Re: [UnschoolingDiscussion] Kelly's new social agenda
Elizabeth Hill
<< One of his objections was that there are not enough opportunities for
children who are not in school to interact with the arts. >>
I want to hear how the kids IN school were "interacting with the arts."
<<
AMEN!
I almost posted an anti-ISP story two weeks ago about a friend who was
in an ISP, but one month they (gasp) didn't have enough to "report" for
social studies because they had been doing art class at the museum and
music lessons anda attended three live music performances that month,
plus music lessons and practice. That's quite some art exposure in the
home plus in the community. I know that Fine Arts and Social Studies
are considered different boxes in school, but shouldn't "culture" be
considered part of "social studies"? It was silly, anyway, that a child
be expected to learn carefully measured even amounts of every subject
every month and that the school be anxious that social studies was
neglected.
I don't consider myself an "artist", I'm pretty much a beginning
dabbler, but because of my passion for quilting I've brought home 47
different quilting books from the library in the last year, I tape a
daily quilting show and view or skim it in the mornings, I babble to my
family about what I've bought that's new and what I plan to do with it.
I ask them for color advice when I can't decide. I have projects in
process hanging on the walls while I think about how to arrange the
blocks and I have fabrics of all colors pooling and spreading all over
the house. My kid may be *overexposed* to this particular art. All our
homeschooled friends who visit get exposed to it as well. I bring
samples of my work to parkdays and show them off.
Some of my homeschooled friends have their kids in art classes. Many
schools have cut art. I think real life beats out school on the
"exposure" issue, hands down.
Betsy
children who are not in school to interact with the arts. >>
I want to hear how the kids IN school were "interacting with the arts."
<<
AMEN!
I almost posted an anti-ISP story two weeks ago about a friend who was
in an ISP, but one month they (gasp) didn't have enough to "report" for
social studies because they had been doing art class at the museum and
music lessons anda attended three live music performances that month,
plus music lessons and practice. That's quite some art exposure in the
home plus in the community. I know that Fine Arts and Social Studies
are considered different boxes in school, but shouldn't "culture" be
considered part of "social studies"? It was silly, anyway, that a child
be expected to learn carefully measured even amounts of every subject
every month and that the school be anxious that social studies was
neglected.
I don't consider myself an "artist", I'm pretty much a beginning
dabbler, but because of my passion for quilting I've brought home 47
different quilting books from the library in the last year, I tape a
daily quilting show and view or skim it in the mornings, I babble to my
family about what I've bought that's new and what I plan to do with it.
I ask them for color advice when I can't decide. I have projects in
process hanging on the walls while I think about how to arrange the
blocks and I have fabrics of all colors pooling and spreading all over
the house. My kid may be *overexposed* to this particular art. All our
homeschooled friends who visit get exposed to it as well. I bring
samples of my work to parkdays and show them off.
Some of my homeschooled friends have their kids in art classes. Many
schools have cut art. I think real life beats out school on the
"exposure" issue, hands down.
Betsy
Kelly Lenhart
I was having this intellectual exercise with a friend (read screaming
debate!) and in answering his arguments that most parents aren't equipped to
homeschool because, well, people are lazy -sigh- I came up with this basic
outline of an idea. I thought I would present it here for some discussion,
if anyone is interested, in hopes of learning more about the idea and if it
would work.
So here is the outline:
One of his objections was that there are not enough opportunities for
children who are not in school to interact with the arts. Now, I know that
there are ways, so I wasn't going to get into arguing a case by case,
because he would say "Then you are lucky here in Pittsburgh." or "But that's
only for a few kids." or whatever. So I said, fine, let's take my school
tax money and use it to support--rather than compulsory public
schools--general public education. And any "body" who takes that tax money
has to make an effort to make their service available to school age kids.
Discount tickets, special advertising, special programs, whatever makes
sense.
My theory here is that a percentage of those on the margins parents, the "I
would homeschool if only..." people would be much more likely to do so when
they see that their tax dollars will be working for them in this case,
instead of just going to the schools and pull their kids. And like any good
organic movement (-grin-) this would grow.
The schools would get less money, and they would have less kids. They would
really be forced by hard tax numbers to try new things--really have to sell
their schools to the parents. And less kids in school could mean that the
ones there actually get a decent experience.
My friend's one comment on that was, "And then you create a two tiered
system. Those in school and those at home. But I saw we already have a
classist society and to pretend we don't is foolish. Let's open up the
options.
Kelly
(feeling a little scared about putting this out there)
debate!) and in answering his arguments that most parents aren't equipped to
homeschool because, well, people are lazy -sigh- I came up with this basic
outline of an idea. I thought I would present it here for some discussion,
if anyone is interested, in hopes of learning more about the idea and if it
would work.
So here is the outline:
One of his objections was that there are not enough opportunities for
children who are not in school to interact with the arts. Now, I know that
there are ways, so I wasn't going to get into arguing a case by case,
because he would say "Then you are lucky here in Pittsburgh." or "But that's
only for a few kids." or whatever. So I said, fine, let's take my school
tax money and use it to support--rather than compulsory public
schools--general public education. And any "body" who takes that tax money
has to make an effort to make their service available to school age kids.
Discount tickets, special advertising, special programs, whatever makes
sense.
My theory here is that a percentage of those on the margins parents, the "I
would homeschool if only..." people would be much more likely to do so when
they see that their tax dollars will be working for them in this case,
instead of just going to the schools and pull their kids. And like any good
organic movement (-grin-) this would grow.
The schools would get less money, and they would have less kids. They would
really be forced by hard tax numbers to try new things--really have to sell
their schools to the parents. And less kids in school could mean that the
ones there actually get a decent experience.
My friend's one comment on that was, "And then you create a two tiered
system. Those in school and those at home. But I saw we already have a
classist society and to pretend we don't is foolish. Let's open up the
options.
Kelly
(feeling a little scared about putting this out there)
Lisa H
Kelly,
Good for you for sticking your neck out.
I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that changing the use of our tax money from school to other organizations geared towards kids would make a difference to the person who says "I would homeschool if only..." Money is only perceived as barrier to options if you allow it to be. People who are not yet ready to homeschool will always find an "if only" reason not to homeschool.
<<"And then you create a two tiered
system. Those in school and those at home.">>
Aren't we a "multi-tiered" system...those in public school, those in private school, those in p/t private school, those in school at home, those that don't school at home...and just learn.
Lisa Heyman
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Good for you for sticking your neck out.
I'm not sure that I agree with the idea that changing the use of our tax money from school to other organizations geared towards kids would make a difference to the person who says "I would homeschool if only..." Money is only perceived as barrier to options if you allow it to be. People who are not yet ready to homeschool will always find an "if only" reason not to homeschool.
<<"And then you create a two tiered
system. Those in school and those at home.">>
Aren't we a "multi-tiered" system...those in public school, those in private school, those in p/t private school, those in school at home, those that don't school at home...and just learn.
Lisa Heyman
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
pam sorooshian
On Feb 11, 2004, at 8:40 AM, Kelly Lenhart wrote:
statement.
There is almost NO art in schools and what they call art is often just
awful and as likely to turn children away from art than encourage them.
This is probably the number one best reason to vilify schools - what
they do to children under the guise of "arts education."
Yes I'm sure there are some inspired art teachers out there -
especially in the world of drama I think there are some great high
school drama programs.
But how MANY kids have been discouraged before they ever get a chance
to develop their artistry? ALMOST all of them. Think about how artistic
kids are before they go to school? Almost all kids are natural artists.
Almost all kids see the world AS artists. Then it is drummed out of us
and we have to struggle HARD to see the world that way again, as
adults.
Artistry takes time to experiment, to make big huge messes, to take
risks - to take BIG risks of looking foolish, especially. This is NOT
allowed in school.
Art is one of the two best reasons to get kids out of school - between
that what they do to math - those are the two things that can turn me
into a "school-basher."
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
> One of his objections was that there are not enough opportunities forI couldn't even read the rest of the post, couldn't get past this
> children who are not in school to interact with the arts.
statement.
There is almost NO art in schools and what they call art is often just
awful and as likely to turn children away from art than encourage them.
This is probably the number one best reason to vilify schools - what
they do to children under the guise of "arts education."
Yes I'm sure there are some inspired art teachers out there -
especially in the world of drama I think there are some great high
school drama programs.
But how MANY kids have been discouraged before they ever get a chance
to develop their artistry? ALMOST all of them. Think about how artistic
kids are before they go to school? Almost all kids are natural artists.
Almost all kids see the world AS artists. Then it is drummed out of us
and we have to struggle HARD to see the world that way again, as
adults.
Artistry takes time to experiment, to make big huge messes, to take
risks - to take BIG risks of looking foolish, especially. This is NOT
allowed in school.
Art is one of the two best reasons to get kids out of school - between
that what they do to math - those are the two things that can turn me
into a "school-basher."
-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.
Robyn Coburn
<<One of his objections was that there are not enough opportunities for
children who are not in school to interact with the arts.>>
Holy Moley, what does he call interacting with the arts? Going to school
matinee of the visiting Shakespeare company once a semester and joining a
rowdy crowd of kids who are just glad to be out to see a walked through
performance? Memories, memories. Perhaps he means the rush the herd through
the art gallery, looking only at the assigned pictures and fill in the
blanks on the workbook interaction. Or perhaps he is referring to band
practice, or standing in line to use the potter�s wheel because that is the
assignment, or being told to paint pictures of fish today. :P~~~~~
Seriously though, sometimes arguing is futile, but getting him to expand on
his position and explode his own myths is more helpful. Doesn�t he know that
music and arts programs are the first to go when budgets get tight?
<<So I said, fine, let's take my school tax money and use it to
support--rather than compulsory public schools--general public education.
And any "body" who takes that tax money has to make an effort to make their
service available to school age kids.
Discount tickets, special advertising, special programs, whatever makes
sense.
My theory here is that a percentage of those on the margins parents, the "I
would homeschool if only..." people would be much more likely to do so when
they see that their tax dollars will be working for them in this case,
instead of just going to the schools and pull their kids. And like any good
organic movement (-grin-) this would grow.
The schools would get less money, and they would have less kids. They would
really be forced by hard tax numbers to try new things--really have to sell
their schools to the parents. And less kids in school could mean that the
ones there actually get a decent experience.>>
Firstly this sounds something like vouchers. I think NHEN has a forum
debating this kind of stuff. Also there is the whole �Should children who
are in PS ISP�s be counted/labelled as home schoolers or public schoolers�
issue that was around last year. Public schools are targeting �services� to
hs�ers with the agenda of pulling them back in and receiving the tax moneys
based on attendance. Again there are many other forums for that discussion,
which is so not unschooling.
In Califoria there is the private school option for hs�ing. Many parents I
know get educator discounts at all kinds of places, including bookstores.
Also parents in my local group arrange field trips (hate the phrase but
that�s what they are I guess) and by sheer weight of numbers get the school
group discount. We don�t go on too many of these yet, since historically
Jayn always wants to leave early, but it must be different for the hosts to
see such a wide age range in one group, compared to school groups of one
grade.
I think homeschooling is already a growing movement, but I don�t care
whether it grows or not. I can�t worry about every child in school and
direct my energies and thoughts towards school system reform. In California
there is yet another bond issue on the ballot for LA Unified School
District�s massive building program. If it passes property taxes will
increase again � part of my rent goes towards that. They haven�t spent all
the last bond, building and improving school facilities. There are more
children than spaces supposedly available, yet the kids still head off each
day, some onto buses to other areas. They talk about increasing the number
of �seats� and the number of school children is growing. Better minds than
mine are spending all their time debating these issues. Since we do have
schools, and if we must have schools in existence, I�d rather they had
enough money and were good, but Jayn isn�t going regardless of how good they
are, and I hope she never wants to go.
<<My friend's one comment on that was, "And then you create a two tiered
system. Those in school and those at home. But I saw we already have a
classist society and to pretend we don't is foolish. Let's open up the
options.>>
My fear is that accepting tax money closes the options, and leads to more
requirements. Some of the parents in my group are in charter schools. It
seems like they have fewer options and must give more (documenting work
done, keeping up with the curriculums) than the law asks for because of it.
They have chosen the discounted materials and books over the level of
freedom available to them in CA. In some ways we have a system with 50 tiers
� since every State is different.
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]
children who are not in school to interact with the arts.>>
Holy Moley, what does he call interacting with the arts? Going to school
matinee of the visiting Shakespeare company once a semester and joining a
rowdy crowd of kids who are just glad to be out to see a walked through
performance? Memories, memories. Perhaps he means the rush the herd through
the art gallery, looking only at the assigned pictures and fill in the
blanks on the workbook interaction. Or perhaps he is referring to band
practice, or standing in line to use the potter�s wheel because that is the
assignment, or being told to paint pictures of fish today. :P~~~~~
Seriously though, sometimes arguing is futile, but getting him to expand on
his position and explode his own myths is more helpful. Doesn�t he know that
music and arts programs are the first to go when budgets get tight?
<<So I said, fine, let's take my school tax money and use it to
support--rather than compulsory public schools--general public education.
And any "body" who takes that tax money has to make an effort to make their
service available to school age kids.
Discount tickets, special advertising, special programs, whatever makes
sense.
My theory here is that a percentage of those on the margins parents, the "I
would homeschool if only..." people would be much more likely to do so when
they see that their tax dollars will be working for them in this case,
instead of just going to the schools and pull their kids. And like any good
organic movement (-grin-) this would grow.
The schools would get less money, and they would have less kids. They would
really be forced by hard tax numbers to try new things--really have to sell
their schools to the parents. And less kids in school could mean that the
ones there actually get a decent experience.>>
Firstly this sounds something like vouchers. I think NHEN has a forum
debating this kind of stuff. Also there is the whole �Should children who
are in PS ISP�s be counted/labelled as home schoolers or public schoolers�
issue that was around last year. Public schools are targeting �services� to
hs�ers with the agenda of pulling them back in and receiving the tax moneys
based on attendance. Again there are many other forums for that discussion,
which is so not unschooling.
In Califoria there is the private school option for hs�ing. Many parents I
know get educator discounts at all kinds of places, including bookstores.
Also parents in my local group arrange field trips (hate the phrase but
that�s what they are I guess) and by sheer weight of numbers get the school
group discount. We don�t go on too many of these yet, since historically
Jayn always wants to leave early, but it must be different for the hosts to
see such a wide age range in one group, compared to school groups of one
grade.
I think homeschooling is already a growing movement, but I don�t care
whether it grows or not. I can�t worry about every child in school and
direct my energies and thoughts towards school system reform. In California
there is yet another bond issue on the ballot for LA Unified School
District�s massive building program. If it passes property taxes will
increase again � part of my rent goes towards that. They haven�t spent all
the last bond, building and improving school facilities. There are more
children than spaces supposedly available, yet the kids still head off each
day, some onto buses to other areas. They talk about increasing the number
of �seats� and the number of school children is growing. Better minds than
mine are spending all their time debating these issues. Since we do have
schools, and if we must have schools in existence, I�d rather they had
enough money and were good, but Jayn isn�t going regardless of how good they
are, and I hope she never wants to go.
<<My friend's one comment on that was, "And then you create a two tiered
system. Those in school and those at home. But I saw we already have a
classist society and to pretend we don't is foolish. Let's open up the
options.>>
My fear is that accepting tax money closes the options, and leads to more
requirements. Some of the parents in my group are in charter schools. It
seems like they have fewer options and must give more (documenting work
done, keeping up with the curriculums) than the law asks for because of it.
They have chosen the discounted materials and books over the level of
freedom available to them in CA. In some ways we have a system with 50 tiers
� since every State is different.
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 2/11/04 10:13:15 AM, mina@... writes:
<< One of his objections was that there are not enough opportunities for
children who are not in school to interact with the arts. >>
I want to hear how the kids IN school were "interacting with the arts."
<<
My friend's one comment on that was, "And then you create a two tiered
system. Those in school and those at home. But I saw we already have a
classist society and to pretend we don't is foolish. >>
UNlike the system of some kids being in public school and others being in
private schools? <g>
Unlike the two-class system of some homeschoolers being chained to the table
(figuratively) and spanked (literally) if they don't do their "work" while
others are eating bon-bons and watching TV? (I bought Holly an expensive artsy
little candy bar twenty minutes ago at a book stores. She didn't like it and
brought it home and gave the rest to Kirby, with a glass of milk, delivered to
where he was playing a war-strategy video game on his computer, sitting in
his nice swivelling desk chair, in boxer shorts and a t-shirt, at 1:15 p.m. when
it's freezing cold outside.)
Okay, so it wasn't bon-bons and nobody's watching tv.
But as to arts, I was thinking just yesterday about how I NEVER ever want to
go again to a "school performance" of any dance school or theatre group. They
so grate on my nerves. But Holly likes to go and sit with her playgroup
friends. And me? NO, I'd rather pay $15 each and sit like humans than pay $3
each and be herded like cattle, into chutes in order, to sit with our "class"
(the other homeschoolers) and to be dismissed by class when it's over.
Well... Some families would never take their kids to a play or a musical or
a concert or a dance recital. So in those cases, if their kids go on some
field trips they've seen more than they might have otherwise.
But if not performance arts, what? Art museums? Art in public places?
Pottery for useful purposes as opposed to wild artsy sculpture pottery? (Because
we have pottery at our house.) Graphic arts? Like giant paintings, or like
album covers and DVD covers? Book covers? (Because we have graphic arts at
our house and books of and about paintings and etchings and woodcuts and
watercolors and moving picture art...)
What fear was he trying to express?
Sandra
<< One of his objections was that there are not enough opportunities for
children who are not in school to interact with the arts. >>
I want to hear how the kids IN school were "interacting with the arts."
<<
My friend's one comment on that was, "And then you create a two tiered
system. Those in school and those at home. But I saw we already have a
classist society and to pretend we don't is foolish. >>
UNlike the system of some kids being in public school and others being in
private schools? <g>
Unlike the two-class system of some homeschoolers being chained to the table
(figuratively) and spanked (literally) if they don't do their "work" while
others are eating bon-bons and watching TV? (I bought Holly an expensive artsy
little candy bar twenty minutes ago at a book stores. She didn't like it and
brought it home and gave the rest to Kirby, with a glass of milk, delivered to
where he was playing a war-strategy video game on his computer, sitting in
his nice swivelling desk chair, in boxer shorts and a t-shirt, at 1:15 p.m. when
it's freezing cold outside.)
Okay, so it wasn't bon-bons and nobody's watching tv.
But as to arts, I was thinking just yesterday about how I NEVER ever want to
go again to a "school performance" of any dance school or theatre group. They
so grate on my nerves. But Holly likes to go and sit with her playgroup
friends. And me? NO, I'd rather pay $15 each and sit like humans than pay $3
each and be herded like cattle, into chutes in order, to sit with our "class"
(the other homeschoolers) and to be dismissed by class when it's over.
Well... Some families would never take their kids to a play or a musical or
a concert or a dance recital. So in those cases, if their kids go on some
field trips they've seen more than they might have otherwise.
But if not performance arts, what? Art museums? Art in public places?
Pottery for useful purposes as opposed to wild artsy sculpture pottery? (Because
we have pottery at our house.) Graphic arts? Like giant paintings, or like
album covers and DVD covers? Book covers? (Because we have graphic arts at
our house and books of and about paintings and etchings and woodcuts and
watercolors and moving picture art...)
What fear was he trying to express?
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 2/11/04 3:32:48 PM, ecsamhill@... writes:
<< I know that Fine Arts and Social Studies
are considered different boxes in school, but shouldn't "culture" be
considered part of "social studies"? >>
I remember having one six-week unit in high school called "humanities."
That's when they told us that art and music are related to geography and
history.
Up to that moment they hadn't been. <g> Honestly. And he didn't go into
science and math, but I could see the minute he said what he'd said that it all
made sense and that everything was part of everything else.
Yes, I probably WAS stoned that day, but still. Up to that point what was
science was science because it was IN a science classroom, I had a science book
open, and a certified teacher of science was watching to make sure we did or
didn't do whatever. (I chopped my to-be-dissected starfish up into little
bitty pieces, and got in trouble, I remember.)
<< My kid may be *overexposed* to this particular art. All our
homeschooled friends who visit get exposed to it as well. >>
I bet with just the slightest thought, though, they'll be aware that if you
were doing another kind of art you'd still have piles of materials, color
considerations, exciting new patterns and techniques and partly finished projects
and favorites and that there are ways for people to learn these things without
going to a university and getting quilting/oil painting/portrait-in-pastels
degrees.
I argued once that a kid who was engrossed in WWII history to the seeming
exclusion of all else was probably going to have NO problem asking the right
questions about other wars he might wonder about in the future because he was
already well aware of the effects of technology, ideology, motivation, leadership,
supply realities, weather, geography, communications, etc. Different wars,
same factors, different answers.
Sandra
<< I know that Fine Arts and Social Studies
are considered different boxes in school, but shouldn't "culture" be
considered part of "social studies"? >>
I remember having one six-week unit in high school called "humanities."
That's when they told us that art and music are related to geography and
history.
Up to that moment they hadn't been. <g> Honestly. And he didn't go into
science and math, but I could see the minute he said what he'd said that it all
made sense and that everything was part of everything else.
Yes, I probably WAS stoned that day, but still. Up to that point what was
science was science because it was IN a science classroom, I had a science book
open, and a certified teacher of science was watching to make sure we did or
didn't do whatever. (I chopped my to-be-dissected starfish up into little
bitty pieces, and got in trouble, I remember.)
<< My kid may be *overexposed* to this particular art. All our
homeschooled friends who visit get exposed to it as well. >>
I bet with just the slightest thought, though, they'll be aware that if you
were doing another kind of art you'd still have piles of materials, color
considerations, exciting new patterns and techniques and partly finished projects
and favorites and that there are ways for people to learn these things without
going to a university and getting quilting/oil painting/portrait-in-pastels
degrees.
I argued once that a kid who was engrossed in WWII history to the seeming
exclusion of all else was probably going to have NO problem asking the right
questions about other wars he might wonder about in the future because he was
already well aware of the effects of technology, ideology, motivation, leadership,
supply realities, weather, geography, communications, etc. Different wars,
same factors, different answers.
Sandra