Many home educating parents draw a sharp distinction, an opposition even, between what a child learns because she wishes to learn and what a parent teaches because she thinks it wise that the child learn this or that piece of knowledge. Today and tomorrow I want to explain why this seems to me to be a misleading and dangerous idea, liable to harm a child's natural development in the cause of an abstract and fundamentally irrational ideology. I want to begin with the teaching of reading.
At the age of twelve or fourteen months most ordinary children will be indicating to their parents that they wish to know what the name of some object. They usually signal this by the means of what we call 'Telegraphic Speech'. This is some sentence or phrase which is reduced to a syllable or two. In my daughter's case this entailed pointing at something and saying, 'Zat?'. This was, I suppose, a contraction of 'What's that?' All parents, unless they are too busy, will reply, 'That's a dog' or whatever the thing actually is. This is spontaneous learning on the part of the small child. She has asked for information and the adult has supplied it. Most of us go much further than this though; we teach our children about symbolic representation. If our child points at a pink stuffed toy and asks, 'Zat?', we tell her that this too is a dog. It is of course nothing of the sort. It is a piece of nylon fabric stretched around some kapok stuffing. Two round chunks of polymer have been sewn to the front of this object as crude representations of eyes. Nevertheless, it is supposed to be a dog and so we tell our child, 'It's a dog'. We are teaching her that one object can stand for or represent another. We extend this by showing her picture books which have splashes of coloured printers' ink on sheets of paper. When our child asks, 'Zat?', we say 'Its' a dog'. Again, just as in the case of the stuffed toy, this is not true. We are trying to accustom her to the idea of symbols, the notion that one thing can be used to represent another. Of course the splashes of ink are not really a dog, but nor are we deceiving the child. We are teaching her to think symbolically. This is very important, because of course language and thought consist of nothing more than the manipulation of symbols.
So far, I have described what happens in any normal family. Children are taught to associate real objects like dogs with symbolic representations. It is at this point that many parents stop, which is puzzling. If we are prepared to teach a child that one lot of ink splashes, a picture, can represent a dog, why would we not show her another set of ink splashes in this form, dog, and tell her that this too represents a dog? It is precisely the same as telling her that a picture of cuddly toy represents the animal and yet is a step too far for some parents. Above is the wall of my daughter's bedroom when she was fifteen months old. As can be seen, I was teaching her the visual representation of dog, but also the printed version. She learnt both simultaneously and with the same pleasure.
I think that the problem lies in us. We see one activity as being 'play' or normal childhood activity and the other as being 'book learning' or 'school'. Young children do not make this distinction unless they pick it up from us.
The world can be a puzzling and confusing place to a small child. Anything we can do to fill in bits of the puzzle and help them to make sense f their world cannot fail to be good for them. Apart from any educational benefit, they will be less fearful and nervous as they learn to make more sense of what is happening around them. They have seen print all round them, now they learn that it is not just a pattern, that it actually conveys meaning. What's more, they can share in this process by making sense of these little black squiggles themselves.
I cannot begin to tell readers of the pleasure that my daughter and I both gained from this activity. Neither of us regarded it as being different from our usual play and yet by the age of two she was reading fluently. I had set out to teach her to read and she had learnt easily as part of her ordinary life. Why I would have denied her this or deliberately delayed the process until she was six or seven, I really cannot say.
Tomorrow I shall look at how this same process can be used to teach any academic subject up to and including GCSE level in physics or biology. I have been racking my brains for any disadvantage to a child in being taught in this way and have been unable to come up with any at all. The only problem would come if I transmitted my own feelings to the child about what was happening and caused her to think that teaching and learning were somehow different from everyday life. Then, I can readily imagine that she might start cutting up rough about it and resisting what was happening. Since learning was never differentiated in this way, this problem did not arise.
At the age of twelve or fourteen months most ordinary children will be indicating to their parents that they wish to know what the name of some object. They usually signal this by the means of what we call 'Telegraphic Speech'. This is some sentence or phrase which is reduced to a syllable or two. In my daughter's case this entailed pointing at something and saying, 'Zat?'. This was, I suppose, a contraction of 'What's that?' All parents, unless they are too busy, will reply, 'That's a dog' or whatever the thing actually is. This is spontaneous learning on the part of the small child. She has asked for information and the adult has supplied it. Most of us go much further than this though; we teach our children about symbolic representation. If our child points at a pink stuffed toy and asks, 'Zat?', we tell her that this too is a dog. It is of course nothing of the sort. It is a piece of nylon fabric stretched around some kapok stuffing. Two round chunks of polymer have been sewn to the front of this object as crude representations of eyes. Nevertheless, it is supposed to be a dog and so we tell our child, 'It's a dog'. We are teaching her that one object can stand for or represent another. We extend this by showing her picture books which have splashes of coloured printers' ink on sheets of paper. When our child asks, 'Zat?', we say 'Its' a dog'. Again, just as in the case of the stuffed toy, this is not true. We are trying to accustom her to the idea of symbols, the notion that one thing can be used to represent another. Of course the splashes of ink are not really a dog, but nor are we deceiving the child. We are teaching her to think symbolically. This is very important, because of course language and thought consist of nothing more than the manipulation of symbols.
So far, I have described what happens in any normal family. Children are taught to associate real objects like dogs with symbolic representations. It is at this point that many parents stop, which is puzzling. If we are prepared to teach a child that one lot of ink splashes, a picture, can represent a dog, why would we not show her another set of ink splashes in this form, dog, and tell her that this too represents a dog? It is precisely the same as telling her that a picture of cuddly toy represents the animal and yet is a step too far for some parents. Above is the wall of my daughter's bedroom when she was fifteen months old. As can be seen, I was teaching her the visual representation of dog, but also the printed version. She learnt both simultaneously and with the same pleasure.
I think that the problem lies in us. We see one activity as being 'play' or normal childhood activity and the other as being 'book learning' or 'school'. Young children do not make this distinction unless they pick it up from us.
The world can be a puzzling and confusing place to a small child. Anything we can do to fill in bits of the puzzle and help them to make sense f their world cannot fail to be good for them. Apart from any educational benefit, they will be less fearful and nervous as they learn to make more sense of what is happening around them. They have seen print all round them, now they learn that it is not just a pattern, that it actually conveys meaning. What's more, they can share in this process by making sense of these little black squiggles themselves.
I cannot begin to tell readers of the pleasure that my daughter and I both gained from this activity. Neither of us regarded it as being different from our usual play and yet by the age of two she was reading fluently. I had set out to teach her to read and she had learnt easily as part of her ordinary life. Why I would have denied her this or deliberately delayed the process until she was six or seven, I really cannot say.
Tomorrow I shall look at how this same process can be used to teach any academic subject up to and including GCSE level in physics or biology. I have been racking my brains for any disadvantage to a child in being taught in this way and have been unable to come up with any at all. The only problem would come if I transmitted my own feelings to the child about what was happening and caused her to think that teaching and learning were somehow different from everyday life. Then, I can readily imagine that she might start cutting up rough about it and resisting what was happening. Since learning was never differentiated in this way, this problem did not arise.
that post is so boring Webb a bit like you!
ReplyDeleteOne factor you've overlooked is that your daughter said 'Zat?' and you responded. What would you have done if she hadn't said 'Zat?'? Presumably you would have pointed out dogs, named toy dogs, showed her pictures of dogs and words saying 'dog' anyway.
ReplyDeleteNow it just so happens that your daughter learned to read using this method. What if she had shown no interest in reading, or enjoyed having stories read to her but showed no sign of reading for herself? Would you have forced her to learn to read, and how would you have done that?
It seems to me that so far, all you have described is how you responded to your daughter's inquisitiveness and provided her with information, not about 'teaching' her something she isn't interested in learning.
I suppose we have to wait for tomorrow's exciting instalment to find out how you would tackle such an eventuality.
Suzyg says-I suppose we have to wait for tomorrow's exciting instalment to find out how you would tackle such an eventuality.
ReplyDeleteCant wait!
'What if she had shown no interest in reading,'
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to imagine a child who does not like playing and looking at picture books. I have spent many years working with children from very deprived backgrounds and all enjoyed the one-to-one attention of a friendly adult. I am of course talking here about children who are not on the autistic spectrum or have other difficulties. Every child with whom I have worked has liked looking at photographs of animals and identifying them or being told their names. All have liked playing with toy farm animals. You ask what I would do with a child who did not take to these things and the answer is that I do not know because in my work I have not come across such children, appart from those with language problems. Obviously in some disorders, and I am thinking here of the autistic spectrum, there is a problem with symbolic understanding and this typically manifests in disordered play. Such children may not recognise toy cars as representing the real thing and cannot do so even with encouragement. This is tricky, but I was really talking above of normal childhood development.
I'm ging to sound ilke a broken record here, but I actually quite like this post.
ReplyDeleteTrue, Simon may have missed out what he would have done in situations where he wasn't prompted to 'teach' by his daughter, but when writing a blog, everyone tries not to waffle on too much.
Peter and carol, you say the post is boring...perhaps the incluson of every fine detail into his teaching methods with regards to reading may have been too much information to process in one chunk? lets wait nutil tomorrows post and read the entire bog before maing too many assumptions about the final product.
Peter and carol - Lets not judge the content, simply by it's writer =P
One often wishes for an edit button AFTER the post has been published. Apologies for the terrible typos.
ReplyDelete'This is tricky, but I was really talking above of normal childhood development.'
ReplyDeleteBut we determine whether or not a child is developing 'normally' by how well they meet milestones such as learning to read. How do you know that a child who doesn't learn to read by the age of say, 12, hasn't done so because the parent hasn't 'taught' them to, or because they have a difficulty or delay in their ability to read?
Answer: You don't. There's exactly the same debate raging in educational circles about children who *are* taught to read but don't manage to learn, only this time it's assumed that it's because they haven't been taught 'properly'. Or that they *have* dyslexia.
Loz said; 'True, Simon may have missed out what he would have done in situations where he wasn't prompted to 'teach' by his daughter, but when writing a blog, everyone tries not to waffle on too much.'
ReplyDeleteBut that's a key issue, Loz.
Simon thinks that because his approach worked with his daughter, it will work with all children. But then he says it might not work with children whose development isn't 'normal'. But he has no idea whether or not the development of children who show no interest in reading until they are 14 or whatever are developing 'normally'. He's just speculating.
A point worth waffling on about a bit, I would say.
'True, Simon may have missed out what he would have done in situations where he wasn't prompted to 'teach' by his daughter'
ReplyDeleteBoth suzyg and Loz ask what I would have done had I not been prompted by my daughter. The best way to answer this is to ask what parents do when they visit a farm with their small children. Do most parents really wait for the baby or toddler to ask the names of the animals? Am I really alone in having said to my baby, even when she was three weeks old, 'Look at the sheep' or 'Can you see the horse'? If this is unusual, then I must aplogise. I rather assumed that all parents taught their children in this way from birth! Why would I keep quiet during a visit to the farm and wait for my baby to intitiate the conversation? I honestly don't get this. A family trip to the zoo in the company of such strictly autonomopus educators must be a right laugh. Nobody volunteering any remark about what can be seen or the name of any animal until the baby actually asked for information! As suzyg said,
' It seems to me that so far, all you have described is how you responded to your daughter's inquisitiveness '
Well, I would have started the ball rolling myself by talking about the animals unprompted. If that did not elicit a response, then I would have resorted to making piggy noise or bleating like sheep. No response to that and I would have taken the child to stroke the animal and then crawled round on all fours pretending to be a sheep or pig. Are there really parents reading this who would only divulge the names of animals at a farm or zoo if the child displayed the proper degree of inquisitiveness? Heaven help the children raised by such parents! It seems to me like a perfect recipe for promoting language delay in a child.
Loz says-Peter and carol, you say the post is boring...perhaps the incluson of every fine detail into his teaching methods with regards to reading may have been too much information to process in one chunk?
ReplyDeleteYes we agree!
Peter and carol - Lets not judge the content, simply by it's writer =P
We try not to!
' But he has no idea whether or not the development of children who show no interest in reading until they are 14 or whatever are developing 'normally'. He's just speculating.'
ReplyDeleteYou are creating a wholly artificial distinction here between decoding the coloured patches of ink which represent an object in a picture and the black splashes of ink which represent the object in a printed word. By calling one process, 'Looking at a picture book' and the other 'learning to read', you are virtually guaranteeing that a child will behave differently and have a different attitude towards the two things, although they are essentially the same. I am sure that I could have created 'dyslexia' in my daughter if I had made these two activities separate, so that one was an enjoyable treat at bedtime and the other a formal and perhaos somewhat tense academic activity.
'You are creating a wholly artificial distinction here between decoding the coloured patches of ink which represent an object in a picture and the black splashes of ink which represent the object in a printed word. '
ReplyDeleteI'm not doing that at all. I'm saying that your daughter happened to respond positively to strategies that most parents use with their offspring. I'm asking what you would have done if she didn't.
You've already pointed out that you aren't referring to children whose development isn't normal. I'm saying that we only know whether or not a child's development is normal by looking at what they do and don't do at different ages.
You are *assuming* that children who don't read until 12 or 14 don't do so because no one has 'taught' them, even though a significant proportion of the school population are struggling with reading at that age when they have been taught.
May I ask readers to glance again at the wall display at the beginning of this post? They will observe that there is a picture of a dog and beneath it the word 'dog'. Neither of these things actually is a dog. They are both representations of the idea of a dog in visual form; composed of patches of ink. Most parents will point at pictures of dogs in picture books and tell their babies, 'Look at the dog'. Many seem reluctant to do the same with the groups of black squiggles which also represent the idea of dog. This is because they have been misled into seeing the one activity as a fun thing to do with their baby and the other they see as 'teaching to read'. This is foolish; both activities are the same. It is this mad division of their child's world into 'fun' and work', 'play' and 'learning', which is the root of many difficulties, including disorders like language delay and dyslexia.
ReplyDelete'I'm saying that we only know whether or not a child's development is normal by looking at what they do and don't do at different ages.'
ReplyDeleteWe do it by averages. I have worked with many children and almost all have enjoyed looking at picture books. The few who did not almost invariably had some sort of difficulty. This is rare. I was talking of children in general. I do not think my daughter was unusual in enjoying looking at picture books. There is a huge market for such things, which there would not be if this were a rare or specialised activity.
Is anyone saying they denied their child the opportunity to look at picture books, or were unwilling to tell them what the black squiggles indicate until they are seven? I don't think so.
ReplyDeleteWhat people have reported is having children who showed no interest in learning to read - ie in finding out what the black squiggles meant.
I'm just curious as to how you would have dealt with it if you had been one of the parents whose child showed no interest in reading. At all.
'I'm just curious as to how you would have dealt with it if you had been one of the parents whose child showed no interest in reading. At all.'
ReplyDeleteAs I say, most children are keen to look at picture books and be told the names of animals and other things. Reading is the same process and if it is approached in the same playful way and at the same time, I cannot see how the problem could arise. I think that what happens is that many people do not approach the thing in the same way and somehow manage to transmit to the child that what is about to happen is very different from, and far more important than, simply looking at pictures and making animal sounds. When once this happens, you are in trouble, particularly if the child senses your anxiety and realises that you will be upset if she refuses to play this game. The trick of it is not to allow this division to arise between learning and play.
This sort of thing can be the devil to deal with if once you introduce it into your child's mental life. In such a case I would start playing wiuth inset boards instead for a while. Begin with large ones of simple geometric shapes and then move on to more complex shapes. I would then make inset boards in the shapes of words. I dare say that you are familiar with Fred Schonell's idea about word shapes. Most children are intrigued to discover that words have disctinctive shapes, caused by the ascenders and descenders. All of this avoids anything which smacks of teaching and certainly does not involve phonics or any formal work at all. Early success is the key and once a child can be shown the shape of dog and pick it out from other shapes, she is well on the way. Outlines of the shapes can be coloured in; there is not end to the activities which one can devise around this. I am happy to send you some material if you are interested. I have already been accused of including too much detail here and so am reluctant to put up any more!
I have to agree that word/picture association is an important factor when teaching your child.
ReplyDeleteSmall board books have been scattered about my house ever since my youngest was born, and I have read to them everyday since before they could even focus on the pages properly.
As a result, my 3.5 year old could read the names of all family members and various animals and vehicles when he was 2. Now he can recognise nearly as many written words as he can spoken ones. Often he will read out words from notice boards (which then leads to him asking what all the others say) many of which do not have associated pictures as clues for him. Sure, if there is a picture of a 'digger', with an ink squiggle underneath it, he'll know it says 'digger', because he associates that pattern of ink squiggles with the word he knows to be 'digger'. However, he can now recognise the word alone without the need for the pictoral prompt.
Oh and Simon, I'd love some of that material you mentioned too if you wouldn't mind..I've got a baby who is obviously going to be Home Educated, but even though I know certain methods work,m it's always interesting to try out others.
I have no idea if what Simon did with his child and the written word would have worked with other children - I expect it might, though not, of course, with all of them. I was always amazed at the extent of my children's learning at that age. But I guess we all operate within a framework of societal expectations and I probably put less effort into pointing out print to my babies than pictures as it hadn't occurred to me that they could de-code text at that age. They did, however, get the idea of text during those very early years (both were writing their names by three and developed an extensive phonic awareness and begun reading by four). This was just through the kind of activities described by Simon - primarily picture books, I think.
ReplyDeleteOf course, what Simon doesn't mention in this post (though he has before) is that there are many, many activities that small children can enjoy. One of mine was a demon scooter at four and bombed around the place. She could also shin up the eight foot climbing poles in the park. Believe me when I say that wasn't my priority (it was terrifying) but it was what she chose to do after watching bigger children doing it in the park. So I think that little children (from babyhood) are individuals and will be drawn to different things. I always felt that it was a big part of my role to help them discover the things they enjoyed and to access them. I didn't have a master plan and still don't because I think that the empowering effect of self-direction is worth a great deal.
Where I do agree with Simon is that I never differentiated between 'work' and 'play' when my children were little. I remember a parent stopping me in the school playground when my elder was in reception and asking me how and what we taught her, how we differentiated between our roles as parents and teachers and numerous other odd questions! He had noticed that she could read and write well and assumed that we sat down at home and 'worked' with her. The idea made me laugh out loud as the truth was that we spent most of our time running round after her and lifting her off the banisters...
'Oh and Simon, I'd love some of that material you mentioned too if you wouldn't mind..I've got a baby who is obviously going to be Home Educated, but even though I know certain methods work,m it's always interesting to try out others.'
ReplyDeleteGive me a day or so to hunt it down on my hard drive Loz and I'll cheerfully send it to you. It is in the form of a graded programme.
Flash cards any good with pictures on?
ReplyDeletePeter and carol said: Flash cards any good with pictures on?
ReplyDeleteThe thing with Flash cards is that they can get a bit 'schooly' if you know what I mean - Hold up a picture, name it, get child to pay attention and recite it, then start over again.
They soon get bored, or so I have found anyway.
I was given some flash cards by someone recently, so me and the little'un turned them into a collage on his bedrom wall. He chose where to put them, and we had fun reading them whilst we did it. Sometimes I hear him reading them just for fun when he is upstairs.
Loz says-I was given some flash cards by someone recently, so me and the little'un turned them into a collage on his bedrom wall. He chose where to put them, and we had fun reading them whilst we did it. Sometimes I hear him reading them just for fun when he is upstairs.
ReplyDeleteWhat a good idea to put them on his bedroom wall and your right i guess it is a bit schooly to just hold up the picture the child soon get bored!
Simon wrote,
ReplyDelete"I find it hard to imagine a child who does not like playing and looking at picture books."
Exactly. This is one of the main reasons why people think that autonomous education will work and why it appears to work for so many in practice.
Simon wrote,
"By calling one process, 'Looking at a picture book' and the other 'learning to read', you are virtually guaranteeing that a child will behave differently and have a different attitude towards the two things, although they are essentially the same."
What if you treat them them the same and the child learns what the picture means but not the word?
Simon wrote,
"May I ask readers to glance again at the wall display at the beginning of this post? They will observe that there is a picture of a dog and beneath it the word 'dog'."
You are assuming that children will see these in the same way as you. We had this type of thing in our home, we also looked at books together, pointed to words and letters and discussed their meaning, etc. Some children learnt to read as a direct result of this, others did not and chose different strategies to learn when they were older (though I'm sure their early experiences laid a good groundwork, especially considering how quickly they learnt when older). How do you explain the different results when they were treated the same?
Simon wrote,
"As I say, most children are keen to look at picture books and be told the names of animals and other things. Reading is the same process and if it is approached in the same playful way and at the same time, I cannot see how the problem could arise."
Your inability to see how a problem could arise does not mean that it will not happen. It does, but it's not necessarily a problem, just different.
It's really strange. I read this article and see more or less exactly what we did in our family. Because that worked for you so completely you have taken from this that is will work for all. Because this worked for some and not others I have taken from this that it will work for some but others may not be ready. The split just feels so weird as I read through descriptions of your/our early family life but then think of our so different interpretations at the end of the process.
ReplyDelete' Because that worked for you so completely you have taken from this that is will work for all.'
ReplyDeleteNot at all. I had been working with young children for a long time before my daughter was born. The methods I used with her were tried and tested ones which had worked for many people over the years. they are also based upon sound theory. I have an idea that the fact that so many home educated children have special needs of one sort or another might have some bearing on the matter here.
"I have an idea that the fact that so many home educated children have special needs of one sort or another might have some bearing on the matter here."
ReplyDeleteNot an issue for the children I described.
'Not an issue for the children I described'
ReplyDeletePossibly not, but if one has a group of children containing a high proportion of those with special educational needs, then it would not be at all surprising to find more difficulties with learning to read than is usual.
But we have no evidence that a higher proportion of home educated children have more difficulties with learning to read. My children didn't have difficulties learning to read, they just didn't learn to read when you think it would have been normal for them to learn to read despite similar experiences to your daughters. When they wanted to learn they learnt easily.
ReplyDeleteMy impression is that HE families with children with SEN tend to have tried school for a few years before lack of support forces them to try an alternative, so I'm not sure where your early years education fits in with that scenario. Most school children learn to read during the first few years so most children who are withdrawn from school will have either made a good start at reading before beginning HE or have problems unrelated to lack of teaching. I'm sure a few school children lack suitable teaching but it seems unlikely that this is true for many.
I tend to assume that my son can learn whatever he wants to learn or I chose to teach him as long as I can find the right way to teach him, ie a way that works for him. If he doesn't want to learn something then I need to find a way to make him want to learn, that as far as I am concerned is one of the most important parts of my job as an educator. When it came to him learning to read he rather forced my hand when at around 18 months/ 2 years he started throwing books round the room shouting that he couldn't read. He picked it up very quickly and is now at 6 an avid reader. If at 4 he had been showing no interest in reading I would have considered it my responsibility to find a way to garner his interest.
ReplyDeleteVarious things particularly maths have needed several different approaches before we hit upon the best method for him but with a bit of trial and error we get there in the end.
"If at 4 he had been showing no interest in reading I would have considered it my responsibility to find a way to garner his interest."
ReplyDeleteAnd what if you had failed to garner his interest despite trying various approaches? What if they were too busy learning other things to want to learn what you want them to learn? Would you ban them from learning what they want to learn until they learn what you want them to learn?
"And what if you had failed to garner his interest despite trying various approaches? What if they were too busy learning other things to want to learn what you want them to learn? Would you ban them from learning what they want to learn until they learn what you want them to learn?"
ReplyDeleteThe short answer is yes.
Luckily I am yet to find anything that I can't get him interested in one way or another.
But if you couldn't get him interested in something you wanted him to learn, what would you do? How far would you go? Just because it hasn't happened yet, doesn't mean it won't.
ReplyDeleteI can't have the only strong willed, determined children in the world! Or maybe I just wasn't good at manipulating them? I just cannot reconcile my experiences with the sweeping statements I read here. You all seem to have children that are blank slates just waiting to be controlled and drip fed with carefully selected and controlled knowledge and they bear no relation to the children I know. For what it's worth their strong wills and determination to control their own learning from a very young age doesn't seem to have caused them any harm. They have all grown up able to read, write and make their way in the world and are all happy and fulfilled despite my inability to control their every moment. Strange, very strange.
I must just add that when I used the word, 'manipulate', I intended this to mean, 'Control or influence (a person or situation) cleverly'. On re-reading it I can see that this could have a much more negative use and I didn't intend that interpretation.
ReplyDeleteOk last weekend he decided he wasn't going to tidy his room, something I ask him to do each Saturday morning. I said that's fine, no TV and no games consoles until it's tidy. He tidied it about 3pm. Then he got to play on his DS. He knows that if he doesn't do as he is asked that there will be consequences and he knows that I can be incredibly stubborn. Every so often he tries his luck to see if I will let him get away with something. Each time he learns that I won't. I don't know how it is to raise another child because I never have, I can only tell you about my own experiences with my son.
ReplyDeleteWell that explains a lot and I couldn't live like that. Not a criticism of you BTW, we are all different (and wouldn't it be boring if we were all the same!).
ReplyDeleteThat's fair enough, I suppose I should point out that our son has Aspergers so does need a lot of structure to his day and actually behaves far better if he knows what we have planned for the day (we have a loose timetable). He's able to cope with any expectations we may have if he has clear and well defined boundaries. I should also say that we never shout we just tell him what the consequences are to certain behaviors and then ensure that those consequences happen if they need to. This includes rewarding good behaviour. As you say we are all different and all children are different. I would never say that we have 'got it right' there are plenty of things we strive to do better and we are always talking about ways we could tweak things or new approaches to different situations. We are simply trying to do what seems to work best for our son. And I'd like to think that's what all parents are trying to do all be it in different ways.
ReplyDeleteYes, thank you for understanding and not taking my comments the wrong way. There are many reasons why your approach would not have worked for our family, not the least of which would have been my inability to keep my cool if we had taken your approach and had met resistance. We found that finding common preferences and trying to help everyone get what they wanted in any situation worked for us (most of the time) and felt right for our family.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree that most parents are trying to find what works best for them and, because we are all so different, it's inevitable that there will be many different solutions that work. I think when people suggest that their way is the one right way and they have the research to prove it, it will inevitably upset those for whom 'that way' didn't work, especially when it is implied that if 'that way' fails it is a result of negligence or some kind of failure on the part of a parent.
There is also the issue that someone choosing a different approach is taken to be implying that other approaches are automatically wrong. I think home educators meet this quite often when people who use schools take our choice to home education as a criticism of their choice. I guess that some home educators may see it that way but I hope they are in the minority. Schools obviously work well for some and we have always been open to our children going if they want to (and it has been tried). Hopefully those who would not give their children that choice are not going to take offence now... It's a bit of a minefield, isn't it?
I'm always a little cautious when posting on home ed blogs or forums as some discussions become so heated and can actually turn a little nasty at times so it's been rather nice just having a discussion about different approaches without any nastiness.
ReplyDeleteYour right it is difficult to discuss parenting methods as no two families are ever going to agree on everything and yes the 'what's wrong with school' question is a tricky one to answer if you don't want to cause offence. Luckily I haven't encountered anyone who has been particularly rude about our decision to home ed....yet.
'I can't have the only strong willed, determined children in the world! Or maybe I just wasn't good at manipulating them? I just cannot reconcile my experiences with the sweeping statements I read here. You all seem to have children that are blank slates just waiting to be controlled and drip fed with carefully selected and controlled knowledge and they bear no relation to the children I know. For what it's worth their strong wills and determination to control their own learning from a very young age doesn't seem to have caused them any harm. They have all grown up able to read, write and make their way in the world and are all happy and fulfilled despite my inability to control their every moment. Strange, very strange.'
ReplyDeleteAnd there we have it.
The other day someone was claiming that home educators who are not autonomous NEVER experience this sort of thing.
If we're not autonomous then we must be contolling their every moment?
They aren't the only 2 alternatives.
My children were very strong-willed. I worked WITH their personalities, not against them. I did not manipulate them (or 'control or influence them cleverly'.) I didn't think of them as blank slates to be controlled and drip fed selected information.
It's like someone saying: You're fat and ugly. No offence! Oh and BTW, by fat, I only meant 'larger than usual' so please don't take it the wrong way.
Word like 'control' and 'manipulate' are obviously intended to offend, no matter how you wrap it up.
It's greater that Claire was not offended. Most people would have been, I think. Perhaps it depends on how many years you've been hearing that sort of stuff.
I think manipulate is a loaded term, TBH. We rarely hear it used in a positive sense when talking about human relationships.
ReplyDeleteI think that most of what goes on in families is that people *influence* each other. As parents, who are there at the beginning and/or have so many more years on the planet, I think we tend to 'set a tone' in some way for the family. By that I mean that our children work out 'how we do things' and, indeed, establish a whole concept of what's normal at home. For some of us that means lots of structure in life and learning, for others less, though rarely none, IME.
Now some people do set out to control their children's choices - people who decide that their baby will be a tennis star, for example. Or they live with a moral or religious outlook that deems a pretty narrow range of activities to be suitable so they ban lots of things and demand others - like some US homeschoolers who attempt to train their babies by whipping them for their sinful choices.
But I think it's very wrong to assume that anyone not calling themselves an 'autonomous educator' is somehow all about control and manipulation. That's the sort of thing you can only know if you actually get to know someone well.
We don't do punishment or reward and never have because it feels very alien to me. I suspect this is because I wasn't brought up that way either. But that doesn't mean that I never attempted to influence my strong-willed children - I certainly did and still do! The only way to live without influencing others would be to be a hermit, surely?
Anonymous wrote,
ReplyDelete""And there we have it.
The other day someone was claiming that home educators who are not autonomous NEVER experience this sort of thing.
If we're not autonomous then we must be contolling their every moment?"
I didn't say that, in fact I was saying the opposite must be the case. The impression given to me by some of the descriptions of children learning in a parent-led environment sound as though the children always go along with the parent's plans without any problems and my point was that this doesn't seem possible or natural. Claire confirmed that I my impression from the description was wrong.
"Word like 'control' and 'manipulate' are obviously intended to offend, no matter how you wrap it up."
Why? If someone sets out to teach a child something even if the child does not want to learn it and would rather be doing something else, and the child does learn it, there must be an element of control and manipulation involved. I really cannot see why that is offensive if someone thinks it's OK to cause someone to learn something that they don't want to learn. What am I misunderstanding?"
Allie wrote,
ReplyDelete"I think manipulate is a loaded term, TBH. We rarely hear it used in a positive sense when talking about human relationships."
That's why I sent the second post. I realised that the general use of the word is more negative than the thoughts I was attempting to translate into text. I still can't think of a better word but I don't mean it negatively.
"Now some people do set out to control their children's choices - people who decide that their baby will be a tennis star, for example. Or they live with a moral or religious outlook that deems a pretty narrow range of activities to be suitable so they ban lots of things and demand others - like some US homeschoolers who attempt to train their babies by whipping them for their sinful choices."
Aren't these just degrees of the same process - part of a continuum? At one end we have parents who want to control the whole direction of a child's life and at the other, a parent who wants their child to read by the age of 7 (for instance).
"But I think it's very wrong to assume that anyone not calling themselves an 'autonomous educator' is somehow all about control and manipulation. That's the sort of thing you can only know if you actually get to know someone well."
We had already established that this isn't the case. I'm perfectly willing to accept that most HE families use a mixture of parent-led and child-led education. But if we just look at the parent-led parts, the use of the words, 'control' and manipulate' are only a problem if you perceive control and manipulation as wrong. If you want your child to learn to read by a set age (for instance), and the child does not want to, your only option is to control or manipulate the situation in some way. If you think it is OK to make such a decision on the part of your child in the first place, why would you then think that controlling or manipulating to situation to cause it to happen is wrong? It is possible for a parent to achieve their plan either if a child happens to want to learn to read when the parent wants them to, or the parent does something to make/encourage/persuade them to want to learn at that point in time.
"But that doesn't mean that I never attempted to influence my strong-willed children - I certainly did and still do!"
Yes, I think every parent does this to an extent - but this inevitably involves punishment and reward in the form of disapproval and approval. If a child hits a smaller child they will be 'punished' by their parents reaction if the parent is upset or shows disapproval. Punishment does not only include withdrawal of privileges or physical chastisement.
"Aren't these just degrees of the same process - part of a continuum? At one end we have parents who want to control the whole direction of a child's life and at the other, a parent who wants their child to read by the age of 7 (for instance)."
ReplyDeleteI take your point but I've come to believe that that is a continuum we're all on somewhere. I've yet to meet a parent who didn't want their child to learn to talk and who didn't do all they could to make that happen.
"If you want your child to learn to read by a set age (for instance), and the child does not want to, your only option is to control or manipulate the situation in some way."
Yes, indeed. But there's a big difference between talking about manipulating a situation and manipulating a child. So, if that were me I'd choose to manipulate the situation by talking to the child about my concerns and trying to understand why they chose not to read. In short, I'd try to persuade them to, at least, give it a go. I don't think that's manipulation of the other person, though it certainly is of the situation. I guess what I'd aim for is the sort of respectful dialogue that I'd hope to have with my partner were we discussing some behaviour issue ;-)
"Punishment does not only include withdrawal of privileges or physical chastisement."
No, of course not. Of course we do all 'punish' each other by disapproving of each other's actions and, as a parent, your disapproval is that much more powerful. What I have always tried to do is to recognise that power and do my best not to abuse it for my own ends or at the expense of my child's self-esteem.
Allie wrote,
ReplyDelete"I take your point but I've come to believe that that is a continuum we're all on somewhere."
Yes, that's also what I meant when I mentioned that all parents effectively punish and reward their children.
"In short, I'd try to persuade them to, at least, give it a go. I don't think that's manipulation of the other person, though it certainly is of the situation."
I do. I can't see how it isn't a manipulation of the child. Punishing or rewarding a child's behaviour by our responses and attempting to persuade them to do something they don't want to do are all attempts at managing or influencing the child's behaviour. The definition of manipulate includes, 'to manage or influence skillfully', which is what is happening. I might describe leaving interesting things lying about as 'manipulation of the situation', if the child if free to take an interest or not. But once we start persuading a child to take an interest we are manipulating the child.
We all do it. I'm not sure why 'manipulate' has such negative connotations? Maybe it's because it more often used when the actions it describes are taken to extremes? I think we are all on the manipulation continuum, we just disagree about how much is acceptable in our particular families. Some people (like Simon) think autonomous educators effectively abuse their children by not doing it enough and I'm sure some autonomous educators think some parents do it too much. Much in the same was as everyone has different views on discipline in general, from, 'bring back the cane', at one end through to, 'don't even frown at them', at the other extreme.
"Why would I keep quiet during a visit to the farm and wait for my baby to intitiate the conversation? I honestly don't get this. A family trip to the zoo in the company of such strictly autonomopus educators must be a right laugh. Nobody volunteering any remark about what can be seen or the name of any animal until the baby actually asked for information!"
ReplyDeleteYou claim to understand autonomous education yet can say something as idiotic as this? Prat.
'You claim to understand autonomous education yet can say something as idiotic as this? Prat.'
ReplyDeleteEvidently written by an unfortunate and literal-minded individual who is wholly unfamiliar with the use of irony!
"'I'm saying that we only know whether or not a child's development is normal by looking at what they do and don't do at different ages.'
ReplyDeleteWe do it by averages. I have worked with many children and almost all have enjoyed looking at picture books. The few who did not almost invariably had some sort of difficulty."
But even if a child enjoys looking at picture books and having the words pointed out to them they do not all learn to read. Using averages to decide if development is normal is only appropriate if the children have had similar experiences at similar times. So yes, it is normal for school children to learn to read by about 6-7 because they have had to study the subject even if they didn't want to. Using this to then decide that an autonomously educated child who learns to read at 12 is not developmentally normal is nonsensical - you would be comparing apples to oranges instead of apples to apples.
"I do. I can't see how it isn't a manipulation of the child. Punishing or rewarding a child's behaviour by our responses and attempting to persuade them to do something they don't want to do are all attempts at managing or influencing the child's behaviour. The definition of manipulate includes, 'to manage or influence skillfully', which is what is happening. I might describe leaving interesting things lying about as 'manipulation of the situation', if the child if free to take an interest or not. But once we start persuading a child to take an interest we are manipulating the child."
ReplyDeleteI suppose I was constrasting what I would see as an open discussion with a less up-front process whereby I might use indirect methods to achieve my ends. For example, if I'm worried about the fact that my child can't read (I might try hard not to be worried but just be unable to beat that fear) it might be better to talk with them about that than to bottle up that emotion and have it leak out in the form of sighs, raised eyebrows or short temper on my part. Those things are just as much an attempt to get a reaction from the other person but are far less open. I suppose I think that it's inevitable that we will sometimes want to change each other's behaviour and, given that, I would rather attempt it in an open manner. You might call that manipulation of other people if you want.
Most of the time I think people need maximum freedom to make their own choices about what affects them. But sometimes people can get stuck in self-defeating behaviour patterns or just be overwhelmed by a situation. If/when that happens then sometimes they need those who love them to step in and try to get them to change their behaviour. So, if I thought my child had developed a self-injurious behaviour pattern (e.g. repeatedly avoiding challenging situations, picking fights with friends, eating chocolate all day and all night, not washing - whatever) then I would attempt to persuade them to change their behaviour. If, when we talked about it, they explained to me how and why it was not a problem for them then perhaps they could persuade me not to worry about it.
'So yes, it is normal for school children to learn to read by about 6-7 because they have had to study the subject even if they didn't want to. Using this to then decide that an autonomously educated child who learns to read at 12 is not developmentally normal is nonsensical - you would be comparing apples to oranges instead of apples to apples.'
ReplyDeleteI agree; but then I was actually talking about home educated children and not those at school.
"I agree; but then I was actually talking about home educated children and not those at school."
ReplyDeleteSo how do you know what is developmentally normal for a HE child? What tells you the developmentally normal age for them to learn to read, for instance?
Allie wrote,
ReplyDelete"For example, if I'm worried about the fact that my child can't read (I might try hard not to be worried but just be unable to beat that fear) it might be better to talk with them about that than to bottle up that emotion and have it leak out in the form of sighs, raised eyebrows or short temper on my part."
Yes, I'd agree that being open in this type of situation is much better and less harmful all around. I suppose in that situation a family might discuss whose problem it is? It's certainly a problem for the parent because it's their 'worry', but is it a problem for the child? You might discuss your concerns with the child to see if the new information you give them convinces them it is a problem that needs a solution (learning to read) for them. In my experience, they are sometimes convinced and other times not.
I have had discussions like this about reading. One child told me that they would learn to read when they were 11 and that's what they did. At the time of the discussion they were perfectly happy to have things read to them when necessary (and others didn't mind doing the reading) and saw no immediate advantage in reading for themselves but they also knew they wanted/needed to learn at some point.
"I have had discussions like this about reading. One child told me that they would learn to read when they were 11 and that's what they did."
ReplyDeleteI should probably also mention that by that point we had met a few children who had learnt to read at an older age than normal and loved reading and could obviously read well.