Education-related
Oct. 10th, 2003 06:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beandelphikiHere are some great quotes on learning to read from a book I'm reading, The Well-Trained Mind: A Guide to Classical Education at Home, by Jessie Wise and Susan Wise Bauer.
We are not impressed by "child-led" education (waiting until the child brings you a book and begs for a reading lesson) for the same reasons that we don't let our elementary-school children eat exactly what they want: young children do not realize that spinach is not only better for them than Twinkies, but actually more satisfying in the long run. (pg. 66)
I'll say! *adores spinach*
A word about beginning readers. We strongly object to the Goosebumps and Spinechillers books, as well as Sweet Valley High and other lightweight romance series directed at young readers. "At least they're reading," parents sigh. But these books are the literary equivalent of TV cartoons. Just because your child develops a taste for cartoons doesn't mean that he'll then go on to watch National Geographic specials. The cartoons train him to pay attention in five-second bursts and teach him that he doesn't need to think in a connected series of propositions because bursts of images will work just as well. In the same way, Goosebumps and Sweet Valley High books develop a child's taste for short sentences, simple sentence structure, easy vocabulary, uncomplicated paragraphs, and shallow, simple plots. This won't help him make the transition to decent literature; it may teach him to turn away from anything that makes his brain work too hard. A diet of Goosebumps does not promote the patterns of thought that produce intellectual and personal excellence. (pg 89-90)
I completely agree. I remember when I was 9 and all my friends were reading Goosebumps. I begged and begged my mother to buy one for me, so she finally gave in and bought me a volume from early in the series. As soon as we got home from shopping, I ran up to my room and read the book.
A little while later I came down, handed the book back to my mother and said, "Mom, I don't ever want to read another one of these books again."
I knew perfectly well they were crap, and I was disgusted.
That said, I wouldn't ban my child from reading them. But I wouldn't let that be all they read, that's for sure.
And one last one, on history this time, on the idea of studying American history more than the history of the rest of the world (American book, after all):
...American history ought to be kept in perspective: the history curriculum covers seventy centuries; America occupies only five of them.
A common assumption found in history curricula seems to be that children can't comprehend (or be interested in) people and events distant from their own experience. So the first-grade history class is renamed the Social Studies and begins with what the child knows: first, himself and his family, followed by his community, his state, his country and only then the rest of the world.
This intensely self-focused pattern of study encourages the student of history to relate everything he studies to himself, to measure the cultures and customs of other peoples against his own experience. And that's exactly what the classical education fights against - a self-absorbed, self-referential approach to knowledge. History learned this way makes our needs and wants the center of human endeavor. This attitude is destructive at any time, but it is especially destructive in the present global civilization. (pg. 124-5)
Which speaks for itself.
We are not impressed by "child-led" education (waiting until the child brings you a book and begs for a reading lesson) for the same reasons that we don't let our elementary-school children eat exactly what they want: young children do not realize that spinach is not only better for them than Twinkies, but actually more satisfying in the long run. (pg. 66)
I'll say! *adores spinach*
A word about beginning readers. We strongly object to the Goosebumps and Spinechillers books, as well as Sweet Valley High and other lightweight romance series directed at young readers. "At least they're reading," parents sigh. But these books are the literary equivalent of TV cartoons. Just because your child develops a taste for cartoons doesn't mean that he'll then go on to watch National Geographic specials. The cartoons train him to pay attention in five-second bursts and teach him that he doesn't need to think in a connected series of propositions because bursts of images will work just as well. In the same way, Goosebumps and Sweet Valley High books develop a child's taste for short sentences, simple sentence structure, easy vocabulary, uncomplicated paragraphs, and shallow, simple plots. This won't help him make the transition to decent literature; it may teach him to turn away from anything that makes his brain work too hard. A diet of Goosebumps does not promote the patterns of thought that produce intellectual and personal excellence. (pg 89-90)
I completely agree. I remember when I was 9 and all my friends were reading Goosebumps. I begged and begged my mother to buy one for me, so she finally gave in and bought me a volume from early in the series. As soon as we got home from shopping, I ran up to my room and read the book.
A little while later I came down, handed the book back to my mother and said, "Mom, I don't ever want to read another one of these books again."
I knew perfectly well they were crap, and I was disgusted.
That said, I wouldn't ban my child from reading them. But I wouldn't let that be all they read, that's for sure.
And one last one, on history this time, on the idea of studying American history more than the history of the rest of the world (American book, after all):
...American history ought to be kept in perspective: the history curriculum covers seventy centuries; America occupies only five of them.
A common assumption found in history curricula seems to be that children can't comprehend (or be interested in) people and events distant from their own experience. So the first-grade history class is renamed the Social Studies and begins with what the child knows: first, himself and his family, followed by his community, his state, his country and only then the rest of the world.
This intensely self-focused pattern of study encourages the student of history to relate everything he studies to himself, to measure the cultures and customs of other peoples against his own experience. And that's exactly what the classical education fights against - a self-absorbed, self-referential approach to knowledge. History learned this way makes our needs and wants the center of human endeavor. This attitude is destructive at any time, but it is especially destructive in the present global civilization. (pg. 124-5)
Which speaks for itself.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 06:40 pm (UTC)However...the other students in my class, who ONLY read the FearStreet novels, or the other lightweight, one-syllable per word paper backs [which took me, in all honest about five minutes to get through] never grew past them. They never had any interest in reading anything else, and if anything, their reading comprehension probably dropped. So I definetely agree with you - It's not good to ban them completely, but they can not be the only thing a child [or anyone] reads.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-11 12:23 am (UTC)But I couldn't believe it when I found out that other kids my age - at 15, 16 - weren't reading anything else. And when I asked my friends about it, they told me FearStreet was "hard enough."
I guess we can actually blame public school for teaching some kids to classify books more by grade level than anything else.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-11 10:39 am (UTC)God...thinking back now, those novels were incredibly stupid. They were fluffy, trivial entertainment at the time, but recalling the story lines makes my head hurt.
I'm just glad I read a lot of other stuff to counter the crap.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-10 09:15 pm (UTC)I esp like the part about US history vs world history. Too much of our educational system ignores the rest of the world, glossing over it in only one 5 week period, while monotonously repeating american history every other year for the duration. It should, probably, be the other way around.
minus the monotony, of course.
(no subject)
Date: 2003-10-11 12:15 am (UTC)Taking that somewhat out of context...
I think half the monotony is the taking of notes. Blah, blah - they can't guarantee kids are going to go to original sources, so they have textbooks and shite. And notes. Blah, blah... Busywork.
Cut down on the middle-man! Go straight to original sources. Waaay more interesting, methinks.
(And if you think American history is boring to repeat over and over, try Canadian. :P)
I've heard some of the materials used in this course are good
Date: 2003-10-10 09:32 pm (UTC)A little while later I came down, handed the book back to my mother and said, "Mom, I don't ever want to read another one of these books again."
I knew perfectly well they were crap, and I was disgusted.
See? And she didn't have to tell you. You figured it out on your own, you decided not to read more on your own. That's the basis of unschooling right there.
Just because your child develops a taste for cartoons doesn't mean that he'll then go on to watch National Geographic specials.
It doesn't mean they won't watch National Geographic specials, either. They're not providing a convincing argument that exposure to junk will prevent appreciation for better quality media. With exposure to everything, a child ought to be able to figure out on their own what they're learning most from. I think it's the fault of regimented education that so often kids will choose less informative materials when they're allowed - forced learning creates an aversion to learning.
...American history ought to be kept in perspective: the history curriculum covers seventy centuries; America occupies only five of them.
This is pretty ethno-centric right here. There have been humans occupying the Americas for longer than 5 centuries. I wouldn't go with the American-history-begins-when-Columbus-discovered-it model myself.
Re: I've heard some of the materials used in this course are good
Date: 2003-10-10 11:55 pm (UTC)Ha, now see, I don't know enough history myself to know this. :P That's a good point, although considering that you DO have seventy centuries to cover, the cultures of the Natives might only take a couple of weeks to study with this program. Still not a lot.
See? And she didn't have to tell you. You figured it out on your own, you decided not to read more on your own. That's the basis of unschooling right there.
I've seen unschooling in action. For years. I have a very low opinion of it, so no one can convince me it's wondrous. If it works for Gina, that's great - I'm not going to completely rule out a certain method, because people can learn in such different ways - but I don't believe it can work for the majority of children. It demands that children be self-directed without giving them the skills to do that.
Yes, I knew Goosebumps was crap. Why? Because I had already learned to read on GOOD books, well-written children's literature. The Goosebumps stuff was new when I was 9. Not to mention I was taught to read by being drilled on phonics, just as this book suggests (the evil that dare not speak its name!) and I was always the swiftest reader, with a high reading comprehension.
But I also know I'm somewhat unusual. I was reading Dickens by the end of elementary school - yes, I had discriminating tastes. Plenty of kids I know were ONLY reading Spinechillers even in junior high and high school, and when pressed they'd say they didn't feel like reading anything else. No, I think this author is quite on target - a steady diet of crap is going to make you lazy, in one way or another.
With exposure to everything, a child ought to be able to figure out on their own what they're learning most from.
Which is really what I said...
My mother had a policy with us - we can read anything we want, we've pretty much always been able to. She said that if we think we can handle it, it's our choice. If I ever have kids, I plan to have exactly the same policy. But while I will LET my kid(s) read crap, I will not let them get away with ONLY reading crap. I wouldn't let my kid get away with ONLY eating Twinkies, were they so inclined. That's all.
My mother may have put up with my desire to read Goosebumps, but she only bought me things like Dickens as special treats. She'd never have "treated" me to Goosebumps at all if I hadn't whined for so long.
I think it's the fault of regimented education that so often kids will choose less informative materials when they're allowed - forced learning creates an aversion to learning.
Thinking back over the years, I have to disagree with this one. I've been instructed in topics I wasn't even slightly interested in, and ended up finding them at least interesting enough for the work not to be drudgery - as long as it was taught well, as long as I could see the context in which I was learning it. The purpose of learning it. I was always big on school having a purpose.
Now this particular program, I don't necessarily agree with EVERYTHING in it - for one thing, it demands a lot of rote memorization of rather random material, and that seems out of place in this program. But for most of it, the whole point is to be orderly, and for everything to follow a natural, logical progression. This way, everything you do makes sense and has a purpose, because it's building for the next step.
Example: history. History with the classical method is taught in sequence, with no skipping around the centuries. You study it in order so that everything follows from what came before it. Unlike how it's taught in public school, with all the jumping around. I always thought that seemed so meaningless.
What I really HATED was busywork. Busywork turned me off instantly. So no, not forced learning - if we're not forced to learn some crucial things, we might never learn them (what kid is actually going to sit down and DECIDE to learn algebra?) It's forced busywork that's the killer.
Bah, lj is making me cut this...
Re: I've heard some of the materials used in this course are good
Date: 2003-10-11 12:25 am (UTC)See, I consider this a problem with teaching with a structured curricula like this. All the kids end up with only a little bit of information about a lot of things, and no time to really delve into anything in depth. What if a child has a particular interest in native american history? They're not going to be able to explore that because they're too busy glossing over 70 other centuries and not learning much about them. My plan is to wait until Gina shows an interest in something, then provide her with the materials to explore it. When she's already interested, she'll learn better than if she's forced to learn about stuff she doesn't care about. I don't see any problem with a meandering approach, as long as it follows the child's interest. If she's interested in native americans, she can do that for a few weeks. If she gets interested in ancient Egyptians after that, cool. If something about the US civil war intrigues her, she can go into that, and maybe it will spark interest in other conflicts, economy, politics, foreign relations. If she's interested, I'm going to let her run with it as long as she wants to instead of forcing her on to something else that she won't really learn because she doesn't care like she did about what I pulled her away from.
I'm not going to completely rule out a certain method, because people can learn in such different ways - but I don't believe it can work for the majority of children. It demands that children be self-directed without giving them the skills to do that.
This isn't really what unschooling means. It's child-led - that doesn't mean neglecting the child while they float around having no clue what to do. It means facilitating them in learning the things they want. Some kids need structure, some need not to have it. Some will learn to read with phonics, some will just learn to recognize whole words at once, most are probably in between. I read to Gina. She asks for it. If she doesn't want to be read to, I don't push it. Sometimes I help her sound out words, and sometimes she's interested, sometimes she's not and I let it go for the time being. The point is to help them with what they want help with in a way that fits the way they learn the best. School can't do that. No one curricula can do that - this one would probably work great for some kids. But not all kids.
Ah, heck. I have a lot to say but she needs me now, have to go. Maybe I'll have time to post tomorrow, if you're interested in continuing the discussion - are you seeing this as more of an interesting debate-thing, or just an annoying argument?
Re: I've heard some of the materials used in this course are good
Date: 2003-10-11 01:49 am (UTC)I only WISH this was the way they had taught us world history in school. Start to finish.
In fact, I like it so much that I'm going to duplicate it for myself, if I can.
There's nothing that says you can't go back and study in detail what you liked the best. But then you have it in context.
We did study things in depth in school; we spent most of one year on Russia and the Russian revolution. The another year on France, the French revolution, what was going on in England...then World War II...but it was all out of order! Very scatter-shot and seemingly random.
Re: I've heard some of the materials used in this course are good
Date: 2003-10-11 02:21 pm (UTC)In fact, I like it so much that I'm going to duplicate it for myself, if I can.
Unschooling. :-P
There's nothing that says you can't go back and study in detail what you liked the best.
Yes there is - the structured curricula that keeps you moving whether you were done with the topic or not. When are you supposed to have time to go back for the interesting stuff? When you retire? You could learn it now and make a career out of it if you wish, instead of drudging through some shit job for 45 years before you can do what you want.
We did study things in depth in school
I'm not addressing your school, I'm addressing the program you're recommending now, which isn't going to give you enough time to cover 70 centuries of history in depth. So some parts will be glossed over completely (like the fact that there were people, with history and culture and science and art and everything else living in the Americas before Europe "discovered" it) and some bits will be gone over in depth. Of course which parts get the extra attention is going to be rather random and not necessarily follow the child's interest.
I know you think having everything in chronological order would have beneficial for you. I don't doubt it would have been. But I do doubt that it would be best for every child out there.
Re: I've heard some of the materials used in this course are good
Date: 2003-10-11 03:52 pm (UTC)Wow, everything's unschooling now.
Your definition must be different from mine. I'm saying I wish people had MADE me study these things when I was a kid.
Yes there is - the structured curricula that keeps you moving whether you were done with the topic or not. When are you supposed to have time to go back for the interesting stuff?
*sigh* When you aren't studying the other stuff. You make it sound like the kid does nothing all day but study a structured curriculum. When you're not going to school 7 hours every day, I'm sure it's amazing how much extra time you suddenly have.
I'm addressing the program you're recommending now, which isn't going to give you enough time to cover 70 centuries of history in depth.
You study the seventy centuries over 4 years. Then you start over again and study it again for another 4 years. The again, for another 4 years. If you haven't gotten some "depth" out of studying the same period three different years, you're never going to get anything out of it.
Which, by the way, is a figure of speech - I don't actually think someone studying history that way is not going to get something out of it.
So some parts will be glossed over completely (like the fact that there were people, with history and culture and science and art and everything else living in the Americas before Europe "discovered" it)
"Glossed over completely"? Harsh. Humans have lived for 70 centuries. God forbid we gloss over some of it. Yeah, maybe you could study it all in depth if you devoted your life to it.
The point is to get a whole sense of the context everything happened in FIRST.
and some bits will be gone over in depth. Of course which parts get the extra attention is going to be rather random and not necessarily follow the child's interest.
No. That's not what I've said, that's not what this program suggests. You cover everything, and the particular parts of the periods you want to study with any depth are mostly chosen by the child.
Letting the child choose the micro topics - making the kid study the macro topics.
Now if your kid was quite resistant to this, then yeah, you'd have to play with how you teach it. But hell, most kids go through school programs where they get no choice at all, and make it out fine. It may not have been the way they best learned, but they managed.
I'm not saying you want to give your child no choice in what they study, because that's a flaw in the public system. But neither do I like the idea of giving the kid free rein, and honestly, I haven't read any books on unschooling that recommended that either, despite their big words.
I know you think having everything in chronological order would have beneficial for you. I don't doubt it would have been. But I do doubt that it would be best for every child out there.
Then I am absolutely going to have to disagree. Studying things in random order is going to make it hard to put them all together in a big picture. "Following the child's interest" the way you suggest seems to me to mean that the kid is just going to hop around studying whatever, for however long they want. That's exactly what public school does! And it's crap. There's no sense of context.
And what if your kid doesn't WANT to study political systems? I don't think they can go without. You'll have to make your kid study something they don't want to at SOME point. As long as you know that, you might as well BOTH get into the habit of studying things in an orderly fashion. It's going to make things easier in the long run. Less fights, y'know.
Forgive me if I think having an actual understanding of how things progress is more important than keeping the kid "happy."
Re: I've heard some of the materials used in this course are good
Date: 2003-10-11 06:14 pm (UTC)I'm saying I wish you'd had an opportunity to be allowed to learn it when you were a kid. And the fact that you're interested now, and willing to go out and learn it on your own is the basis of unschooling - people will learn what they need and want to know, when they want and need to know it.
*sigh* When you aren't studying the other stuff. You make it sound like the kid does nothing all day but study a structured curriculum. When you're not going to school 7 hours every day, I'm sure it's amazing how much extra time you suddenly have.
You have a point. I'd kinda forgotten we were talking about a hsing curriculum. :-P
"Glossed over completely"? Harsh. Humans have lived for 70 centuries. God forbid we gloss over some of it. Yeah, maybe you could study it all in depth if you devoted your life to it.
Yeah, some of it has to be glossed over completely to cover that much, even in 12 years. But from what you posted about the curricula before, I'm not comfortable with what they choose to gloss over. I don't think it's a balanced program. I don't think they should be choosing what the child is and is not exposed to.
The point is to get a whole sense of the context everything happened in FIRST.
I don't think you necessarily need to look at history as a linear entity to get that.
the particular parts of the periods you want to study with any depth are mostly chosen by the child.
This is good!
making the kid study the macro topics.
I have a huge problem with making anyone do anything. That to me is a huge violation of a basic human right.
But hell, most kids go through school programs where they get no choice at all, and make it out fine.
We must have a different definition of "fine", because most people I know are seriously screwed up.
neither do I like the idea of giving the kid free rein
I think the issue with this is it's hard to do part-way. If you're coercive in one area, it's going to keep the child from accomplishing what they might have in other areas, because their self-motivation is being crushed.
Studying things in random order is going to make it hard to put them all together in a big picture.
But it's not random. Interest in one thing is going to lead to exposure to and interest in related things.
the kid is just going to hop around studying whatever, for however long they want. That's exactly what public school does!
That's exactly what public school doesn't do! You're not allowed to learn what you want for how long you want in school. They tell you what to learn, and how long you're stuck with it, and when you're not allowed to learn about it anymore.
And what if your kid doesn't WANT to study political systems?
All I can do is try to make it seem interesting, and provide the materials for her to learn about it if she wishes. I know I didn't have much interest until high school and college. (Hey! Voting age, how appropriate) I'm not going to panic if she's not interested right away. I remember having mock elections in elementary school (GATE classes only, regular school didn't do cool stuff like that - GATE was a little more like unschooling, if we did projects to learn things like the scientific method, we chose our topics and through learning about stuff we were interested in we learned how to learn... if that makes sense) and nobody in the class really took it seriously. Pissed the teacher off, too, but we just weren't ready. *shrugs*
Forgive me if I think having an actual understanding of how things progress is more important than keeping the kid "happy."
What I think is important is preserving her ability to learn things on her own. If I destroy that in the attempt to make her learn certain things of my choosing, then she'll be limited to only that knowledge for her entire life. That would be sad.
Part II
Date: 2003-10-11 12:04 am (UTC)Have you factored in that she's just bright?
Yeah, like I said - I'd let her read what she wants (if it were me), but not let crap be everything. Heck, with a kid that young, just put lots of good kid's books on the shelves, and she'll pick them up. I DO think it's true that kids are just as likely to pick up good stuff. IF they're young, and IF it's available. It's kind of hard to learn to challenge yourself once you've learned how to coast, though.
I mean, if she's doing well enough to be reading 3-syllable words, why stay within safe limits? There's plenty of great stuff out there to jump in and start exploring. Children's versions of the classics, for example. I know I had a huge set like that, and I loved them to death, especially the kiddie versions of Edgar Allen Poe's stories.
But in general the concept creeps me out. Of course I'm all for child-led education.
See now, child-led education creeps ME out.
My mother and I still are in disagreement about what I spent the last half of gr. 11 doing. I say I dropped out and warn other kids not to make my mistake; she thinks I "unschooled" and we'll never see eye-to-eye on that because she's convinced unschooling is the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Our, "Mom, I want to go back to REAL school!" fight was the biggest blow-out we've ever had, but I'm very glad I forced the issue. We were doing math and english and so on at the leisurely pace the unschooling books suggested, and I felt like my brain was literally rotting. When I went back, I made sure that what I told the guidance counselor led her to think I couldn't legally transfer my classes, because I didn't think I'd done anything useful enough to pass on to the next grade.
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-10-11 12:37 am (UTC)Have you factored in that she's just bright?
Yes. Have you factored in that you are? Have you factored in that some kids aren't?
just put lots of good kid's books on the shelves, and she'll pick them up.
Yes yes yes! This is unschooling LOL. People who don't make materials available to their kids are not doing a good job unschooling IMO. How does the kid know what they want to learn if they don't know what the options are?
I mean, if she's doing well enough to be reading 3-syllable words, why stay within safe limits?
She likes the pictures LOL. She can read but the pictures help her maintain interest. She'll listen to me read for a bit, HP or whatever, but she won't stare at a page herself for that long yet, and I'm not about to try to make her so reading becomes an unpleasant experience for her. She enjoys it now, she's getting better all the time. My job is to help her when she asks and otherwise stay out of the way.
I don't think what your mom did was unschooling. If you were unhappy with how slow things were going, with the lack of materials, with the lack of social contact, whatever, she needed to listen to you and fix that. At a certain point, unschooling is sending your child to school if that's what they want. If you had to force the issue, she wasn't following your lead, was she? I don't know what you call it when you force your kid not to learn.
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-10-11 01:25 am (UTC)Oh yes, I know I'm bright. This book is actually throwing me off slightly, because it keeps saying things like, "[in third grade] you'll have to read some books to/with your child that are above their grade level," and I'm thinking, "huh? what?" I'm so totally unused to the whole idea of a "normal" progression, because I was always either faster or slower on everything.
No, my point was more that she must be unusually bright to be managing to read so well with poor material.
Yes yes yes! This is unschooling LOL. People who don't make materials available to their kids are not doing a good job unschooling IMO. How does the kid know what they want to learn if they don't know what the options are?
Yeah, I know the ideas coincide here. I'm not horrified. :P ANY schooling method is doing a good job if it's making lots of resources available. That's not specific to unschooling.
She likes the pictures LOL. She can read but the pictures help her maintain interest.
*nods* The children's classics series I owned had an illustration every other page. I wish I could remember what that series was called.
She'll listen to me read for a bit, HP or whatever, but she won't stare at a page herself for that long yet, and I'm not about to try to make her so reading becomes an unpleasant experience for her. She enjoys it now, she's getting better all the time. My job is to help her when she asks and otherwise stay out of the way.
Dear lord, I think that's....normal! for a four year old. Heh. Certainly the classical method doesn't push kids into reading sooner than they can handle it.
(Wow, I really sound like I'm pimping this book. >.> But I'll continue to mention it, I guess, since it's what sparked the discussion.)
I can't believe lj is making me cut this AGAIN....
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-10-11 02:43 pm (UTC)This is one of the problems with following a program like this. All children are different, all are going to progress faster or slower on different things. There's no one-size-fits-all to learning.
No, my point was more that she must be unusually bright to be managing to read so well with poor material.
I disagree. I think she's learning to read because she's interested in what she has to read. Sometimes it's Dr. Suess, sometimes it's Sesame Street or Barbie :-P. Sometimes it's something factual about animals. Sometimes it's classics. (Hey, Goodnight Moon is a classic!) We have an odd assortment of stuff, which includes some things she chose or MIL chose or my parents chose or Frank chose that I would not have chosen for her. I think well-written kids' books are great, but I'm not going to deprive her of a poor book that she'd enjoy by virtue of its pinkness or the fact that it includes kittens.
Mind, I'm not saying she isn't bright. :-D
The children's classics series I owned had an illustration every other page. I wish I could remember what that series was called.
I had these too (maybe not the same ones, had at least 2 different sets at different ages). I didn't care for them. I really don't like abridged works. They take everything great about a book, the characterization, the beautiful phrasing, and distill it down to a bare-bones plot that's not really any better written than some of the trash they put out for young people. I'd rather have something that was originally written to her reading level (by which I don't mean stupid, poorly written trash - great writing can be tailored for beginning readers as well as accomplished ones). Classics for young people, as opposed to War and Peace in 20 full-color illustrated pages. Now, if she wants to read War and Peace, abridged or in its original form, at any time, more power to her. I don't. Especially not in the original language. x.x
Certainly the classical method doesn't push kids into reading sooner than they can handle it.
If it tries to tell you when your child should be reading at all, it will do this for some kids.
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-10-11 01:32 am (UTC)We had/have TONS of materials. Still do! We have an incredible library, actually, and I keep meaning to read about half of it. :P
And no, I had no social contact at all, but I was purposely cutting myself off. Well, that and the fact that all my friends were AT SCHOOL.
My mother was not around much. I was depressed, which is half the reason things went so slowly; the other half is there were no deadlines. No schedules. Frankly, I think those things are necessary. Kids may think they're icky, icky, but the real world has deadlines.
I can meet deadlines, but not self-set ones. I know I would never, ever strike out and try to start my own business; I'd loathe it. I need deadlines. Official ones, given to me by someone with the power to actually enforce it. My mother just does not have that power. What's she gonna do, fail me? Ooooh, I'm worried.
Without grades, there was no reason to get me to do something that I didn't want to do, but which was necessary..
I think very few people are naturally self-motivated enough to always make themselves do what needs to be done. My sister for example - homeschooled for years. Now she's back in "real" school (it's a charter school, actually) and she's struggling and struggling, especially with math.
This would not be happening if my mom had sat her down and made her do math every day, or at LEAST 3 times a week. No, they let it slide. If she really didn't want to, she could make it up later. Blah, blah.
Yeah, right.
It's not like she didn't do ANYTHING in the years she stayed at home - she lived on the computer, almost literally. She got off to shower and sleep. Consequently, she's a whiz at web design and graphics and so on. She's always been an artist, and now she can draw with a mouse as well as she can with a pencil.
Wonderful, great, she has her specialties. But how can she get into art school to study web design if she doesn't have the required math stream?
Oh, and another thing (and this is something I dislike about ALL homeschooling methods) - the "workplace" is also home. There's no real escape from the work environment. Some people thrive on that; probably more people find it stressful to be LIVING in the same space with work hanging over their heads.
At a certain point, unschooling is sending your child to school if that's what they want.
What point is that? I do want to know.
If you had to force the issue, she wasn't following your lead, was she? I don't know what you call it when you force your kid not to learn.
Well, she has her little axe to grind with public school. That, and she thought it would be quite expensive to send me back after all the money she invested in taking us out, and she didn't like the "wasted" money.
...I should stop, we still have too many touchy issues between us there. >.>
To be fair, it's very hard to homeschool where we live. You HAVE to be registered with a school board, for one thing. All the school boards other than the public one are run by fundies. And there's little resources for homeschooled kids in our city. (Programs, I mean, where homeschooled kids can meet up, go on field trips together, that sort of thing.)
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-10-11 03:42 pm (UTC)My mother was not around much.
If you needed to be alone then, I don't see the problem with that. If you didn't want to be alone, I don't think your mom should have left you to fend for yourself, not when you'd just been pulled out of school.
I was depressed, which is half the reason things went so slowly
I don't think you can gauge the effectiveness of an educational philosophy by the performance of someone who's depressed. :-P
the other half is there were no deadlines. No schedules. Frankly, I think those things are necessary. Kids may think they're icky, icky, but the real world has deadlines.
I can meet deadlines, but not self-set ones. I know I would never, ever strike out and try to start my own business; I'd loathe it. I need deadlines. Official ones, given to me by someone with the power to actually enforce it. My mother just does not have that power. What's she gonna do, fail me? Ooooh, I'm worried.
Without grades, there was no reason to get me to do something that I didn't want to do, but which was necessary..
School creates this. Grades, not having a say in what you're learning about, coerced learning (and coercive parenting) saps internal motivation.
In the real world, you need self-motivation. School doesn't teach that; it destroys it. I wouldn't be able to start a business either. The thought terrifies me. I don't know how to exist without someone else telling me what to do, and taking care of me. I don't think that's a particularly healthy way to be. Now I was never homeschooled, so obviously school didn't help me in that department. It's not meant to. School in its present form was designed to create dependence, submissiveness, inability to think on one's own. It was designed, actually, to turn out complacent factory workers.
I think very few people are naturally self-motivated enough to always make themselves do what needs to be done.
I think by the time you've spent a few years learning to do what you're told, yes, this becomes true for a lot of people. I don't believe at all we're born this way.
My sister for example - homeschooled for years. Now she's back in "real" school (it's a charter school, actually) and she's struggling and struggling, especially with math.
So what? Not everyone has to be a math whiz. Not everyone has to know algebra. I don't use it in daily life. On the rare occasions I need it, well, I know algebra, or did, not that I remember much (another thing you get out of school: the ability to forget things as soon as the test is over! Useful.) - anyway, if I needed it, and didn't know it, I could ask someone for whom math is fun and really understands it.
For that matter, not everyone has to know a ton about history. Not everyone has to love Dickens. If we let people do what they're interested in, they'll get better at it and be happier and more productive. Exposure to stuff is never bad, but if the interest isn't there forcing someone to stick with it is pointless.
Stupid character limit.
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-10-11 04:15 pm (UTC)I don't think you can gauge the effectiveness of an educational philosophy by the performance of someone who's depressed. :-P
My sister was not depressed. Neither were my four cousins, which this has also been tried on. My cousins, when given the option, all voted to go to public school, and now refuse to leave...so it remains to be seen how that turns out. *shrug*
School creates this. Grades, not having a say in what you're learning about, coerced learning (and coercive parenting) saps internal motivation.
Hard to prove. I could just as easily say that a parent who lets their kid do whatever they want is going to end up with a lazy bum.
I don't think that's a particularly healthy way to be.
Why not? What, people liking to be told what to do is wrong? If no one liked being a worker bee, our economy would fall apart.
There's not much wrong with it unless that doesn't make you happy. If it doesn't make you happy to be told what to do, then yes, someone screwed up, but it's not necessarily unhealthy.
It was designed, actually, to turn out complacent factory workers.
I agree, but I always thought that had less to do with the curriculum, and more to do with the busywork and the power complexes of the teachers.
The work has to be meaningful. Kids like there to be reasons for things. Maybe I haven't known enough kids...seems to me that if you give a good reason for something to a kid, they're usually willing to try it.
(another thing you get out of school: the ability to forget things as soon as the test is over! Useful.)
Not very, and I never claimed it was.
And I do think some math is necessary. As well as history.
People who get financial employers to do their math for them are in danger of being gypped. People who don't know history trying to figure out how our current global situation works are laughable. People voting when they don't understand how political systems work are scary.
Er...have to go out, will get to anything I missed later. *runs*
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-10-11 06:47 pm (UTC)Agreed.
My sister was not depressed.
And, you say, she's a damned good web designer. When it comes right down to it, if she has a body of work to show people, that's what they're going to use to decide whether or not they want her doing their pages, not her schooling. Can't say I agree this is a failure. I don't know anything about your cousins, so no comment on them.
I could just as easily say that a parent who lets their kid do whatever they want is going to end up with a lazy bum.
You could, but I don't think it follows logically. As a social species, we have a huge desire to feel useful. Without disease, depression, chemical issues like hypothyroid, being forced to do things against one's will, I don't think laziness will occur.
people liking to be told what to do is wrong?
I don't want my child to need to be told what to do. I think that's a huge handicap.
If no one liked being a worker bee, our economy would fall apart.
If she likes it, that's fine. If that's all she aspires to, that's fine. If that's all she can do, whether she likes it or not, that's a problem. I'd like to keep her options open.
If it doesn't make you happy to be told what to do, then yes, someone screwed up, but it's not necessarily unhealthy.
I'm not sure what to say to this. It's disturbing. Like, they succeeded in making you a peon. Good for you? How is it a screw-up if you don't like being told what to do? Why should anyone have to like that?
seems to me that if you give a good reason for something to a kid, they're usually willing to try it.
Correct. And if it's a really good reason (like, you will need this to be able to vote competently, or buy groceries, or whatever) then no forcing is necessary. But school and your apparent educational philosophy are full of fake reasons: you have to do this because I said, because I'll punish you (with bad grades in the case of school) if you don't. I think it would be irresponsible as a homeschooler not to let my child know why she might want to learn something. But then I'll let her decide if that's a good enough reason in her life. Yeah, she's 4, her criteria are going to be different than mine. But she's 4, I trust as she grows her motivations and interests will change.
And I do think some math is necessary. As well as history.
Some. And I'll let her decide how much is necessary in her life.
People who get financial employers to do their math for them are in danger of being gypped. People who don't know history trying to figure out how our current global situation works are laughable. People voting when they don't understand how political systems work are scary.
There's a lot of these people, and most of them went to school and were forced to learn all this stuff. They just didn't learn it well, because it wasn't presented to them such that they'd really absorb it. By letting Gina choose what and when and how to learn stuff, I more or less guarantee she's going to get whatever use she needs out of it. Now someone who can't learn enough basic math to buy food or pay the rent or whatever probably has a learning disability, but they'd have that in school, too, or whatever curricula they're using. I expect they'd be frustrated at not being able to do what they want and ask for help. If she needs help, I'll give it to her.
This has eaten up most of my day already! But is interesting, anyway.
(((Dan)))
*hopes I'm not upsetting you*
Fun debate, right? Not argument. :-D
The spellcheck doesn't like "homeschool". It wants me to use "home school", "home-school", "homeschooling", "homesick", "Herschel", "mescal", "homosexual", "homicidal", or "timescale".
*amused*
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-10-12 10:06 pm (UTC)But school and your apparent educational philosophy are full of fake reasons:
*sighs* We would never have been having this discussion at all if I agree with what the public schools do; I was under the impression we were comparing three schooling methods, not two.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to be getting the impression that you think public school's biggest flaw is that the curriculum is structured. I don't think it is; having recently emerged (well, not even quite) from that, I think structured learning is the LEAST of public schools' problems, if it is a problem at all - which I highly doubt. The problems with public school are manifold, but they are elsewhere.
If that's the way things stand, then we are simply never going to agree, and this debate is pretty pointless and frustrating. Flat-out, I loathe child-led education; that's not going to change. The way my sister was going, she would have ended up another highly specialized moron with two skills to her name and a knowledge base the size of a penny.
We have enough of those in our society. If I can, I don't want to turn out any more.
My kid(s) are not going to be able to choose everything they want to learn. Yes, they can choose certain topics. But they will not be getting a choice about studying math, english, or anything else every single year until they graduate. When they have the knowledge base to actually make informed decisions about what they do and do not need, they will already have it. You can't make those kinds of decisions blindly, in my view.
My sister? Knows exactly what school she wants to go to. Namely, the best art school in our province. But to do that, she has to have a certain level of math, and she's kicking up a fuss about doing that. Why am I not surprised? Because she's a teenager, and not even teenagers have the ability to know what the best course of action is and take it. She's not making the connection between the school she REALLY wants to go to, and the math class she doesn't want to take. If it were up to her - she wouldn't make the right choice. That's what my mother's there for.
It's true, I don't know I'll be going about it right. But I do think that the kids who can't learn from a structured curriculum are the exception, not the rule. If I end up with an exception like that, so be it, we'll adjust, but the odds are against it.
And for the record, the whole POINT of my "apparent educational philosophy" is to avoid fake reasons.
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-10-12 10:53 pm (UTC)We are. This is something 2 of the schooling methods have in common. There are good reasons for learning math, language, history, but a child whose reason for learning them is that somebody is making them is less likely to understand that, and more likely to resist learning in general.
No, I don't have a problem with structure. Structure is good, for a child who asks for it. It's not the greatest for everyone, and I'd leave it up to the child which they prefer.
The way my sister was going, she would have ended up another highly specialized moron with two skills to her name and a knowledge base the size of a penny.
We have enough of those in our society. If I can, I don't want to turn out any more.
Sure, there's enough. I don't think you can demonstrate they got that way because they were unschooled, since just not very many are unschooled to begin with.
I wish I was a little more specialized. I know a little bit about lots of things, but not enough about anything to be useful. *shrugs* I think a few very specialized people are good to have around, because they'll make the greatest advances in whatever fields they happen to be in.
My sister? Knows exactly what school she wants to go to. Namely, the best art school in our province.
I don't know many kids her age who know that well what they want to do. Good for her.
But to do that, she has to have a certain level of math, and she's kicking up a fuss about doing that. Why am I not surprised? Because she's a teenager, and not even teenagers have the ability to know what the best course of action is and take it.
I think they'd have a better ability to make decisions if they'd been allowed to make them for themselves up to that point. But it's true, teenagers are young, they don't have a lot of experience, sometimes they don't make the best decisions. But I still think it's up to them to make their decisions as well as they can and see what the consequences are. Advice, when asked for, is good. Being controlling of someone else's destiny because they're younger than you is not.
If she doesn't want to do the math, and then doesn't get into the school, it's her choice. If it's worth it to her to pick another school or skip school altogether to avoid this class, then that's up to her. If she really, for herself and not because someone else is expecting it of her, wants to go to this particular school, she'll do what she has to to get in whether someone tells her to or not. Maybe she'll do it a year or two later than if someone is somehow threatening her, but she'll do it.
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-10-11 03:47 pm (UTC)What required math stream? If she really needs it to do web design, she must already know it. If she doesn't know it, the school has no business requiring it if it's not going to be applicable to the coursework. If she really needs it, then she has motivation to learn it. If she can't learn it anyway, maybe she ought to look at doing something that doesn't need it, because she's going to be miserable in a field that requires a lot of math if she has no affinity for it. Which actually wouldn't make her different from millions of other people who got out of school only fit for doing jobs they hate. *shrugs*
Oh, and another thing (and this is something I dislike about ALL homeschooling methods) - the "workplace" is also home. There's no real escape from the work environment.
Yeah, if you're doing school-at-home, this could be a problem. If you're just learning wherever you happen to be (which may or may not be home - grocery stores are good places, as are parks, museums, parking lots, swimming pools, anywhere else) without making work (and I mean that in the most negative connotation of the word, work as in coerced labor) out of it, there's not a problem. And maybe there's a problem with separating work from the home, anyway. There's work that needs to be done at home. Dishes. Laundry. Gardening, etc. In fact I really need to go seal the steps soon... blah. Need to find a paintbrush.
About sending a child to school if they want - what would be the point in keeping them home if they think they can get something they want out of going to school? Let them go. Either they'll find what they want, and stay, or realize it's not what they thought, and leave. I think it's important to let the child choose the method of learning that works best for them. That just might be school for some. It sure as hell wasn't for me, but it works for some kids, particularly older ones that haven't already been in school and learned how not to get anything out of it other than grades. :-P
Your mother freaks me out. Of course, I freak me out. I realize I'm not doing the best I can for Gina, but at least I acknowledge it so I can try to do better. I really should get on paxil maybe, so I can call people. *sigh*
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-10-11 04:01 pm (UTC)The math classes that you need to take and PASS to get into post-secondary institutions.
If she doesn't know it, the school has no business requiring it if it's not going to be applicable to the coursework.
:P Go tell a university or a college that they shouldn't require math. It's a basic requirement; you're not going to get around it by saying, "oh, I don't need it for this job, so just admit me anyway, 'k?"
without making work
Everything becomes work you don't like at some point, even when you're doing stuff you DO like. There's always aspects to a job that you hate.
That just might be school for some.
Oh, and I loved school, right from the start. Thrived at first. I ended up in a few crappy ones, but school's mostly been good to me.
I don't think I'm most people, though.
I realize I'm not doing the best I can for Gina, but at least I acknowledge it so I can try to do better.
*shrug* There's always so-called "mistakes," especially for the first child. Big deal. Do your best, that's all anyone can do. :)
Re: Part II
Date: 2003-10-11 05:36 pm (UTC)Not all schools will require this. Maybe she can look into one that has portfolio-based admission requirements?
:P Go tell a university or a college that they shouldn't require math. It's a basic requirement; you're not going to get around it by saying, "oh, I don't need it for this job, so just admit me anyway, 'k?"
I think this is a flaw of schools in general (though community colleges here won't require you to pass a test to be admitted, though they'll make you take placement tests before they decide what classes to allow you to take - I've been to a couple and they require you take the mimimum amount of math you'd need to do the job you're training for. When I was taking drafting my one required math course was one unit of trig that covered maybe what we'd had the first week of trig in high school.): that they will prevent you from doing a job you'd excel at because you don't excel at something unrelated. That's pointless.
I don't think I'm most people, though.
I think this is mostly what I'm getting at. Nobody is most people, everyone is different, and you can't expect one learning system or schedule to work for everyone.