching tv and playing on the computer. By late morning the constant tv and computer noise was wearing on me. I have the same reaction on the weekends when my husband's home. He likes to have the tv on as background noise. I don't think this is just the need for a paradigm shift on my part but I would like to get some feedback.
Susan V
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Susan V
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pam sorooshian
On Feb 8, 2004, at 9:11 PM, Susan Van Cleave wrote:
constantly....
that just isn't the case in unschooling families that I know of that
have no limits.
The kids have interests that they are involved in and that keep them
busy and the kids become selective about what they want to watch. They
choose to watch or not - they aren't just drawn in and glued to the tv
with their brains disengaged.
When my kids were little I simply made them offers they didn't want to
refuse, to join me in other activities -- not because I thought tv was
evil or dangerous, but partly because, like you, I'm bugged by the
sound. Sometimes we'd sit in front of the tv, with it on, and get
started with something and, when they were involved, I'd ask, "Can we
turn the tv off - the sound is bothering me?"
Instead of just going with "no limits" -- maybe you could just stop
thinking about the tv one way or the other - but focus on providing
such a stimulating interesting exciting environment and enjoying that
with your kids?
And - consider wireless headphones for the tv - they're a blessing for
those of us who get cranky when there is background sound going too
much of the time.
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
> I don't think this is just the need for a paradigm shift on my partSusan and all those who think "no limits on tv" means the tv will be on
> but I would like to get some feedback.
constantly....
that just isn't the case in unschooling families that I know of that
have no limits.
The kids have interests that they are involved in and that keep them
busy and the kids become selective about what they want to watch. They
choose to watch or not - they aren't just drawn in and glued to the tv
with their brains disengaged.
When my kids were little I simply made them offers they didn't want to
refuse, to join me in other activities -- not because I thought tv was
evil or dangerous, but partly because, like you, I'm bugged by the
sound. Sometimes we'd sit in front of the tv, with it on, and get
started with something and, when they were involved, I'd ask, "Can we
turn the tv off - the sound is bothering me?"
Instead of just going with "no limits" -- maybe you could just stop
thinking about the tv one way or the other - but focus on providing
such a stimulating interesting exciting environment and enjoying that
with your kids?
And - consider wireless headphones for the tv - they're a blessing for
those of us who get cranky when there is background sound going too
much of the time.
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
Robyn Coburn
<<So last week I decided to take the plunge and let the kids spend as much
time as they wanted watching tv and playing on the computer. By late
morning the constant tv and computer noise was wearing on me. I have the
same reaction on the weekends when my husband's home. He likes to have the
tv on as background noise. I don't think this is just the need for a
paradigm shift on my part but I would like to get some feedback.>>
What do you say to your husband about how you feel?
It�s ok to say to the kids, �Hey guys that�s a little too loud for me.� Try
to avoid �Turn down that crap!!! I can�t stand it anymore!!!� ;)
We bought Jayn a set of small and comfy headphones for her TV. I don�t know
if they will also work with the computer yet.
Sometimes the sound of someone doing something we don�t agree with
wholeheartedly can be more grating than if we were genuinely supportive of
it. Sometimes it is just plain too loud. My dh is a ham radio operator �
sometimes it is like having five boring strangers in your living room having
a boring conversation about how stupid and boring the other guy is.
Occasionally it is funny or informative. I usually go to the other room when
he is doing a big session. If I need to be right there and tuning it out
hasn�t worked, I say, �Honey, that�s a little too loud�. Generally he just
hasn�t noticed my discomfort. He also has a set of headphones. Hey wait a
minute�I�m the only one without headphones!
(PS: The actual amount of time on will likely decrease once the kids truly
realize you aren�t going to go back to limiting.)
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
time as they wanted watching tv and playing on the computer. By late
morning the constant tv and computer noise was wearing on me. I have the
same reaction on the weekends when my husband's home. He likes to have the
tv on as background noise. I don't think this is just the need for a
paradigm shift on my part but I would like to get some feedback.>>
What do you say to your husband about how you feel?
It�s ok to say to the kids, �Hey guys that�s a little too loud for me.� Try
to avoid �Turn down that crap!!! I can�t stand it anymore!!!� ;)
We bought Jayn a set of small and comfy headphones for her TV. I don�t know
if they will also work with the computer yet.
Sometimes the sound of someone doing something we don�t agree with
wholeheartedly can be more grating than if we were genuinely supportive of
it. Sometimes it is just plain too loud. My dh is a ham radio operator �
sometimes it is like having five boring strangers in your living room having
a boring conversation about how stupid and boring the other guy is.
Occasionally it is funny or informative. I usually go to the other room when
he is doing a big session. If I need to be right there and tuning it out
hasn�t worked, I say, �Honey, that�s a little too loud�. Generally he just
hasn�t noticed my discomfort. He also has a set of headphones. Hey wait a
minute�I�m the only one without headphones!
(PS: The actual amount of time on will likely decrease once the kids truly
realize you aren�t going to go back to limiting.)
Robyn L. Coburn
---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.567 / Virus Database: 358 - Release Date: 1/24/2004
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/9/2004 12:33:15 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sdwvancleave@... writes:
So last week I decided to take the plunge and let the kids spend as much time
as they wanted watching tv and playing on the computer. By late morning the
constant tv and computer noise was wearing on me. I have the same reaction on
the weekends when my husband's home. He likes to have the tv on as
background noise. I don't think this is just the need for a paradigm shift on my part
but I would like to get some feedback.<<<<
Ask them to turn it down? Maybe get earphones for the kids and the husband?
Earplugs for you? Or take a walk/get out of the house?
It bothers me sometimes too. We have three TVs. Duncan likes to play the
video games or watch cartoons in the den with me, but sometimes I ask him to take
it up to his room so that I can have some quiet. Cameron's TV is hardly ever
on. He listens to music or is playing music most of the time now. Ben & I don't
turn it on anymore unless there's something we want to watch; but when we
first got married, it was constant.
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sdwvancleave@... writes:
So last week I decided to take the plunge and let the kids spend as much time
as they wanted watching tv and playing on the computer. By late morning the
constant tv and computer noise was wearing on me. I have the same reaction on
the weekends when my husband's home. He likes to have the tv on as
background noise. I don't think this is just the need for a paradigm shift on my part
but I would like to get some feedback.<<<<
Ask them to turn it down? Maybe get earphones for the kids and the husband?
Earplugs for you? Or take a walk/get out of the house?
It bothers me sometimes too. We have three TVs. Duncan likes to play the
video games or watch cartoons in the den with me, but sometimes I ask him to take
it up to his room so that I can have some quiet. Cameron's TV is hardly ever
on. He listens to music or is playing music most of the time now. Ben & I don't
turn it on anymore unless there's something we want to watch; but when we
first got married, it was constant.
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Wife2Vegman
--- Susan Van Cleave <sdwvancleave@...> wrote:
Hi from another Susan!
I don't know if you did this, but when I let go of tv
restrictions, I let the kids watch as much as they
wanted, play nintendo as much as they wanted, play on
the computer, etc. and I walked away, thinking that
was what I was supposed to do.
I got on my computer and spent way too much time
sitting here reading the archives at
Unschoolingdiscussion and all the other lists, looking
stuff up, playing games, did the housework and
laundry, read books, etc.
I didn't try to engage the kids on any level. I threw
some food their direction at the proper times of the
day, and that was about it.
No wonder they never turned off the tv! I didn't sit
and watch with them, I didn't make suggestions about
going places or things we could do together.
I kept thinking, "when they have had enough they will
turn it off and come ask me for something else to do."
It wasn't until I read a post here that said
something to the effect that turning on the tv and not
offering (strewing) other things is not good. That if
tv is the only choice offered, why would they choose
anything else?
Now they choose to watch tv a lot, and we do, but I
might also say, "Does anyone want to make cookies? go
to the store? hey, the new air and space museum is
open, let's go check it out!" and they are just as
likely to choose one of those things.
Another suggestion here that was most helpful to me
was not to just drop all restrictions all at once, but
to just say "yes" more and more when asked, and ease
into it.
When I dropped all the restrictions at once the first
time we tried it, the kids were sort of scared and
lost, didn't adjust well, and I threw up my hands and
declared that unschooling didn't work and went back to
our miserable way of doing things because it felt
safer.
This time we eased into it a bit more slowly, and as
we (I) gained confidence, and said "yes" more and
more, the kids have felt safe and cared for and free
all at once.
=====
--Susan in VA
WifetoVegman
What is most important and valuable about the home as a base for children's growth into the world is not that it is a better school than the schools, but that it isn't a school at all. John Holt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
> So last week I decided to take the plunge and letSusan,
> the kids spend as much time as they wanted watching
> tv and playing on the computer. By late morning the
> constant tv and computer noise was wearing on me. I
> have the same reaction on the weekends when my
> husband's home. He likes to have the tv on as
> background noise. I don't think this is just the
> need for a paradigm shift on my part but I would
> like to get some feedback.
>
> Susan V
Hi from another Susan!
I don't know if you did this, but when I let go of tv
restrictions, I let the kids watch as much as they
wanted, play nintendo as much as they wanted, play on
the computer, etc. and I walked away, thinking that
was what I was supposed to do.
I got on my computer and spent way too much time
sitting here reading the archives at
Unschoolingdiscussion and all the other lists, looking
stuff up, playing games, did the housework and
laundry, read books, etc.
I didn't try to engage the kids on any level. I threw
some food their direction at the proper times of the
day, and that was about it.
No wonder they never turned off the tv! I didn't sit
and watch with them, I didn't make suggestions about
going places or things we could do together.
I kept thinking, "when they have had enough they will
turn it off and come ask me for something else to do."
It wasn't until I read a post here that said
something to the effect that turning on the tv and not
offering (strewing) other things is not good. That if
tv is the only choice offered, why would they choose
anything else?
Now they choose to watch tv a lot, and we do, but I
might also say, "Does anyone want to make cookies? go
to the store? hey, the new air and space museum is
open, let's go check it out!" and they are just as
likely to choose one of those things.
Another suggestion here that was most helpful to me
was not to just drop all restrictions all at once, but
to just say "yes" more and more when asked, and ease
into it.
When I dropped all the restrictions at once the first
time we tried it, the kids were sort of scared and
lost, didn't adjust well, and I threw up my hands and
declared that unschooling didn't work and went back to
our miserable way of doing things because it felt
safer.
This time we eased into it a bit more slowly, and as
we (I) gained confidence, and said "yes" more and
more, the kids have felt safe and cared for and free
all at once.
=====
--Susan in VA
WifetoVegman
What is most important and valuable about the home as a base for children's growth into the world is not that it is a better school than the schools, but that it isn't a school at all. John Holt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
Melissa
--- In [email protected], "Susan Van Cleave"
<sdwvancleave@m...> wrote:
<<So last week I decided to take the plunge and let the kids spend
as much time as they wanted watching tv and playing on the
computer. By late morning the constant tv and computer noise was
wearing on me. I have the same reaction on the weekends when my
husband's home. He likes to have the tv on as background noise. I
don't think this is just the need for a paradigm shift on my part
but I would like to get some feedback.
Susan V>>
There is usally a phase that the kids will go through where they
really will sit and watch tv or play on the computer all day, simply
to see if you will stick to your "no limits" new attitude. I think
that, as they realize that you really will not go back to limiting
their time, this will slack off.
However, you have to make sure that there are other options
available to them. My DD watches tv or movies a lot. If you read
some of my old posts, this used to bother me, and sometimes still
does until I start to notice that she's not just watching tv. She
is playing with her toys, turning on her radio and singing along,
getting out her books and reading them, playing story games with me,
playing board games with me. And, if the weather permits, we go to
the park a lot or go out do other things that we all enjoy as a
family. She can be really into a movie or tv show and, as soon as I
say, "let's go play with Blue (her dog)" she turns around and heads
straight for the back door. Or if I say "Karen, want to go out and
do _______" she looks at me and yells "yes!" Just make sure that
there are other options available to them.
As for the noise, I like to have the tv on for background noise
myself. I can be cleaning or cooking or even reading and I will
still have the tv on. So, I can't help you there...hopefully others
can. :)
Melissa
<sdwvancleave@m...> wrote:
<<So last week I decided to take the plunge and let the kids spend
as much time as they wanted watching tv and playing on the
computer. By late morning the constant tv and computer noise was
wearing on me. I have the same reaction on the weekends when my
husband's home. He likes to have the tv on as background noise. I
don't think this is just the need for a paradigm shift on my part
but I would like to get some feedback.
Susan V>>
There is usally a phase that the kids will go through where they
really will sit and watch tv or play on the computer all day, simply
to see if you will stick to your "no limits" new attitude. I think
that, as they realize that you really will not go back to limiting
their time, this will slack off.
However, you have to make sure that there are other options
available to them. My DD watches tv or movies a lot. If you read
some of my old posts, this used to bother me, and sometimes still
does until I start to notice that she's not just watching tv. She
is playing with her toys, turning on her radio and singing along,
getting out her books and reading them, playing story games with me,
playing board games with me. And, if the weather permits, we go to
the park a lot or go out do other things that we all enjoy as a
family. She can be really into a movie or tv show and, as soon as I
say, "let's go play with Blue (her dog)" she turns around and heads
straight for the back door. Or if I say "Karen, want to go out and
do _______" she looks at me and yells "yes!" Just make sure that
there are other options available to them.
As for the noise, I like to have the tv on for background noise
myself. I can be cleaning or cooking or even reading and I will
still have the tv on. So, I can't help you there...hopefully others
can. :)
Melissa
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/9/2004 12:33:15 AM Eastern Standard Time,
sdwvancleave@... writes:
<<By late morning the constant tv and computer noise was wearing on me. I
have the same reaction on the weekends when my husband's home. He likes to have
the tv on as background noise. I don't think this is just the need for a
paradigm shift on my part but I would like to get some feedback.>>
Continuous noise really gets to me, and I live with 5 children age 6-15 and 3
TV's, 2 computers, PS 2, and N64 in a rather small apartment. All of us also
like to listen to music and play several instruments! It is not unusual to
find everybody in the same room singing different songs! Two of my children
also seem to have problems with a lot of background noise. The other 3 seem to
think *the noisier, the better*. Here are some things I've done to help me
deal.
We try to separate sources of noise as much as possible...one computer
upstairs, one down; same with the video games. Everybody is encouraged to shut
doors to avoid spreading noises to other parts of the house. We have headphones
available for people to use when they are listening to things by themselves.
These are used most often by Emily who likes to watch music DVD's on the main
TV. Everybody feels free to ask others to turn things down if they start to
feel stressed out by the noise levels. We all try to be respectful of each
other and take turns having our favorite *sources of noise* on. Everybody also
turns anything off if they've stopped listening/watching. Sometimes if I'm the
one with a problem, I'll go for a walk by myself or invite one of my children
to go with me.
--Jacqueline
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
sdwvancleave@... writes:
<<By late morning the constant tv and computer noise was wearing on me. I
have the same reaction on the weekends when my husband's home. He likes to have
the tv on as background noise. I don't think this is just the need for a
paradigm shift on my part but I would like to get some feedback.>>
Continuous noise really gets to me, and I live with 5 children age 6-15 and 3
TV's, 2 computers, PS 2, and N64 in a rather small apartment. All of us also
like to listen to music and play several instruments! It is not unusual to
find everybody in the same room singing different songs! Two of my children
also seem to have problems with a lot of background noise. The other 3 seem to
think *the noisier, the better*. Here are some things I've done to help me
deal.
We try to separate sources of noise as much as possible...one computer
upstairs, one down; same with the video games. Everybody is encouraged to shut
doors to avoid spreading noises to other parts of the house. We have headphones
available for people to use when they are listening to things by themselves.
These are used most often by Emily who likes to watch music DVD's on the main
TV. Everybody feels free to ask others to turn things down if they start to
feel stressed out by the noise levels. We all try to be respectful of each
other and take turns having our favorite *sources of noise* on. Everybody also
turns anything off if they've stopped listening/watching. Sometimes if I'm the
one with a problem, I'll go for a walk by myself or invite one of my children
to go with me.
--Jacqueline
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Diane
When we first got the TV, I was really irritated by the noise too. What
worked for me was to take a deep breath and realize that this, too, will
pass. At first they watched constantly, but now only when they want to,
and I'm also not so used to the silence. It's better.
:-) Diane
Susan Van Cleave wrote:
worked for me was to take a deep breath and realize that this, too, will
pass. At first they watched constantly, but now only when they want to,
and I'm also not so used to the silence. It's better.
:-) Diane
Susan Van Cleave wrote:
>So last week I decided to take the plunge and let the kids spend as much time as they wanted watching tv and playing on the computer. By late morning the constant tv and computer noise was wearing on me. I have the same reaction on the weekends when my husband's home. He likes to have the tv on as background noise. I don't think this is just the need for a paradigm shift on my part but I would like to get some feedback.
>
>Susan V
>
J. Stauffer
<<<<< I have the same reaction on the weekends when my husband's home. He
likes to have the tv on as background noise.>>>>>
So how do you handle it with your dh?
Our kids have the right to as much respect (possibly more) than we show
other adults. Do you tell dh it is time to turn off the tv and do something
useful? Do you resent the noise? Do you stare daggers at him, hoping he
will turn it off? Do you keep your mouth shut and find something to
entertain yourself? Do you watch with him?
I would suggest, if the tv is annoying to you, you go find you something to
do for a few weeks and let the kids explore the tv. They will watch some
really cool stuff and some real fluff and some stuff that may make you
uncomfortable. This is why it would be better for you to quit worrying
about what annoys you and spend some time with your kids doing what seems
important to them. They will want to share the really cool stuff with you
and you will want to share the "uncomfortable stuff" with them.
Julie S.
likes to have the tv on as background noise.>>>>>
So how do you handle it with your dh?
Our kids have the right to as much respect (possibly more) than we show
other adults. Do you tell dh it is time to turn off the tv and do something
useful? Do you resent the noise? Do you stare daggers at him, hoping he
will turn it off? Do you keep your mouth shut and find something to
entertain yourself? Do you watch with him?
I would suggest, if the tv is annoying to you, you go find you something to
do for a few weeks and let the kids explore the tv. They will watch some
really cool stuff and some real fluff and some stuff that may make you
uncomfortable. This is why it would be better for you to quit worrying
about what annoys you and spend some time with your kids doing what seems
important to them. They will want to share the really cool stuff with you
and you will want to share the "uncomfortable stuff" with them.
Julie S.
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/8/04 10:33:16 PM, sdwvancleave@... writes:
<< I don't think this is just the need for a paradigm shift on my part but I
would like to get some feedback. >>
What else would it be?
<<So last week I decided to take the plunge and let the kids spend as much
time as they wanted watching tv and playing on the computer. By late morning
the constant tv and computer noise was wearing on me. >>
You didn't even last half a day.
Sandra
<< I don't think this is just the need for a paradigm shift on my part but I
would like to get some feedback. >>
What else would it be?
<<So last week I decided to take the plunge and let the kids spend as much
time as they wanted watching tv and playing on the computer. By late morning
the constant tv and computer noise was wearing on me. >>
You didn't even last half a day.
Sandra
kate_sitzman
Okay, I am probably speaking waaaay out of turn here since I'm brand
new to unschooling and this list... It's just that so much about
unschooling is making sense to me right now, but I am having a
really hard time getting my head around this one. I am just finding
it so counterintuitive that there is so much support for television
among unschoolers. I assumed people would have access to television,
but it surprises me that people are comfortable with making it a
such a large part of their lives. If it's considered undesirable for
a child to sit in a classroom being fed someone elses curriculum on
someone elses schedule, how is TV any better? I guess I think of TV
as just network curriculum on network schedule usually with some
advertising to boot. It doesn't seem equivalent to having firsthand
life experiences, as isn't it just a way of watching other people's
(mostly fabricated) third or fourthhand life experiences through a
lens? I don't hate TV, but I definitely don't put it on equal
footing with a lot of other activies. Is it just about letting the
child make the choice? Are subject matter and program ratings
controlled by the child as well? These are probably sounding like
boring newbie questions, but, as I said, I'm just hitting a major
blindspot here. If my kids don't watch TV, would unschoolers tell me
to turn it on, or is it just that if my kids are already watching
that I shouldn't tell them when to turn it off?
Thanks for your patience,
Kate
new to unschooling and this list... It's just that so much about
unschooling is making sense to me right now, but I am having a
really hard time getting my head around this one. I am just finding
it so counterintuitive that there is so much support for television
among unschoolers. I assumed people would have access to television,
but it surprises me that people are comfortable with making it a
such a large part of their lives. If it's considered undesirable for
a child to sit in a classroom being fed someone elses curriculum on
someone elses schedule, how is TV any better? I guess I think of TV
as just network curriculum on network schedule usually with some
advertising to boot. It doesn't seem equivalent to having firsthand
life experiences, as isn't it just a way of watching other people's
(mostly fabricated) third or fourthhand life experiences through a
lens? I don't hate TV, but I definitely don't put it on equal
footing with a lot of other activies. Is it just about letting the
child make the choice? Are subject matter and program ratings
controlled by the child as well? These are probably sounding like
boring newbie questions, but, as I said, I'm just hitting a major
blindspot here. If my kids don't watch TV, would unschoolers tell me
to turn it on, or is it just that if my kids are already watching
that I shouldn't tell them when to turn it off?
Thanks for your patience,
Kate
[email protected]
kate_sitzman@... writes:
they can experience Mars on the Internet live in real time, right now? And isn't
reading a book even further removed from firsthand life experience than
viewing? Do you recoil from reading based on this same reasoning?
You know, it's possible for the act of reading itself to be a
firsthand and extremely engaging experience. That's how I've always felt about
reading, and it seems to have rubbed off on my kids. But we're exactly the same way
about movies and plays and opera and television too. Live or filmed or aired on
tv or printed on the page or merely observed in a train station, we're drawn
to the Power of Story in every form.
About being new to unschooling and just not getting this part, I
wonder if it would help you to articulate to yourself exactly what it is you do get
about it. Why you are drawn to it and how you picture it being good for your
kids. Then it might be easier to see tv within that frame instead of through
the teaching-judging-evaluating frame. I've come to believe what's wrong about
school isn't so much the stuff it imposes on kids. It's what it takes away or
diminishes or spoils. JJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> It doesn't seem equivalent to having firsthandWhy use this criterion to limit what's available to your kids, when
> life experiences, as isn't it just a way of watching other people's
> (mostly fabricated) third or fourthhand life experiences through a
> lens?
they can experience Mars on the Internet live in real time, right now? And isn't
reading a book even further removed from firsthand life experience than
viewing? Do you recoil from reading based on this same reasoning?
You know, it's possible for the act of reading itself to be a
firsthand and extremely engaging experience. That's how I've always felt about
reading, and it seems to have rubbed off on my kids. But we're exactly the same way
about movies and plays and opera and television too. Live or filmed or aired on
tv or printed on the page or merely observed in a train station, we're drawn
to the Power of Story in every form.
About being new to unschooling and just not getting this part, I
wonder if it would help you to articulate to yourself exactly what it is you do get
about it. Why you are drawn to it and how you picture it being good for your
kids. Then it might be easier to see tv within that frame instead of through
the teaching-judging-evaluating frame. I've come to believe what's wrong about
school isn't so much the stuff it imposes on kids. It's what it takes away or
diminishes or spoils. JJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
kate_sitzman
Thanks, your response was very insightful. I guess I am trying to
resolve two things here, the first is my own logical disconnect from
my understanding of unschooling and the role of TV (I just didn't
expect to find the enthusiasm for TV here that I did - feeling TV
was a bit schoolish) and the second thing was coming to terms with
my own issues surrounding TV in my own home. I got the impression
from this board that if I didn't embrace the TV I wasn't really
embracing an important element of unschooling, and I'm a bit
skeptical about whether I can make that leap. The first question,
I'm pretty close on, but I have a ways to go on the second.
I guess I don't put reading in the same category as TV since it
leaves so much more to the imagination - relying on the reader to
create a substantial body of original supplementary material,
whereas TV does so much of that for you. I agree that there are many
things TV does better than any other medium, but I have a hard time
accepting that it should recieve equal weight to other activities,
or be accepted entirely uncritically.
You said:
what's wrong with TV, or a particular program, but I think it has a
tendency speak louder than other media (flashier, available 24x7,
easier to absorb, so many channels) and crowd out other things. I
guess I am just someone who sees real value in a little boredom. I
know when my son has a few minutes of it, that's when his best ideas
seem to hit, and I worry that the TV will interfere with that... I
know it does for me.
Anyway, I am enjoying reading everything on this board a great deal,
thanks for being here.
Kate
resolve two things here, the first is my own logical disconnect from
my understanding of unschooling and the role of TV (I just didn't
expect to find the enthusiasm for TV here that I did - feeling TV
was a bit schoolish) and the second thing was coming to terms with
my own issues surrounding TV in my own home. I got the impression
from this board that if I didn't embrace the TV I wasn't really
embracing an important element of unschooling, and I'm a bit
skeptical about whether I can make that leap. The first question,
I'm pretty close on, but I have a ways to go on the second.
I guess I don't put reading in the same category as TV since it
leaves so much more to the imagination - relying on the reader to
create a substantial body of original supplementary material,
whereas TV does so much of that for you. I agree that there are many
things TV does better than any other medium, but I have a hard time
accepting that it should recieve equal weight to other activities,
or be accepted entirely uncritically.
You said:
>I've come to believe what's wrong abouttakes away or
> school isn't so much the stuff it imposes on kids. It's what it
> diminishes or spoils.I guess that's what hangs me up here - I don't believe it's so much
what's wrong with TV, or a particular program, but I think it has a
tendency speak louder than other media (flashier, available 24x7,
easier to absorb, so many channels) and crowd out other things. I
guess I am just someone who sees real value in a little boredom. I
know when my son has a few minutes of it, that's when his best ideas
seem to hit, and I worry that the TV will interfere with that... I
know it does for me.
Anyway, I am enjoying reading everything on this board a great deal,
thanks for being here.
Kate
--- In [email protected], jrossedd@a... wrote:
> kate_sitzman@h... writes:
>
>
> > It doesn't seem equivalent to having firsthand
> > life experiences, as isn't it just a way of watching other
people's
> > (mostly fabricated) third or fourthhand life experiences through
a
> > lens?
>
>
> Why use this criterion to limit what's available to your
kids, when
> they can experience Mars on the Internet live in real time, right
now? And isn't
> reading a book even further removed from firsthand life experience
than
> viewing? Do you recoil from reading based on this same reasoning?
>
> You know, it's possible for the act of reading itself to be
a
> firsthand and extremely engaging experience. That's how I've
always felt about
> reading, and it seems to have rubbed off on my kids. But we're
exactly the same way
> about movies and plays and opera and television too. Live or
filmed or aired on
> tv or printed on the page or merely observed in a train station,
we're drawn
> to the Power of Story in every form.
>
> About being new to unschooling and just not getting this
part, I
> wonder if it would help you to articulate to yourself exactly what
it is you do get
> about it. Why you are drawn to it and how you picture it being
good for your
> kids. Then it might be easier to see tv within that frame instead
of through
> the teaching-judging-evaluating frame. I've come to believe what's
wrong about
> school isn't so much the stuff it imposes on kids. It's what it
takes away or
> diminishes or spoils. JJ
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
liza sabater
On Monday, February 9, 2004, at 09:05 PM, kate_sitzman wrote:
seriously Pam's request of reading the archives and holding off on
posting for a bit. You've just gotten in the middle of a discussion
spanning several threads that are just a few days worth ---and very
juicy and informative threads, may I add.
Here are the topics what you need to look at in order to make sense of
the TV discussion:
1. Varieties of Unschoolers (Feb 6)
2. Screen Time and Varieties of Unschoolers (Feb 8)
3. Screen Time (Feb 8)
4. Doing instead of wishing (Feb 8)
5. Kids' Brains and Watching TV (Feb 8)
6. watching TV with kids (Feb 8)
7. Studies on TV (Feb 8)
8. t.v. shows
and of course, this thread:
9. unlimited tv and computer time
Also, you may want to go through the discussion on new members not
heeding the request of moderators to read through the archives and,
thusly, posting questions that are repetitious:
1. Question about how people learn about unschooling (Feb 6-7)
Be prepared to read about 400 emails worth of amazing insight into this
"TV or not TV".
Cheers,
l i z a
=========================
www.culturekitchen.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Okay, I am probably speaking waaaay out of turn here since I'm brandyes ...
> new to unschooling and this list...
> It's just that so much aboutLet me just stress, how important it is for new members to really take
> unschooling is making sense to me right now, but I am having a
> really hard time getting my head around this one. I am just finding
> it so counterintuitive that there is so much support for television
> among unschoolers.
seriously Pam's request of reading the archives and holding off on
posting for a bit. You've just gotten in the middle of a discussion
spanning several threads that are just a few days worth ---and very
juicy and informative threads, may I add.
Here are the topics what you need to look at in order to make sense of
the TV discussion:
1. Varieties of Unschoolers (Feb 6)
2. Screen Time and Varieties of Unschoolers (Feb 8)
3. Screen Time (Feb 8)
4. Doing instead of wishing (Feb 8)
5. Kids' Brains and Watching TV (Feb 8)
6. watching TV with kids (Feb 8)
7. Studies on TV (Feb 8)
8. t.v. shows
and of course, this thread:
9. unlimited tv and computer time
Also, you may want to go through the discussion on new members not
heeding the request of moderators to read through the archives and,
thusly, posting questions that are repetitious:
1. Question about how people learn about unschooling (Feb 6-7)
Be prepared to read about 400 emails worth of amazing insight into this
"TV or not TV".
Cheers,
l i z a
=========================
www.culturekitchen.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 2/9/04 9:05 PM, kate_sitzman at kate_sitzman@... wrote:
Try rereading your post and replacing TV with books:
Scouts and bead kits and video games and the internet and plays.
None of those is equivalent to any other. Why limit your kids to life they
can experience first hand when other resources can get them more of the
world in a different way?
And it's okay if kids don't watch National Geographic Channel. It's okay if
kids enjoy Spongebob Squarepants and Simpsons and Ed, Edd and Eddie. Would
we be nervous if kids were reading the same stories in books, or watching a
live story teller?
can make money off of them. How seriously does that agenda and those
limitiations imposed by publishers affect your children?
good for them and bad for them rather than things they're interested in and
things they aren't (yet) interested in.
What if you felt that way about museums? How would that affect your
children? Wouldn't it be a good idea to figure out how to let go of that
idea so that your children could explore more freely without moms biases in
their way?
Joyce
Try rereading your post and replacing TV with books:
> but I am having a[snip]
> really hard time getting my head around this one. I am just finding
> it so counterintuitive that there is so much support for books
> among unschoolers. I assumed people would have access to books,
> but it surprises me that people are comfortable with making them
> such a large part of their lives.
> Books don't seem equivalent to having firsthandTV is a resource like books and people and museums and mudpits and Girl
> life experiences, as aren't they just a way of reading about other people's
> (mostly fabricated) third or fourthhand life experiences through
> words on a page? I don't hate books, but I definitely don't put them on equal
> footing with a lot of other activies. Is it just about letting the
> child make the choice? Are subject matter and book levels
> controlled by the child as well? These are probably sounding like
> boring newbie questions, but, as I said, I'm just hitting a major
> blindspot here. If my kids don't read books, would unschoolers tell me
> to make them read, or is it just that if my kids are already reading
> that I shouldn't tell them when to close the book?
Scouts and bead kits and video games and the internet and plays.
None of those is equivalent to any other. Why limit your kids to life they
can experience first hand when other resources can get them more of the
world in a different way?
And it's okay if kids don't watch National Geographic Channel. It's okay if
kids enjoy Spongebob Squarepants and Simpsons and Ed, Edd and Eddie. Would
we be nervous if kids were reading the same stories in books, or watching a
live story teller?
> If it's considered undesirable forBooks are chosen to be produced by publishers because publishers think they
> a child to sit in a classroom being fed someone elses curriculum on
> someone elses schedule, how is TV any better?
can make money off of them. How seriously does that agenda and those
limitiations imposed by publishers affect your children?
> I guess I think of TVThen you'll have a harder time unschooling if you're dividing the world into
> as just network curriculum on network schedule usually with some
> advertising to boot.
good for them and bad for them rather than things they're interested in and
things they aren't (yet) interested in.
What if you felt that way about museums? How would that affect your
children? Wouldn't it be a good idea to figure out how to let go of that
idea so that your children could explore more freely without moms biases in
their way?
Joyce
Diane
>If it's considered undesirable forI'm missing something here. I don't think anyone here would *make* their
>a child to sit in a classroom being fed someone elses curriculum on
>someone elses schedule, how is TV any better?
>
kids get up for a selected TV program, and then make them watch when
they were done or tired or bored. These are the hallmarks of being "fed
someone else's curriculum on someone else's schedule," not the kid
choosing to do something that interests him at that moment, even if it
*is* provided by a commercial entity. And really, besides birdsongs,
what's not?
>Are subject matter and program ratingsAs with anything else, if I see a video at the library that I think will
>controlled by the child as well?
>
interst my kids, I'll bring it home. If they're interested they'll watch
it; if not, they won't. Likewise if they see a video they think they'll
like at the library we'll get it. If I don't think they'll like it I'll
tell them so, but they really don't *want* inappropriate stuff--partly
because it's not forbidden fruit.
>If my kids don't watch TV, would unschoolers tell meIf there's something on your kids might like and they don't know about
>to turn it on, or is it just that if my kids are already watching
>that I shouldn't tell them when to turn it off?
>
it, yes, you might want to turn it on. But not just because it's their
new "curriculum" and now they *have to* do this. It wouldn't make any
sense, would it?
But it would be kind of mean to let a show on your child's most pressing
interest go by without viewing or taping when you knew it was there and
just didn't tell them about it.
:-) Diane
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/9/04 7:41:43 PM, kate_sitzman@... writes:
<< I assumed people would have access to television,
but it surprises me that people are comfortable with making it a
such a large part of their lives. >>
Allowing it to be.
Allowing for children to choose.
Not "making" in the "making it be" sense.
<<If it's considered undesirable for
a child to sit in a classroom being fed someone elses curriculum on
someone elses schedule, how is TV any better?>>
Nobody makes a child watch prescribed television programs for six hours a day
and then tests them, for main starters.
If school just at there and kids were free to go or not, school would be a
whole 'nother thing entirely.
<< I guess I think of TV
as just network curriculum on network schedule usually with some
advertising to boot.>>
How do you think of DVD/video?
How do you think of magazines?
Books?
<<It doesn't seem equivalent to having firsthand
life experiences, as isn't it just a way of watching other people's
(mostly fabricated) third or fourthhand life experiences through a
lens?>>
Do short stories and novels offend you?
<<I don't hate TV, but I definitely don't put it on equal
footing with a lot of other activies. Is it just about letting the
child make the choice? >>
It's not "just" any one thing, and letting a child make a choice shouldn't be
described with a "just." Letting children make choices is HUGE.
<<Are subject matter and program ratings
controlled by the child as well? >>
"Controlled?"
I think I know what you mean, but do you know what you mean?
Subject matter comes from the makers of the programs, and those programs are
not just thrown off without a thought. You see how many people are in the
credits. It's not like some few home videos. And "ratings" come from
committees of people who don't konw your kids at all whatsoever. Those are just
things.
I just read a book a friend sent me. It said on the cover it was for ages
8-12. How silly. He sent it so I could read it and we could discuss it.
We're 50. I'm not going to offer it to my kids. It's a total school story to
which they would not relate whatsoever. Ratings like that are not applicable
to unschooling nor to much else in the real world.
<< I'm just hitting a major
blindspot here. If my kids don't watch TV, would unschoolers tell me
to turn it on, or is it just that if my kids are already watching
that I shouldn't tell them when to turn it off?>>
I think it wouldn't be about the TV or the kids, but about your blindspot.
Sandra
<< I assumed people would have access to television,
but it surprises me that people are comfortable with making it a
such a large part of their lives. >>
Allowing it to be.
Allowing for children to choose.
Not "making" in the "making it be" sense.
<<If it's considered undesirable for
a child to sit in a classroom being fed someone elses curriculum on
someone elses schedule, how is TV any better?>>
Nobody makes a child watch prescribed television programs for six hours a day
and then tests them, for main starters.
If school just at there and kids were free to go or not, school would be a
whole 'nother thing entirely.
<< I guess I think of TV
as just network curriculum on network schedule usually with some
advertising to boot.>>
How do you think of DVD/video?
How do you think of magazines?
Books?
<<It doesn't seem equivalent to having firsthand
life experiences, as isn't it just a way of watching other people's
(mostly fabricated) third or fourthhand life experiences through a
lens?>>
Do short stories and novels offend you?
<<I don't hate TV, but I definitely don't put it on equal
footing with a lot of other activies. Is it just about letting the
child make the choice? >>
It's not "just" any one thing, and letting a child make a choice shouldn't be
described with a "just." Letting children make choices is HUGE.
<<Are subject matter and program ratings
controlled by the child as well? >>
"Controlled?"
I think I know what you mean, but do you know what you mean?
Subject matter comes from the makers of the programs, and those programs are
not just thrown off without a thought. You see how many people are in the
credits. It's not like some few home videos. And "ratings" come from
committees of people who don't konw your kids at all whatsoever. Those are just
things.
I just read a book a friend sent me. It said on the cover it was for ages
8-12. How silly. He sent it so I could read it and we could discuss it.
We're 50. I'm not going to offer it to my kids. It's a total school story to
which they would not relate whatsoever. Ratings like that are not applicable
to unschooling nor to much else in the real world.
<< I'm just hitting a major
blindspot here. If my kids don't watch TV, would unschoolers tell me
to turn it on, or is it just that if my kids are already watching
that I shouldn't tell them when to turn it off?>>
I think it wouldn't be about the TV or the kids, but about your blindspot.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/9/04 8:17:18 PM, jrossedd@... writes:
<< I've come to believe what's wrong about
school isn't so much the stuff it imposes on kids. It's what it takes away or
diminishes or spoils. >>
Yesterday I spoke with someone who has just taken a 14 year old out of
school.
The mom is a sociology professor and was not the most receptive person I've
talked to, but we have a mutual friend who recommended she talk to me, so we
hung in there through the conversation for her sake. She assured me there was
much about reading instruction I didn't know. Her son's dyslexic and she's
invested in the system. So it goes.
She was wanting opportunties for her son to meet other homeschoolers. The
teens do things on Tuesdays, but she teaches that day. She said he was a good
athlete and I mentioned Marty's ork ball games on Sundays. She asked what they
were like, and interrupted me within the first three sentences and said "He
might think it's too silly."
So I said "Then we don't want him there."
It was abrupt, but honest to god, kids who are so messed up by school that
they can no longer play would be a HUGE drag on that game. I told her there are
kids there from 9 to 19 who've played it for over a year and it's a good
workout and they usually play two seven-point games and have a blast.
But I was sad that she couldn't at least hear me out and THINK to herself "he
might think it's too silly" and then think to herself what a damned drag that
really was for him.
School tells kids some books aren't to be read after you're twelve, or that
if a kid is two years younger than you are, you are justified in belittling or
ignoring him unless and until you're both over 21 and he outranks you in some
now-inconceivable way.
And school, by those methods, creates false layers of "maturity" which people
pull on like masks, and they "act their age" in unnatural and non-useful ways.
Sandra
<< I've come to believe what's wrong about
school isn't so much the stuff it imposes on kids. It's what it takes away or
diminishes or spoils. >>
Yesterday I spoke with someone who has just taken a 14 year old out of
school.
The mom is a sociology professor and was not the most receptive person I've
talked to, but we have a mutual friend who recommended she talk to me, so we
hung in there through the conversation for her sake. She assured me there was
much about reading instruction I didn't know. Her son's dyslexic and she's
invested in the system. So it goes.
She was wanting opportunties for her son to meet other homeschoolers. The
teens do things on Tuesdays, but she teaches that day. She said he was a good
athlete and I mentioned Marty's ork ball games on Sundays. She asked what they
were like, and interrupted me within the first three sentences and said "He
might think it's too silly."
So I said "Then we don't want him there."
It was abrupt, but honest to god, kids who are so messed up by school that
they can no longer play would be a HUGE drag on that game. I told her there are
kids there from 9 to 19 who've played it for over a year and it's a good
workout and they usually play two seven-point games and have a blast.
But I was sad that she couldn't at least hear me out and THINK to herself "he
might think it's too silly" and then think to herself what a damned drag that
really was for him.
School tells kids some books aren't to be read after you're twelve, or that
if a kid is two years younger than you are, you are justified in belittling or
ignoring him unless and until you're both over 21 and he outranks you in some
now-inconceivable way.
And school, by those methods, creates false layers of "maturity" which people
pull on like masks, and they "act their age" in unnatural and non-useful ways.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/10/04 3:18:24 AM, fetteroll@... writes:
<< Then you'll have a harder time unschooling if you're dividing the world
into
good for them and bad for them rather than things they're interested in and
things they aren't (yet) interested in. >>
And it will be hard if you think you as the mom know for certain what is good
for them and bad for them. That would be blockading off things you THINK are
bad for them, and judging whether their interests are valid and good or not.
Too much thinking and control on your part.
If your house and your life have lots of interesting aspects and
opportunities and you observe your children instead of steering them, life will be bigger
and richer today, right now. You'll learn sooner how natural learning works
by letting it start to happen than by trying to manage it and catch it where
you THINK it will be.
Sandra
<< Then you'll have a harder time unschooling if you're dividing the world
into
good for them and bad for them rather than things they're interested in and
things they aren't (yet) interested in. >>
And it will be hard if you think you as the mom know for certain what is good
for them and bad for them. That would be blockading off things you THINK are
bad for them, and judging whether their interests are valid and good or not.
Too much thinking and control on your part.
If your house and your life have lots of interesting aspects and
opportunities and you observe your children instead of steering them, life will be bigger
and richer today, right now. You'll learn sooner how natural learning works
by letting it start to happen than by trying to manage it and catch it where
you THINK it will be.
Sandra
Danielle Conger
><feeling TV was a bit schoolish>------------------------------------
Are you thinking about SpongeBob and Kim Possible, or PBS series like Liberty's Kids and Abraham and Mary Lincoln: A House Divided--all of which we love in our house and hold our attention equally.
<I guess I don't put reading in the same category as TV since it
leaves so much more to the imagination - relying on the reader to
create a substantial body of original supplementary material,
whereas TV does so much of that for you.>
------------------------------------------
TV does no more of that than a book. My kids spend countless hours of imaginative play recreating stories from movies and tv, embellishing, rewriting, adding. I would argue that tv and movies fuel far more imaginative play than books, and we read a lot of books, too.
<but I think it has a tendency speak louder than other media (flashier, available 24x7,
easier to absorb, so many channels) and crowd out other things.>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Books, last time I checked, were available 24/7 as well. Books are far more portable than tv, making them potentially even more pervasive. When novels first became popular, parents and experts railed against them for precisely this reason--they could be carried with you anywhere, take up time from more useful activities at any moment, and they could be hidden!
Just some more things to think about. Keep reading, thinking and asking.
--danielle
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Jen Garrison Stuber
I, too, have the tv issue (well, actually, I don't have a tv issue,
because it sits in the back bedroom closet mostly gathering dust, but
I haven't offered it up for viewing any more than I did in our
pre-unschooling days (which was virtually none)) . . .
But I'm trying to wrap my head around the same question. I'm
wondering if maybe my view of tv coincides with Sandra's view of the
8-12 year old book . . .
could discuss it. > We're 50. I'm not going to offer it to my kids.
It's a total school story to > which they would not relate
whatsoever. Ratings like that are not applicable > to unschooling nor
to much else in the real world.
things you >THINK are bad for them, and judging whether their
interests are valid and >good or not. Too much thinking and control
on your part.
Help?
--Jen
because it sits in the back bedroom closet mostly gathering dust, but
I haven't offered it up for viewing any more than I did in our
pre-unschooling days (which was virtually none)) . . .
But I'm trying to wrap my head around the same question. I'm
wondering if maybe my view of tv coincides with Sandra's view of the
8-12 year old book . . .
> I just read a book a friend sent me. It said on the cover it wasfor ages > 8-12. How silly. He sent it so I could read it and we
could discuss it. > We're 50. I'm not going to offer it to my kids.
It's a total school story to > which they would not relate
whatsoever. Ratings like that are not applicable > to unschooling nor
to much else in the real world.
> Sandra. . . but then I read through the rest of today's posts . . .
>And it will be hard if you think you as the mom know for certain whatis >good for them and bad for them. That would be blockading off
things you >THINK are bad for them, and judging whether their
interests are valid and >good or not. Too much thinking and control
on your part.
>Sandra. . . and now I'm at a loss again.
Help?
--Jen
[email protected]
HA! You ought to see the Rosemond column in my local paper today,
headlined "Mothers face hurdles with home-schooling."
It's about a 6-year-old being hsed since August, after kindergarten at
school last year.
The mom writes that his motivation to work was "never" a problem at
school but he won't do his "work" for her at home.
"I have beautiful and interesting hands-on Montessori materials for
him. Nonetheless, the [discipline] problems are nearly constant. Today for
example, he ended up in his room by 10am, allowed to have only books and no screen
time for the rest of the week. I punished him for complaining, for lying down
(saying he was tired), not following directions and generally goofing off. Am
I on the right page here?"
Rosemond tells her yes. Put him back in school so he can be forced and
broken. You can't police him well enough on your own yet. (And naturally
policing and controlling and limiting are what learning is all about!)
As an unschooler, my sad thought was that the mom was honoring the
beautiful hand-on Montessori materials and HER need to obey her own internalized
rules every minute of every day, much more than she was willing to honor her
living, breathing, learning little boy.
Ironic, when you consider that Montessori materials are supposed to be
all about first-hand, child-constructed learning and discovery. How could
even a mom brainwashed by authority decide that Montessori should be forced on a
schedule as "work"? How could she not see the daily deprivation she doggedly
inflicts with her "eat this with a smile, or starve" power struggle approach to
a six-year-old? It's no different than power struggles over eating and
chores, and imo it can induce similar disorders and disabilities.
Meanwhile, can there be much doubt that internalized rules create
misery for both parents and kids?
Obviously this mom isn't coming HERE for advice. She wanted confimation
for her authoritarian approach, and got it. (Doesn't mean she isn't miserable
though!) The reason I bring it here is to show that even when your child is
home doesn't mean the spectre of school is lessened, unless you consciously
and conscientiously make it so.
And also, to show even committed unschoolers stumble over an
internalized rule now and then. Blind spots, Joyce just called them.
For me it was never the badness of tv, thank goodness, but I did try
hard for years to impose the "goodness" of arithmetic and daily piano practice.
With the predictable "miserable" results for all concerned.
In fairness, I didn't know then that what we were doing was considered
"unschooling" -- we were making it up as we went along, without outside help
-- but I see now that these were two unschooling blind spots that my
first-born had to live through. JJ
headlined "Mothers face hurdles with home-schooling."
It's about a 6-year-old being hsed since August, after kindergarten at
school last year.
The mom writes that his motivation to work was "never" a problem at
school but he won't do his "work" for her at home.
"I have beautiful and interesting hands-on Montessori materials for
him. Nonetheless, the [discipline] problems are nearly constant. Today for
example, he ended up in his room by 10am, allowed to have only books and no screen
time for the rest of the week. I punished him for complaining, for lying down
(saying he was tired), not following directions and generally goofing off. Am
I on the right page here?"
Rosemond tells her yes. Put him back in school so he can be forced and
broken. You can't police him well enough on your own yet. (And naturally
policing and controlling and limiting are what learning is all about!)
As an unschooler, my sad thought was that the mom was honoring the
beautiful hand-on Montessori materials and HER need to obey her own internalized
rules every minute of every day, much more than she was willing to honor her
living, breathing, learning little boy.
Ironic, when you consider that Montessori materials are supposed to be
all about first-hand, child-constructed learning and discovery. How could
even a mom brainwashed by authority decide that Montessori should be forced on a
schedule as "work"? How could she not see the daily deprivation she doggedly
inflicts with her "eat this with a smile, or starve" power struggle approach to
a six-year-old? It's no different than power struggles over eating and
chores, and imo it can induce similar disorders and disabilities.
Meanwhile, can there be much doubt that internalized rules create
misery for both parents and kids?
Obviously this mom isn't coming HERE for advice. She wanted confimation
for her authoritarian approach, and got it. (Doesn't mean she isn't miserable
though!) The reason I bring it here is to show that even when your child is
home doesn't mean the spectre of school is lessened, unless you consciously
and conscientiously make it so.
And also, to show even committed unschoolers stumble over an
internalized rule now and then. Blind spots, Joyce just called them.
For me it was never the badness of tv, thank goodness, but I did try
hard for years to impose the "goodness" of arithmetic and daily piano practice.
With the predictable "miserable" results for all concerned.
In fairness, I didn't know then that what we were doing was considered
"unschooling" -- we were making it up as we went along, without outside help
-- but I see now that these were two unschooling blind spots that my
first-born had to live through. JJ
> In a message dated 2/9/04 8:17:18 PM, jrossedd@... writes:[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> << I've come to believe what's wrong about
> school isn't so much the stuff it imposes on kids. It's what it takes away
> or
> diminishes or spoils. >>
>
> Yesterday I spoke with someone who has just taken a 14 year old out of
> school.
> The mom is a sociology professor and was not the most receptive person I've
> talked to, but we have a mutual friend who recommended she talk to me, so we
>
> hung in there through the conversation for her sake. She assured me there
> was
> much about reading instruction I didn't know. Her son's dyslexic and she's
> invested in the system. So it goes.
>
> She was wanting opportunties for her son to meet other homeschoolers. The
> teens do things on Tuesdays, but she teaches that day. She said he was a
> good
> athlete and I mentioned Marty's ork ball games on Sundays. She asked what
> they
> were like, and interrupted me within the first three sentences and said "He
> might think it's too silly."
>
> So I said "Then we don't want him there."
>
> It was abrupt, but honest to god, kids who are so messed up by school that
> they can no longer play would be a HUGE drag on that game. I told her there
> are
> kids there from 9 to 19 who've played it for over a year and it's a good
> workout and they usually play two seven-point games and have a blast.
>
> But I was sad that she couldn't at least hear me out and THINK to herself
> "he
> might think it's too silly" and then think to herself what a damned drag
> that
> really was for him.
>
> School tells kids some books aren't to be read after you're twelve, or that
> if a kid is two years younger than you are, you are justified in belittling
> or
> ignoring him unless and until you're both over 21 and he outranks you in
> some
> now-inconceivable way.
>
> And school, by those methods, creates false layers of "maturity" which
> people
> pull on like masks, and they "act their age" in unnatural and non-useful
> ways.
>
> Sandra
>
>
>
[email protected]
>>>>>>>In a message dated 2/10/2004 8:57:42 AM Eastern Standard Time,kate_sitzman@... writes:
but I have a hard time
accepting that it should recieve equal weight to other activities, <<<<<<<
The equal weight point: everyone has different ways of collecting
information, different ways of connecting the dots. If *I* were your mother, what if I
said, "Honey, we only get our information from TV. No books! Do you understand?
Books are just "eye-candy"; they don't have the wonderful visuals that TV has.
On TV you can *see* the tundras of Alaska, you can *see* a cheeetah running
full speed, you can *see* the worn look on a bereaved mother's face. You must
watch this on TV. Books don't give you that opportunity; with books, you just
have to make it all up yourself." That's is equally ridiculous!
My dad still worships books, but that was what he was born with! And the only
way to receive information was the written word----it was accessible to
whoever could read! Times have changed! Information comes in all SORTS of ways now!
You don't HAVE to get your info that way---and ONLY that way.
Books do NOT give many of the opportunities that TV does. That bias towards
books is ages old: two generations ago, all we had were books---well, books and
word-of-mouth and hands-on. Then came radio---a window was opened! Look at
what happened when TV came into our lives----what tremendous doors were opened!
And then the internet: the whole WORLD was at our fingertips!
The inventions of radio, TV, and the internet did not close the doors on
books and reading----more books are being published every day---more than ever!
They just add TO the world of books.
I'm a bibliophile. I LOVE books. Many on this list do. But we also see the
value of TV. We don't put one over the other. They ARE both equal in learning.
>>>>>>>or be accepted entirely uncritically.<<<<<<NO one said *anything* should be accepted uncritically!
This is probably the *most* critically thinking group you'll ever run across.
And we're giving our children the same chances/opportunities to be just as
critical----of what they watch, read, listen to, do, eat, etc. Bad TV is bad
TV----but a bad book is a bad book TOO! There is good and bad in both media (not
to mention art/clothing/food). It should be up to our children to decide
critically what's good and bad to *them*. If they can learn that when they're
young, they won't sit and vege-out as adults! They will watch what they find
interesting ONLY. They will read what interests them; they will eat what's good for
them; they will make decisions based on "critical thinking".
Our children are living proof that it works. Schooled kids don't have the
opportunity to see anything as equal or to think about what they're doing. The
thinking is done FOR them. All day. For 12 to 20 years! "Critical thinking" is a
school buzz-word right now, but it's kind of funny to me that the one thing
they're NOT allowing the children to do is think---much less, critically!
~Kelly
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
catherine aceto
This and the article about the perfect homeschooler is what makes me tell people that we are unschooling, rather than just homeschooling (assuming enough time to talk about it -- I wouldn't bring it up in casual conversation: Hi, How are you? Oh, we're fine because we're unschooling! (add a little soft-shoe ta-da here))
If she thinks of that controlling behavior as love, and experienced it as love as a child, and has an "expert" validate her -- when will she or her son ever have a chance to be exposed to a happier life?
-Cat
If she thinks of that controlling behavior as love, and experienced it as love as a child, and has an "expert" validate her -- when will she or her son ever have a chance to be exposed to a happier life?
-Cat
----- Original Message -----
From: jrossedd@...
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 9:57 AM
Subject: Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Re: unlimited tv and computer time
HA! You ought to see the Rosemond column in my local paper today,
headlined "Mothers face hurdles with home-schooling."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/10/04 6:57:44 AM, kate_sitzman@... writes:
<< I got the impression
from this board that if I didn't embrace the TV I wasn't really
embracing an important element of unschooling, and I'm a bit
skeptical about whether I can make that leap. >>
"To embrace" seems to be used here in an emotional way. Can't you just
accept or consider something without thinking of it as "embracing"?
You're supplying your own emotional undertones. Emotional undertow.
<<I guess I don't put reading in the same category as TV since it
leaves so much more to the imagination>>
Sometimes it leave TOO much to the imagination, and some people aren't very
imaginative. Take reading music, for example. Few people (fewer than 1% of
even professional musicians, I'd guess) can look at sheet music and hear what
it would sound like. So written music isn't music.
Shakespeare was never meant to be read. It's meant to be play-acted, with
some people on stage and some off, here and there, some characters aware of what
has transpired, and some unaware; some fooled, and some in the know. If you
think for a moment that reading Shakespeare will allow your children to use
their imaginations, and watching a play or a movie would not, you just haven't
thought about Shakespeare enough.
<<relying on the reader to
create a substantial body of original supplementary material,
whereas TV does so much of that for you.>>
Wildebeasts.
Try imagining those from a description in a book. Try imagining how they
would move, from one still photo.
A giraffe.
Try imagining how they would run, full speed, from having seen them in a
book, or at the zoo. Try imagining how they would eat from tall trees e that
there are many
things TV does better than any other medium, but I have a hard time
accepting that it should recieve equal weight to other activities,
or be accepted entirely uncritically. >>
Keep thinking.
Nobody's asking you to accept anything uncritically.
If you reject it uncritically or you've borrowed others' criticism without
really examining it to see if it SHOULD be your own, that is accepting something
uncritically.
<<I guess that's what hangs me up here - I don't believe it's so much
what's wrong with TV, or a particular program, but I think it has a
tendency speak louder than other media (flashier, available 24x7,
easier to absorb, so many channels) and crowd out other things.>>
If you were in a public place and there were four things going on and one was
really attractive, colorful, different, and people were laughing and enjoying
it, wouldn't you go there too? Would that be a sin? Would the other things
be better served or more valuable if the most interesting thing were shut down
and sent away?
<<I guess I am just someone who sees real value in a little boredom. >
I think that's another prejudice some people pick up without critical
thinking. It's a thing which is parroted by many mean parents. "Boredom is good for
you." It means "Get away from me," in worst cases. Some parents say "If
you're bored mop the floor." I wonder if any of them think they're the first to
say it, or that it's kind or helpful?
Here's something I wrote years ago after learning something new and profound
from another homeschooling mom on a bulletin board for unschoolers:
http://sandradodd.com/BoredNoMore
<< I
know when my son has a few minutes of it, that's when his best ideas
seem to hit, and I worry that the TV will interfere with that... I
know it does for me. >>
I'm guessing you're thinking about time to think, and not about boredom.
Sandra
<< I got the impression
from this board that if I didn't embrace the TV I wasn't really
embracing an important element of unschooling, and I'm a bit
skeptical about whether I can make that leap. >>
"To embrace" seems to be used here in an emotional way. Can't you just
accept or consider something without thinking of it as "embracing"?
You're supplying your own emotional undertones. Emotional undertow.
<<I guess I don't put reading in the same category as TV since it
leaves so much more to the imagination>>
Sometimes it leave TOO much to the imagination, and some people aren't very
imaginative. Take reading music, for example. Few people (fewer than 1% of
even professional musicians, I'd guess) can look at sheet music and hear what
it would sound like. So written music isn't music.
Shakespeare was never meant to be read. It's meant to be play-acted, with
some people on stage and some off, here and there, some characters aware of what
has transpired, and some unaware; some fooled, and some in the know. If you
think for a moment that reading Shakespeare will allow your children to use
their imaginations, and watching a play or a movie would not, you just haven't
thought about Shakespeare enough.
<<relying on the reader to
create a substantial body of original supplementary material,
whereas TV does so much of that for you.>>
Wildebeasts.
Try imagining those from a description in a book. Try imagining how they
would move, from one still photo.
A giraffe.
Try imagining how they would run, full speed, from having seen them in a
book, or at the zoo. Try imagining how they would eat from tall trees e that
there are many
things TV does better than any other medium, but I have a hard time
accepting that it should recieve equal weight to other activities,
or be accepted entirely uncritically. >>
Keep thinking.
Nobody's asking you to accept anything uncritically.
If you reject it uncritically or you've borrowed others' criticism without
really examining it to see if it SHOULD be your own, that is accepting something
uncritically.
<<I guess that's what hangs me up here - I don't believe it's so much
what's wrong with TV, or a particular program, but I think it has a
tendency speak louder than other media (flashier, available 24x7,
easier to absorb, so many channels) and crowd out other things.>>
If you were in a public place and there were four things going on and one was
really attractive, colorful, different, and people were laughing and enjoying
it, wouldn't you go there too? Would that be a sin? Would the other things
be better served or more valuable if the most interesting thing were shut down
and sent away?
<<I guess I am just someone who sees real value in a little boredom. >
I think that's another prejudice some people pick up without critical
thinking. It's a thing which is parroted by many mean parents. "Boredom is good for
you." It means "Get away from me," in worst cases. Some parents say "If
you're bored mop the floor." I wonder if any of them think they're the first to
say it, or that it's kind or helpful?
Here's something I wrote years ago after learning something new and profound
from another homeschooling mom on a bulletin board for unschoolers:
http://sandradodd.com/BoredNoMore
<< I
know when my son has a few minutes of it, that's when his best ideas
seem to hit, and I worry that the TV will interfere with that... I
know it does for me. >>
I'm guessing you're thinking about time to think, and not about boredom.
Sandra
[email protected]
aceto3@... writes:
itself and even to influence the kind of parent that child will someday
become.
That's why I think it's amazing, and well worth participating in, that
this list and other unschooling resources and conversations clearly can and
do help some people to break free of their own indoctrination, and to realize
that the default tendency of schooling (and parenting) is to control and
limit, not to empower and enrich. JJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> If she thinks of that controlling behavior as love, and experienced it asYes, with or without the Biblical bent, the misery tends to perpetuate
> love as a child, and has an "expert" validate her -- when will she or her son
> ever have a chance to be exposed to a happier life?
>
> -Cat
>
itself and even to influence the kind of parent that child will someday
become.
That's why I think it's amazing, and well worth participating in, that
this list and other unschooling resources and conversations clearly can and
do help some people to break free of their own indoctrination, and to realize
that the default tendency of schooling (and parenting) is to control and
limit, not to empower and enrich. JJ
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
TreeGoddess
On Feb 9, 2004, at 9:05 PM, kate_sitzman wrote:
"power" to turn it on or shut it off and to change the channel if the
show isn't holding our interest or we find out that that's another show
on that'd we'd rather watch.
Nobody in school has the ability to hit the "mute" button to shut the
teacher up or an off switch when the child was "done" and was heading
out of the classroom for a snack or to play on the swings. LOL What
do you think would happen if a child in a classroom asked the teacher
to change subjects because this one was boring?
Schools and curriculum don't even compare with using the TV as a tool
and/or entertainment. To me, they're not even in the same realm.
-Tracy-
> If it's considered undesirable for a child to sit in a classroom beingRemote controls. Seriously though....my children and I have the
> fed
> someone elses curriculum on someone elses schedule, how is TV any
> better?
"power" to turn it on or shut it off and to change the channel if the
show isn't holding our interest or we find out that that's another show
on that'd we'd rather watch.
Nobody in school has the ability to hit the "mute" button to shut the
teacher up or an off switch when the child was "done" and was heading
out of the classroom for a snack or to play on the swings. LOL What
do you think would happen if a child in a classroom asked the teacher
to change subjects because this one was boring?
Schools and curriculum don't even compare with using the TV as a tool
and/or entertainment. To me, they're not even in the same realm.
-Tracy-
Jen Garrison Stuber
Isn't this the premise of Bradbury's _Fahrenheit 451_ and Dahl's
_Mathilda_ ?
--Jen
No books! Do you understand? > Books are just "eye-candy"; they don't
have the wonderful visuals that TV has. > On TV you can *see* the
tundras of Alaska, you can *see* a cheeetah running > full speed, you
can *see* the worn look on a bereaved mother's face. You must
accessible to > whoever could read! Times have changed! Information
comes in all SORTS of ways now! > You don't HAVE to get your info that
way---and ONLY that way.
books---well, books and > word-of-mouth and hands-on. Then came
radio---a window was opened! Look at > what happened when TV came into
our lives----what tremendous doors were opened!
_Mathilda_ ?
--Jen
> The equal weight point: everyone has different ways of collectingmother, what if I > said, "Honey, we only get our information from TV.
> information, different ways of connecting the dots. If *I* were your
No books! Do you understand? > Books are just "eye-candy"; they don't
have the wonderful visuals that TV has. > On TV you can *see* the
tundras of Alaska, you can *see* a cheeetah running > full speed, you
can *see* the worn look on a bereaved mother's face. You must
> watch this on TV. Books don't give you that opportunity; with books,you just > have to make it all up yourself." That's is equally ridiculous!
>the only > way to receive information was the written word----it was
> My dad still worships books, but that was what he was born with! And
accessible to > whoever could read! Times have changed! Information
comes in all SORTS of ways now! > You don't HAVE to get your info that
way---and ONLY that way.
>towards > books is ages old: two generations ago, all we had were
> Books do NOT give many of the opportunities that TV does. That bias
books---well, books and > word-of-mouth and hands-on. Then came
radio---a window was opened! Look at > what happened when TV came into
our lives----what tremendous doors were opened!
> ~Kelly
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/10/04 6:57:44 AM, kate_sitzman@... writes:
<< I guess that's what hangs me up here - I don't believe it's so much
what's wrong with TV, or a particular program, but I think it has a
tendency speak louder than other media (flashier, available 24x7,
easier to absorb, so many channels) and crowd out other things. >>
Forgot to comment on the choice of the word and idea "easier to absorb."
Our culture in general has considered hard work to be virtue, difficulty to
produce character, and easiness to be a sin.
We have "if it tastes bad it must be good for you" which probably started out
as a joke but turned into a deeply held belief. How many of us have heard,
"It's not SUPPOSED to be fun" about learning or working or taking a bath?
So if life is not "supposed to be fun," or easy, then what unschoolers do
must be bad and sinful.
We have layers of cultural prejudice to take off before we can see directly
and clearly.
Will a child be less clean if he had fun in the bath or shower?
Will medicine work better, REALLY, if it tastes nasty?
Is a job really better at the end if the person did it reluctantly instead of
with joy?
Is TV worse because information can be gathered more easily?
If the goal is for the child to have many connections inside, the easier the
better!!
-=-I admit, I am constantly amazed at all the different kinds of knowledge
that Sandra has on so many different topics and how she explains so much stuff
on levels I've never even dreamed of.
-=-
Really, it's this: I've had fun my whole life, putting new ideas together
with old ones. Building a model of the universe that connects the dots from
music to history to science to art to things I own to things I've seen to things
I've never seen.
Oh! And speaking of music, I didn't finish something about books and
imagination. Music isn't meant to live on paper. Paper is a vehicle for getting it
back into the air again.
Books aren't always meant to live on paper. Some books are poetry, or plays,
or music, or games, or recipes. They're vehicles for getting words back into
the air, to get people to move or act certain ways, to put real food into new
bowls.
They're not for reading and IMAGINING music, or food, or playing games with
other people.
A friend who has a master's in early childhood ed has made her young son
(he's 7 now) sit behind the couch while his dad is watching movies or TV so that
he's not just watching tv, but he's using his imagination.
Much of the information conveyed in a movie has to do with body language,
subtle facial glance, costume, action. But she thinks (WRONGLY) that he can just
imagine it from hearing dialog and music.
It's embarrassing.
Sandra
<< I guess that's what hangs me up here - I don't believe it's so much
what's wrong with TV, or a particular program, but I think it has a
tendency speak louder than other media (flashier, available 24x7,
easier to absorb, so many channels) and crowd out other things. >>
Forgot to comment on the choice of the word and idea "easier to absorb."
Our culture in general has considered hard work to be virtue, difficulty to
produce character, and easiness to be a sin.
We have "if it tastes bad it must be good for you" which probably started out
as a joke but turned into a deeply held belief. How many of us have heard,
"It's not SUPPOSED to be fun" about learning or working or taking a bath?
So if life is not "supposed to be fun," or easy, then what unschoolers do
must be bad and sinful.
We have layers of cultural prejudice to take off before we can see directly
and clearly.
Will a child be less clean if he had fun in the bath or shower?
Will medicine work better, REALLY, if it tastes nasty?
Is a job really better at the end if the person did it reluctantly instead of
with joy?
Is TV worse because information can be gathered more easily?
If the goal is for the child to have many connections inside, the easier the
better!!
-=-I admit, I am constantly amazed at all the different kinds of knowledge
that Sandra has on so many different topics and how she explains so much stuff
on levels I've never even dreamed of.
-=-
Really, it's this: I've had fun my whole life, putting new ideas together
with old ones. Building a model of the universe that connects the dots from
music to history to science to art to things I own to things I've seen to things
I've never seen.
Oh! And speaking of music, I didn't finish something about books and
imagination. Music isn't meant to live on paper. Paper is a vehicle for getting it
back into the air again.
Books aren't always meant to live on paper. Some books are poetry, or plays,
or music, or games, or recipes. They're vehicles for getting words back into
the air, to get people to move or act certain ways, to put real food into new
bowls.
They're not for reading and IMAGINING music, or food, or playing games with
other people.
A friend who has a master's in early childhood ed has made her young son
(he's 7 now) sit behind the couch while his dad is watching movies or TV so that
he's not just watching tv, but he's using his imagination.
Much of the information conveyed in a movie has to do with body language,
subtle facial glance, costume, action. But she thinks (WRONGLY) that he can just
imagine it from hearing dialog and music.
It's embarrassing.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/10/04 8:07:37 AM, kbcdlovejo@... writes:
<< On TV you can *see* the tundras of Alaska, you can *see* a cheeetah
running
full speed, you can *see* the worn look on a bereaved mother's face. >>
I saw "tundra, cheetah, beaver" and I thought, OH that poor beaver, her baby
died...
I thought you had written about a bereaved beaver, Kelly!
-=-And then the internet: the whole WORLD was at our fingertips!
-=-
This morning I was having instant message with Shyrley, and she said I should
see the Tintagel cliffs. So I went to google.com, images, put in "Tintagel
cliffs" and was looking at pictures while she was telling me more. Tadaaa!!!
Instantaneous trans-atlantic communication with images without getting out of
my chair in Albuquerque.
Sandra
<< On TV you can *see* the tundras of Alaska, you can *see* a cheeetah
running
full speed, you can *see* the worn look on a bereaved mother's face. >>
I saw "tundra, cheetah, beaver" and I thought, OH that poor beaver, her baby
died...
I thought you had written about a bereaved beaver, Kelly!
-=-And then the internet: the whole WORLD was at our fingertips!
-=-
This morning I was having instant message with Shyrley, and she said I should
see the Tintagel cliffs. So I went to google.com, images, put in "Tintagel
cliffs" and was looking at pictures while she was telling me more. Tadaaa!!!
Instantaneous trans-atlantic communication with images without getting out of
my chair in Albuquerque.
Sandra