Those readers whom I succeeded in irritating yesterday will be glad to hear that I am going to be away for a few days and that they will not be exposed to my unpleasant views for a while. It beats me why these types carry on reading my blog if it annoys them as much as all that! Before I go, I must mention that I have been looking through some back issues of the home education magazine produced by Mike Fortune-Wood. One article caught my eye in particular. It was by his wife Jan and was called The Joy of Late Reading. I did not think much of it, but it started me thinking about the frequency with which those who have themselves had reading difficulties might be reluctant to teach their kids to read. Mike Fortune-Wood himself of course had great difficulties in this field and so too did a number of other parents who are keen on not getting their children to read at the same age as everybody else.
Could there be a connection between the satisfaction and pleasure that parents gained from reading as children and their attitude to teaching the skill to their own kids? Could it be that those who struggled to learn to read might have a bad feeling about the whole thing and not wish for their own children to suffer in the same way? This seems quite plausible. Of course, phrasing it like this would not sound very noble; ‘I didn’t enjoy learning to read and so don’t really value it. As a result, I am not bothered about teaching it to my kid, he probably won’t like it much either’. Better by far to trick it out as a high principled educational philosophy, thus making a virtue out of what is essentially a weakness.
Just to provide a point to oppose your assertion, I learned to read very early, and even survived the ITA fad. I enjoy reading, although the stuff we had to read at school was somewhat tedious. Fortunately I had enough other stuff that it didn't put me off.
ReplyDeleteWe chose not to push our son into learning to read before he was ready for it precisely because we enjoyed reading and didn't want to make it into an unpleasant experience for him.
I'm another early reader, could read before I went to nursery school at age 3 (learnt by following the words as my mum and dad read to me) but my daughter didn't read properly until she was 7. Again, we didn't push her as this just seemed to put her off the whole idea.
ReplyDeleteThat's a shame you're going away, your posts brighten my day.
ReplyDeleteMFW had great difficulties reading?
ReplyDeleteMakes one wonder just how he managed to secure employment in Aerospace, electronic development and economics..go to Oxford, or was it Cambridge? stride forward as a crusading home educating house husband for years and pen all his HE works.
He certainly doesn't have much difficulty in writing, apart from keeping track of the discrepancies.
Actually, although I don't have big issues with MFW (unlike Simon here who certainly doesn’t have him on his Xmas card list !) it is interesting how stories grow in the telling - I know nothing about MFW reading skills, but he certainly didn't "go to" an Oxbridge uni- although I do believe he worked as a technician in Cambridge uni at some stage - his degree is from Bristol poly.....
ReplyDelete( Not implying that there is anything wrong with polys either - one of my boys studied at one....)
The story is all in the telling.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous said:
ReplyDelete'MFW had great difficulties reading?
Makes one wonder just how he managed to....'
It's amazing, isn't it? It's because people who are dyslexic and read late are just as capable of succeeding as anyone else.
I wasn't aware that Dyslexia impaired your ability to tell the truth?
ReplyDelete"I wasn't aware that Dyslexia impaired your ability to tell the truth?"
ReplyDeleteOr maybe you have trouble remembering facts correctly or are mixing things up? It was his wife that went to Cambridge. I've not seen Mike say anywhere that he did. Do you have any actual 'evidence' that Mike has lied? Or do you just enjoy libelling people anonymously? Remember, in a libel case, it's you that would have to prove that what you say is true, not Mike.
"One article caught my eye in particular. It was by his wife Jan and was called The Joy of Late Reading. I did not think much of it, but it started me thinking about the frequency with which those who have themselves had reading difficulties might be reluctant to teach their kids to read."
ReplyDeleteYet Jan wrote the article (and several books along similar lines) and had no difficulty learning to read. Are you suggesting that she was so dominated by Mike that they based their children's education on his views alone and then wrote books to express those same views? Do you think she has no mind of her own?
For what it's worth, neither myself or DH had any trouble learning to read, and neither did our children either as early or late readers. If a person believes it's morally wrong to force a child to do things with the body and mind against their will, why would they take a different approach in one small area of education (such as reading)? Jan (and others) have this belief. It has little to do with our past experiences of learning to read and everything to do with our views of children and their rights over their own bodies and minds.
The church has quite a history of forcing children to do things against their will.
ReplyDeleteParent's have quite a history of forcing children to do things against their will. School's have quite a history of forcing children to do things against their will. Government's have quite a history of forcing children to do things against their will.
ReplyDelete'Parents have quite a history of forcing children to do things against their will.'
ReplyDeleteYou said it.
But what was you point when you made the Church comment (if you are the same person)? You could probably point to almost any group in society and make the same comment. Just because some people in a group do act in certain ways does not mean that everyone in the group does, so it seems irrelevant that Jan was part of the Church. Not many people believe in non-coercion of children, so we will always be in a minority whichever other groups we belong to.
ReplyDeleteShe found it acceptible to indoctrinate and coerce the children of others but not her own.
ReplyDeleteOh, I see.
ReplyDeleteSunday School = Indoctrination and coercion. Got it.
Unlike school, of course.
Sunday School?
ReplyDeleteWhat on Earth makes you believe it was only Sunday School
Well, then you are going to have to be specific with your allegations. In which ways did Jan Fortune Wood indoctrinate and coerce other people's children?
ReplyDeleteMethods? Occasions?
I'll repeat, just because some people in a group act in certain ways, it does not mean that everyone in the group does, so it seems irrelevant that Jan was part of the Church. As anon above says, you need specific proof about an individual if you accuse them, you can't just point to the fact that they are part of a group that at times coerces children because we all are part of similar groups.
ReplyDeleteAnd I defy you to claim that you have never coerced a child yourself. We can try our best to avoid it and do better than many, but it seems unlikely that anyone can be 100% non-coercive in today's society (and I've been trying my best for 20 years).
From your rant it's clear that you don't understand the concept of 'coercion' and that you're ignorant regarding the sociology of religion.
ReplyDelete'From your rant it's clear that you don't understand the concept of 'coercion' and that you're ignorant regarding the sociology of religion.'
ReplyDeleteNot the 'ranter' above, but clearly you have no proof or you'd have anwered the specific question you were asked about the allegations you have made. Attacking the person who has called you to answer a question is very juvenile.
'In which ways did Jan Fortune Wood indoctrinate and coerce other people's children? Methods? Occasions?'
Put up or shut up.
"From your rant it's clear that you don't understand the concept of 'coercion' and that you're ignorant regarding the sociology of religion."
ReplyDeleteI know very little about religion despite attending church for about 10 years as a child/teenager, but I don't remember any coercion. I know that religion is used to coerce but it's not inevitable. Coercion is a very easy concept to understand, it's causing someone to do something against their will using a variety of methods. I'm sure Jan has coerced children (she was a teacher I think), just as you have coerced children and I have coerced children (despite working hard to avoid it over the last 20 years). Our society sees coercion of children as perfectly normal and even a necessity. I'm reasonably sure Simon holds this view, for instance. It's very difficult go against any accepted viewpoint of the society we live in. So what is your point? Do you have evidence that Jan has coerced above and beyond the norm?
PS, not sure why you thought my previous comment was wild, violent or vehement, it doesn't read that way to me. Maybe you read it with the wrong tone of voice?
20 years of working hard trying to avoid coercion...
ReplyDeleteWas all that effort based upon TCS and the dodgy philosophies of the Fortune-Woods?
Maybe you should have looked up the word 'nurture'.
I'm wondering just how you failed to recognise that TCS is just about as coercive as you can get.
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, anyone who starts communication with 'I'll repeat' is about to begin a rant.
ReplyDeleteIt's no wonder you were pulled in by TCS.
LOL, since all of our children are caring, nurturing young people moving confidently out into the world, you'll forgive me for ignoring your advice. TCS has given them great problem solving skills that have helped them enormously. We didn't experience TCS as coercive at all. Demanding and hard work at times, but well worth the effort. What aspects did you experience as coercive?
ReplyDeleteYou know the Fortune-Wood's were not the originators of TCS, don't you?
ReplyDeleteThey never were ones for originality, always seemed to be touting somebody elses idea. In this case Sarah Fitz-Claridge and David Deutsch who in turn had borrowed it from Karl Popper.
ReplyDeleteWhat did I find coercive?
ReplyDeleteIt had something to do with the massive guilt trip that Sarah Fitz-Claridge and co were laying on parents, it's not as if they were particularly knowledgable regarding pedagogic coercion.
Sometimes it's necessary to feel some level of guilt, or why would we change our behaviour? But if you believe coercion of children is OK and even necessary (as the majority of the UK population do), why would you feel guilty? If you believe coercion is wrong and have tried your best to reduce the coercion of your children, you should not feel guilty, we can only do so much. Sarah FC often said that there are no perfect TCS parents and guilt is a waste of time and energy. Here's a quote from one of her posts:
ReplyDelete"If you start to feel terrible about past mistakes, remind yourself that the fact that you can see what you could not see before means that you are objectively a better person than you were before. Instead of beating yourself up, you should be patting yourself on the back for your improvement.
OK, so now you feel guilty because even though you can see that you have been doing x or y that has been harming your children, you have not been able to change x or y. If it were that easy to make such changes, there would be no need for TCS in the first place. Seeing something in theory, as it were, and making changes in practice, are two different things, and changing the practice involves a lot more knowledge creation. It is difficult. Don't beat yourself up for not being able to jump instantly to a state of perfect knowledge in all things. All any of us can do is to start from where we are and keep striving to improve in every possible way."
"it's not as if they were particularly knowledgable regarding pedagogic coercion."
ReplyDeleteHow do you mean? Do you disagree that some of the things they classed as coercive are coercive? If we accept the idea that causing someone to do (or not do) something against their will is coercion, wouldn't it be possible for anyone to recognise coercion when they see it? Finding alternatives and solutions is obviously much harder and not always possible for a family, but I think most of us are capable of recognising behaviour that fits this TCS description of coercion without specialist training or knowledge.
Another post relevant to guilt:
ReplyDelete"One thing to realise is that it is not just you: all of us are in that position. So don't beat yourself up – it is counter-productive – you need to nurture a good state of mind in both your son and yourself. If you are tortured by guilt and torn apart by fears of what damage you may be doing, you won't be able to devote the necessary creativity to solving the problems and improving things...
...In your desire to become a better parent, don't forget to have fun with your son. Enjoy life with him now, don't wait until you reach the state of perfection you imagine a TCS person should have reached. Forget it – try to laugh together. Including at yourselves. TCS should always add to your life, not detract from it!"
http://www.takingchildrenseriously.com/dont_wait_until_youre_perfect
You needed to be told that it's ok to laugh, to laugh together, to enjoy life?
ReplyDelete"You needed to be told that it's ok to laugh, to laugh together, to enjoy life?"
ReplyDeleteOf course not, but it's surprising how many parents need reminding, whether TCS or not!
How funny you should say that, it's all very similar to something Graham Badman was banging on about.
ReplyDeleteReally? What was that then?
ReplyDeleteThat was all to do with the welfare of children too, taking children seriously, not hurting them.
ReplyDeleteAt least Graham Badman has gone away to count beans or something. And here you are still content to be indoctrinated by the Oxbridge set.
ReplyDeleteThere is a big difference between officials discussing how we should parent and a group of like minded individuals. TCS has no authority over you so I'm not sure why their discussions would upset you. How can a group of people discussing how they parent their own children be coercive of you? The same cannot of course be said when governments discuss it. The situations are not comparable.
ReplyDeleteAh, here it comes....libertarian politics.
ReplyDeleteAnd which sort might you be, consequentialist or dentological?
ReplyDeleteFunny, I don't recall you, Fitz-Claridge, Deutsch or Fortune-Wood being at, RAR, Greenham, Beanfield or the poll tax riots.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that any of you understood anarchist politics back then, or even cared.
Since you have no idea who I am, how can you possibly know where I've been and what I've done? And it was you that introduced politics by bringing up Badman. Here's a tip, if you don't want to discuss a subject don't bring it up.
ReplyDeleteI don't mind discussing anarcho societal politics, didn't you realise that was what we were doing?
ReplyDeleteThe choice of following such politics and being an ordained member of the CofE is quite politically intriguing.
ReplyDeleteI like the way that certain members of the Oxbridge set like to try to possess radical political theories, expound them as their own and hold them over the heads of those they perceive to be commoners and lesser mortals.
Ever heard of the Lithuanian Anarchist Emma Goldman?
ReplyDeleteShe said..
'Anarchism, really stands for the liberation of the human mind from the dominion of religion; the liberation of the human body from the dominion of property; liberation from the shackles and restraint of government.'
Didn't you realise that HE was inextricably linked to Anarchist politics?
ReplyDeleteQuite why one family felt the need to tout it all as 'Libertarian' politics is a mystery.
ReplyDelete"I don't mind discussing anarcho societal politics, didn't you realise that was what we were doing?"
ReplyDeleteYou may have been, but I wasn't, I'm not especially interested in politics. I merely mentioned that there is a difference between discussions amongst equals (where you can ignore the other persons views with impunity) and those where there is an imbalance of power (such as often exists between officials and members of the public).
"Didn't you realise that HE was inextricably linked to Anarchist politics?"
Why? It can clearly exist without anarchy, we don't know what would happen if we had anarchy. Where is the link?
"Quite why one family felt the need to tout it all as 'Libertarian' politics is a mystery."
ReplyDeleteHow are the views of a family significant to you? Why do you care what they think?