Homeschool methods - What's Your Flavor?

Linda Fay wrote this post about choosing homeschool curriculum.

Unconditional Parenting: 6. What Holds Us Back?

Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason
by Alfie Kohn

6. What Holds Us Back?

We may know that control and conditional parenting are ineffective - so what keeps us from changing? We have to address the reasons we do what we do if we really want to change. Kohn lists several reasons why parents continue to do what they suspect isn't working.

We repeat what's familiar. The way we were parented and what we see everyone else doing seems normal and comfortable. Even when we know it isn't working, it's hard to break away from what we're used to.

As a society, in spite of what we say, we don't truly value children. Parents buy things to keep them occupied and out of the way, and society prefers well-behaved children (quiet, still kids - not real kids who are curious and energetic). It's acceptable to be disrespectful and rude to children. Although most children are harshly reprimanded (my own perception is that too many children are punished only after they've annoyed their parents, but they aren't always trained), the general perception is that today's kids are out of control and allowed to run wild--and need more spankings. But good parenting isn't necessarily harsh and authoritative. "Parents who seem oblivious to how their children are annoying strangers and getting into mischief are often equally oblivious to their children's needs. That's an argument not for more discipline, but for grown-ups to spend more time with kids, to give them more guidance, and to treat them with more respect." In other words, what the naughty little boy in Barnes and Noble really needs isn't a good spanking, but parents who will spend more time with him, loving and teaching him.

Parenting books tell us that we need to "win" our parenting battles--placing us in an adversarial position against our kids. Parents with a competitive need to win will tend to get impressive, well-behaved children at any cost. And parents who value conformity will pressure their kids to appear well-behaved, using whatever methods seem to enforce conformity.

Parents misjudge what kids are capable of doing--they assume they can dress themselves and them punish them when they can't. They may expect them to sit still, and them punish them when they can't.

As a culture, we have the idea of retribution and justice so ingrained in us that we feel a strong need to "make kids pay" when they do wrong, so we inflict suffering on them to appease our sense of vengeance even when it doesn't really teach the right lesson. The satisfaction of seeing them "get what they deserve" may override the long-range goals we have for raising our children.

Parents may over-react when they sense that they're losing control by being more controlling. In our fear of them running wild, we tighten the reins too much. There's no balance, just a wavering from one extreme to the other. Or, we let things go until we finally get aggravated enough to do something--and punishing is the only alternative we know. It's either let kids get away with stuff, or punish them--we don't know of anything in the middle.

Kohn says that harsh authitarian parenting has its roots in religion that preaches "Do what you're you're told; you'll become rich and get to watch your enemies die." But that's a caricature; Christians may be followers (like anyone else), but it's unfair to characterize them the way he does. More commonly, I see Christians jumping on the bandwagon of whatever is trendy, whether it's Dobson, Pearl/Train Up a Child, or Ezzo/Growing Kids God's Way. When churches hold gentle parenting seminars, Christians will do that just as readily. So I definitely disagree with Kohn - being a Christian doesn't automatically make a person a believer in harsh discipline, and throwing out religion isn't necessary to be a respectful, understanding parent who guides without over-control.

Our own limitations, anxieties, past misconceptions and scars can influence not only how we react to our kids, but how we perceive their actions. We may view innocent childhood immaturity (like carelessly breaking a vase) as deliberate naughtiness meant to hurt us--and then react to that. How we view ourselves--did we feel accepted as children ourselves?--can influence how we perceive our children. In fact, we may be so focused on our own unmet childhood needs, that we overlook our children. Some parents are distant and afraid of getting too close because of their own history.

Parents may be afraid that they'll be perceived as inadequate or even judged by others if their children aren't perfect, so they keep their kids under tight control. Or they may feel powerless if they don't maintain strict control. We may be too overprotective and not allow our kids to be kids. We may fear that our kids will be too babyish and rush them into independence (early potty training, early weaning, removing the pacifier and blankie) before they're ready. Or, we may be so afraid of becoming permissive that we lay down strict rules with harsh enforcement to keep permissiveness at bay.

Parents need to consider why they do what they do, and ask themselves, "Is it possible that what I just with them had more to do with my needs, my fears, and my own upbringing than with what's really in their best interests?"

Kwikila

We've had a two-week stretch of brown drought here, and in the last few days this poem has been coming to my mind over and over again. Beatrice posted it at the Beehive a couple of years ago. Unfortunately she didn't know the author, and as I can't find anything more about it online it will have to stay anonymous. It's no less powerful for that.



Kwikila

Two still-green trees rub together
as if for reassurance
that the wind that grates
will carry too;
carry clouds, heavy clouds,
full clouds and black;
to fall and to dampen,
to drench and to soak —
deep into the pores of the earth.

The stream-beds are paths
for the lizard and the snake;
the reed-beds are brown
and blackened — (last week,
another fire went along there)
and the boulders which
rolled along
in the floods are quite still;
still with the stillness
of tragedy brewing,
still with the stillness
of death.

Men curse the wind
for its transitory promises—
dark clouds build up
(and our hopes with them too)
and are blown away;
or, worse still, come over,
intact and inticing,
to cynically spatter
verandahs and faces
before passing on . . .

A desk — and textbooks strewn;
lately my eyes have been wandering
more and more. But my window
still frames the same picture
of a bright, empty sky
(called gorgeous in Sydney, where
storm clouds abound),
and grass, grey with despair—
dust hangs in a curl
(thrown up by a wheel);
it seems, almost, to have
been hanging there
for months now.

O Lord, I murmur,
and murmur again-

Please send us rain.




[In the calm of the evening the clouds broke today, and after two weeks we at last had rain. - Tim]

How Does a Poem Mean?

How Does a Poem Mean? by John Ciardi

I'm going to be reading this with Tim and J over the summer; we'll start Monday and plan to read 8-10-ish pages at a time, reading 6 days in the week, and hopefully finishing before Tim goes off to college and J starts school/co-op. Here is our schedule; if you have the book, we'd welcome some conversation as we read and post.

June 29-July 5
Introductory/C.h 1 How Does a Poem mean? pg 663-671
after Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Eve pg 671-677
Ch. 2 A Burble Through the Tulgey Woods pg 678-685
Folk Ballads pg 685-692
Edward pg 692-702
The Yarn of Nancy Bell pg 702-708

July 6-12
Ch. 3 By Rippling Pools pg 709-716
The Haystack in the Floods/The Listeners pg 716-721
The Rime of the Ancient Mariner pg 721-738
Mr. Flood's Party pg 738-744
The Eve of St. Agnes/Death of the Hired Man/Love Song of Alfred Prufrock pg 744-761
Ch. 4 The Words of Poetry pg 762-768

July 13-19
The Word in a Poem pg 768-774
The Phrase as a Form pg 774-781
Pier delle Vigne pg 781-790
6. The Language of good poetry is exact pg 790-795
Burning the Letters pg 796-802
Blue Girls pg 802-811

July 20-26
Poems for Study pg 811-818
Adonais pg 818-830
In Memory of WB Yeats pg 830-836
Dover Beach pg 836-845
Ch. 5 The Sympathetic Contract pg 846-852
When He Who Adores Thee pg 853-858

July 27-Aug 2
Lady, Was It Fair of Thee pg 858-863
Ch. 6 The Image and the Poem pg 864-872
A Valediction Forbidding Mourning pg 872-882
Ode on the Death of a Favorite Cat pg 883-892
This is Just to Say pg 892-900
Poems for Study pg 900-910

Aug 3-9
How Do I Love Thee pg 910-919
Ch. 7 The Poem in Motion pg 920-926
With Rue My Heart is Laden pg 926-934
Poems for Guided Study pg 934-945
To Mistress Margaret Hussey pg 946-953
Poems for Individual Analysis pg 953-964

Aug 10-16
Tom O' Bedlam's Song pg 964-972
The 'Revenge' pg 972-984
Early Evening Quarrel pg 984-993
Ch. 8 The Poem in Countermotion pg 994-998
The Fury of Aerial Bombardment pg 998-1004
Before Disaster pg 1005-1013

Aug 17-18
My Luve pg 1013-1022

School Schedules Done

I'm getting an early start on our planning for next year. Tim will be in college, and we'll be involved in two co-ops, a high school co-op for J, and a CM co-op (field trips, nature study) with L and Miss M. This past year, J struggled with the amount of schoolwork he had, and I didn't want to repeat that, plus we'll be having four-day weeks (we'll be losing a day to co-op). The recent CM Conference got me thinking that we need to re-focus on relationships, and start fresh with narrations. I had all of these thoughts rattling around in my brain, so I thought the best way to deal with that was to go ahead and have our plan on paper so I could tangibly see what our year will look like, school-wise.

I like to have a daily schedule (because when I don't, it's too easy to get nothing done at all). So I've made up J's and L's daily schedules for next year.

I also did a daily schedule for a student who's new to homeschooling and will be preparing for Year 7 next year - this is a version of Pre7 based partly on her reading level, and partly on the books they already had.

Miss M is four, and will be starting AO Year 0 a year from now.

Unconditional Parenting: 5. Pushed to Succeed

Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason
by Alfie Kohn

This chapter didn't grab my attention much because I don't know people who really pressure their children; this is something I hear caricatured more than I actually see it happen in real life. Jack Beckman said that Kohn tends to caricature parents to make his point, and I can see that. But I think most parenting writers do that.

5. Pushed to Succeed

Kids can feel stressed and depressed when their parents are more concerned about their future success than their well-being. It can drive kids to be competitive to win, rather than focusing on the more important purpose of doing well. They may assess their worth based on how they rate in class, or sports, or whatever. Sometimes those parents are after their own glory - the honor of being the parent of a success.

In school, rewarding children for good grades makes them less interesting in the learning itself. The focus on succeeding may make them choose the least challenging assignments. Not only is the grade their focus, but the fear of failure is too much of a risk to take on a challenge. They also tend to skim for answers instead of tackling tough questions and reflecting - so they don't learn to be deep thinkers. In school, just like in discipline, control tends to backfire. Worst of all is when parents offer acceptance and affection based on school grades.

In sports, parents sometimes pressure their kids to win, to be the best. Although parents may claim that they just want their kids to enjoy themselves, saying, 'we only want our son to do his best,' is a different message than telling him to have fun. It carries an implied pressure to win. Competitive sports can bring out the worst in parents.

Does competition motivate people to do their best? If children know they have our unconditional love and don't need to earn it, won't it make them lazy? Isn't it human nature to do as little as possible?

Children who know they're loved unconditionally will probably accept themselves and have positive self-regard without being arrogantly self-satisfied. Such a person isn't inclined to sit around and do nothing. They'll be more willing to take the risks of challenging projects because their self-worth isn't riding on the outcome.

Unconditional Parenting: 4. Punitive Damages

Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason
by Alfie Kohn

Before I go any further, let me say - Jack Beckman recommended reading Unconditional Parenting along with Shepherding a Child's Heart, so I've had that one next on my list. I'm having second thoughts, though, after hearing reviews like the ones posted at GCM here and here.

I was also surprised to learn that Alfie Kohn is revered by TCS parents (Taking Children Seriously/non-coersion at all costs), although Unconditional Parenting, which I'm enjoying and mostly agreeing with, at least in theory, is considered less extreme than other books of his. I may try to find something somewhere in the middle - unconditional, "working with" instead of "doing to," but that has no problem recognizing the parental need to set limits and teach boundaries.

4. Punitive Damages

The concept of punishment is to make kids suffer to teach them a lesson. But "how likely is it that intentionally making children unhappy will prove beneficial in the long run? And: If punishment is so effective, how come I have to keep doing it to my child over and over?" A 1957 study showed that punishment was ineffective at curing aggression, clinginess, bedwetting, and other grievances. Newer studies show that kids who are punished for breaking rules tend to break rules more when they're not home. Spanking makes children more aggressive and imparts the lesson that "you can get your way with people who are weaker than you are by hurting them."

But spanking isn't the only way that parents inflict suffering on their children to teach them a lesson. There's also depriving children of affection or privileges, humiliation or isolation. These 'new, improved' forms of punishment may be re-labeled as consequences and justified because they're 'logical' or because they're spelled out in advance. But that's really just a way of threatening: 'If you do this, I'll do that.' Natural consequences--allowing a child to go hungry if they're late for dinner, or to be wet if they forget a raincoat--carries the subtle message that 'Mom could have helped me, but she wouldn't be bothered.'

When kids rebel against punishment and control and become defiant, the usual advice is to use *more* punishment and *more* control - which leads to a vicious cycle. Parents assume it's the child who's the problem, and never challenge whether the whole concept of punishment itself might not be at fault. "Misbehavior and punishment are not opposites that cancel each other out; on the contrary, they breed and reinforce each other."

Kohn lists probable reasons why punishment is counterproductive:
- It makes the child mad because he's helplessly controlled
- It models a misuse of power
- As kids get older, it becomes less effective. What then?
- It erodes our relationships with our kids
- It puts the child's focus on his unfair treatment instead on the real issue.
- It impedes moral thinking by putting the child's focus on himself (avoiding punishment) instead of others

Punishment doesn't work, and *more* punishment won't make it any more effective. Adding warnings and explanations doesn't make it work better - if a child doesn't share, then explaining why they need to share, and also taking the toy away, will cancel out the explanation and direct the child's focus to the loss of the toy rather than the misdeed.

The "doing to" approach to parenting (including spanking, consequences, rewards and even verbal praise) is based on a faulty premise. As long as a parent has these in their parenting toolbox, the less likely they'll be to try the "working with" approach.

CM Conference Notes: The Relational Paradigm of Christianity

[These are my notes from a two-part lecture by Jason Fletcher about moving to a model for life that's based on relationships rather than self-service or capitalism - Tim]


The Relational Paradigm of Christianity: Part 1

Social isolation is growing. A quarter of the people in the US say that they have no one to confide in. Because people are busier, because people move more, because of TV, and because of a strongly individualistic worldview, society is becoming more fragmented. We can call this the "I World". Studies show that materialism is also a problem: our GDP is increasing steadily, but happiness with life hasn't changed.

So we need a new paradigm. It's the quality of our relationships that determines our happiness, and Christianity is a relational religion.


1. Christianity is a relational religion

Christianity is unique in that it sees God as a triune being with relationship built in. Taking that further, we could say that an isolated person is an oxymoron--true personhood can only exist in a relationship. We have needs that can only be met by relationships. But only in the Trinity do we see a relationship in which each individual's needs are met perfectly. Good relationships (including the Trinity) are others-centered. Sin is a failure of relationships. It is becoming less than a full person.


2. The Nature of a Good Relationship

Christianity promises that in the end we shall have perfect relationships with God and men. But in the meantime we are becoming more Christ-like. (See Micah 6:8.) Matthew 22:32-40, "Love the Lord...love thy neighbor." This is what Christianity is all about. God wants us to culture good relationships.

Good relationships have two things: relational values and relational conditions. (Keeping in mind that all relationships are imperfect.) Relational values, taken from a study of the Old Testament, include steadfast love (which could also be called loyalty or compassion); righteousness, which means fulfilling the duties of a specific relationship; justice, seeking to right wrongs; faithfulness and truthfulness (in Hebrew the two words are almost interchangeable); mercy, compassion; forgiveness; and generosity (which is linked to loyalty, but goes beyond it).

There are five relational conditions (gleaned from Old Testament law). 1) Directness. Face-to-face encounters and communication. This is important because we communicate so much non-verbally. Emails, phone calls, letters, etc. lose that part of communication. They are also focused on information rather than interaction. Directness means close and attentive presence. 2) Continuity: the amount of time we invest in relationships (including our relationship with God). We can think of a 24-hour period like a box: you can squish it one way and make it long but thin; or you can squish it the other way, which will make it cover less but will make it deeper. "Quality time" isn't as important as simple quantity time. 3) Multiplexity: the depth of knowledge we have about the other in a relationship. The number of contexts we know a person in. We should avoid one-dimensional relationships. 4) Parity: managing differences in power between people in the relationship. The proper use of authority (not to be confused with equality). 5) Commonality, purpose. A relationship is strengthened by a shared vision or shared interests.

Good relationships have all of the qualities described above.

Charlotte Mason taught that children should be treated as human beings, full persons in their own right. The teacher is a mentor in the student's quest for knowledge. There is a relationship between the teacher and the child. There is also a relationship between the student and the ideas. Because relationships are so pivotal--to education as well as to being and knowing--the character of the teacher is extremely important.


3. Relational Agenda: the explanatory power of the relational perspective.

(Part 2: A Christian Perspective on the Environment)

The wider realm of relationships. Social action (immediate aid) and social reform (changing laws, addressing causes rather than symptoms). The vision is not capitalism but relationism. Any judgment of an act must measure its wider relational impact.

Jesus said, "Love God, love neighbor," not "love earth". Our "relationship" with earth is distinct from person-to-person relationships. But there are several reasons why we should care about (for) the earth. 1) Because God does. 2) Because He has told us to (Genesis 3:15). 3) Because we have dominion over the earth as God's representatives. We are to be servant-kings (shepherd-kings) like Him. 4) Because we are connected to and dependent upon the earth. Even Man's name, "Adam," comes from the word "earth". The failure to care for creation is a failure of love. When we harm the environment we harm our neighbors through it, and our relations that extend into the future. 5) Because God has promised to restore creation as part of His salvation plan. And we, as Christians, should proclaim and demonstrate redemption in all its forms.

Two ways to care for the earth: rest and roots. Rest: keeping the Sabbath as God did. The need for rest is built into creation. Land produces best when it has fallow years. So we should limit our take, not squeezing every last drop out of the earth. We're supposed to take a shared day off; only in this way does a day of rest do what it's supposed to do for our relationships. Roots. (See Leviticus 25, about the Year of Jubilee.) In ancient Israel the outright purchase of land was forbidden. And every fifty years all leases ended and the land was returned to its original family. This created a connection with the land, because the same family kept the same land, and also a connection within families, because members of a family lived near each other. As communities weaken, our reliance upon centralized government increases. (There was also a ban on usury in ancient Israel, which helped to prevent a sharp class distinction from arising.)

Further research: www.jubilee-centre.org and www.relationshipsfoundation.org

Unconditional Parenting 3. Too Much Control

Unconditional Parenting: Moving from Rewards and Punishments to Love and Reason
by Alfie Kohn

3. Too Much Control

"The dominant problem with parenting in our society isn't permissiveness, but the fear of permissiveness." Parents fuss and nag and yell and reprimand in an effort to restrict children unnecessarily out of a fear of being too permissive. That fear drives us to overcompensate by controlling too much. But our demands show a lack of respect for the child, as if parents don't think kids deserve as much respect as adults do. How would we treat an adult friend if they forgot something, or didn't whisper in the library, or accidentally dropped and broke something? If something is innocuous when our friend does it, then why is it punishable when our child does it?

In some studies, it was children who had less controlling parents (those whose parents talked with them, tried to accommodate them, and considered their side) who were more likely to do as they were told. Yet when controlling methods don't work and the child rebels, more control is instituted. Overly controlled children will either lose their self-reliance and allow themselves be bullied into submission, or they'll be behaved in public but sneaky, or they will be angry and defiant.

When parents have too much control over food, limiting food to their mealtimes and using food as a reward, children lose the ability to regulate their own hunger cues. When parents don't give children chances to choose to do right for themselves, children may not develop a strong internal conscience. When parents direct their kids' play and activities too much, kids lose interest.

"...with teachers: Lean on them to 'raise standards' and they turn into drill sergeants. The ironic result is that their students end up acieving at lower levels than their counterparts in classrooms where there's less top-down emphasis on 'accountability.'" (How does this compare with John Thorley's talk on Relationship vs Examinable Results?)

Children do need structure, but not control. "As a rule, reasonable structures are imposed only when necessary, in a flexible manner, without undue restrictiveness, and, when possible, with the participation of the child." That's not the same as coercing your own will on a child. Parents need to be "in control" (providing a safe environment, guiding, setting limits) without being "controlling."

"The goal is empowerment rather than conformity, and the methods are respectful rather than coercive."

One More Conference Thought: Habit

This was typed at the bottom of a page of discussion questions for people to consider during scheduled group "processing" sessions. I think I've heard this from Karen Glass before, but this is the first time I've seen it in print. I'd love to hear any and all thoughts on this.

In a letter written towards the end of her life to Henrietta Franklin in the fall of 1922, Charlotte Mason said:

"What a time you had among the Alpine flowers! I know something of the joy of it, for many years ago before you were born or thought of, I spent some early spring weeks at the Kaltbad (Rigi) with some friends. After forty years I see and smell and luxuriate - but I did not see the Soldanella . . . Science has done nothing to confirm the "rut" theory in all these years, and Brother Body seems to me much the inferior partner. I think all that I have written is still true but I would emphasize habit and so on less. Child mind - no, because a child has as much mind as the rest of us."
(Typed by Elsie Kitching)

In the above letter, written towards the end of Mason's life, she de-emphasizes habit and emphasizes the child mind. Share your thoughts about how habit formation fits within a rational paradigm.