Jump to content

Menu

Interesting article on therapies and interventions


rafiki
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since I'm here, can I also say something about this board? We always welcome home schoolers of all persuasions, but I'm a little confused about why parents who seem determined to oppose *everything* about our methods would post so frequently here. It seems out of place to come to a board run by classical educators in order to issue blanket criticisms of their methods. I would hope that this board would, among other things, help parents tweak classical methods to suit different learning styles. Not pitch them out completely.

 

SWB

 

Susan, I am grateful to you for providing such a forum for homeschoolers and for your open-mindedness in allowing all kinds of opposing viewpoints. I too am one of those parents for whose child the WTM methods did not work. I would have loved for it to work because the WTM ideas resonate with me.

 

But had it not been for the collective wisdom of this board, the diversity of ideas, the people who have btdt like Doodler and Michelle and some others who kept sharing their experiences, I would have forever continued to think that the problem is with my child. I would have continued to label him lazy and unmotivated and made matters worse for us. It would not be an understatement for me to say that the WTM forums saved my relationship with my child.

 

So yes, I thank you Susan for hosting this space and I thank all the WTMers who take time to share their stories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 252
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Perhaps ironically in light of some of the different comments on this thread, I'd like to share that, on my homeschool journey, the two people most influential in getting me to step out of my narrow mindset to meet my children where they are and embrace what works for them, no matter what form it takes, are OhE and SWB. I hate to think of where I, and especially my poor dc, would be without them.

 

I attended the tiniest conference, actually called a retreat, earlier this year, where SWB expressed the same concern, even using similar vocabulary, as Cindy about the pathologizing of natural learning differences. And I don't think I misinterpreted that. If I did, mea culpa.

 

Excuse me again for relating this in my own words, but SWB said--as I remember it!--that it's perfectly acceptable to tailor our dc's curriculum to their needs and interests, even in high school. Of course we should be careful to meet any necessary state and college entrance requirements, but we should feel free to do that in a way that is manageable. Our dc should be able to develop sufficient skills in devoting themselves to the subjects that interest them that they will be able to apply those skills wherever they need to in the future. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!)

 

So many times after that retreat, I've thought of writing a personal thank you note to SWB for her warm encouragement of me and all the moms there in doing what works for our kids. I walked away from that conference with a huge weight lifted off my shoulders, and that weight is still lifted 5 months later, so it wasn't merely post-conference euphoria. ;)

 

Not to get all warm and fuzzy because SWB strikes me as a practical woman, but there was LOVE in her message, and I clearly felt that what she was doing in coming to that little bitty conference was a ministry. She wasn't there for herself; she was there for us. Despite her concern with over-pathologizing, there was no criticism of those who pursue therapies or interventions (a vision therapiest spoke that day, too) or divisive language. Her words were for everyone, and they were gentle.

 

If I hadn't had to run out early to keep a promise to my dd, I would certainly have stood in line behind the other moms to give her a big hug and kiss. She got lucky that day! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me again for relating this in my own words, but SWB said--as I remember it!--that it's perfectly acceptable to tailor our dc's curriculum to their needs and interests, even in high school. Of course we should be careful to meet any necessary state and college entrance requirements, but we should feel free to do that in a way that is manageable. Our dc should be able to develop sufficient skills in devoting themselves to the subjects that interest them that they will be able to apply those skills wherever they need to in the future. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong!)

 

Not to get all warm and fuzzy because SWB strikes me as a practical woman, but there was LOVE in her message, and I clearly felt that what she was doing in coming to that little bitty conference was a ministry. She wasn't there for herself; she was there for us. Despite her concern with over-pathologizing, there was no criticism of those who pursue therapies or interventions (a vision therapiest spoke that day, too) or divisive language. Her words were for everyone, and they were gentle.

 

I have never had the privilege of hearing SWB speak in person, but I just wanted to say that I have always (always, always, always!) heard this in her message. I have listened to every MP3 talk from PHP. I have read the two last editions of WTM numerous times. One thing I have always heard from her is humility. Since humility is quite possibly my favorite personality characteristic, she has always been a favorite with me.

 

I have three very different children, including at least two dyed-in-the-wool VSL kids--still waiting to see about the 3rd. I have used many WTM recommendations and SWB's programs with them (own everything she's put out except the upper levels of FLL) because I know how to adapt and because I seek balance. Not every program works with my kids, of course. This shouldn't come as a news flash to anyone here. I mean, just lookie at what's at the very top of the K-8 forum:

 

For questions about specific curricula and their relationship to classical education. Express yourself politely! And remember that no single program can possibly meet the needs of every home schooler; let's benefit from the variety available.
Golly gee. Imagine that. More humility. In fact, she leads with it. Always.

 

I use a lot of out-of-the-box stuff and even the more traditional materials I utilize typically get some kind of VSL/RB spin here. Incredibly, I've always felt like I belong here in this space SWB provides for us and the only reason I can give for that is that she is one sincerely gracious hostess.

 

I can't tell you how many times I have read these boards with wonder that she still provides this forum at all. I know for a fact that I could not be half as gracious as she is. To have so many people come into my figurative house and criticize me and my...we'll go with cooking...at every turn? To have them tell others at my party how my recipe didn't work for them because it was this insult or that insult so, here, try this recipe? It's so much better! Right in front of me? Seriously?! Get out of my house! But she doesn't kick us out of her house. She keeps opening her door for us. And she has never, not once, said or implied that the WTM is a perfect fit for all children. Never.

 

Let me tell you something; I am not a suck-up. If only you knew me, you could really know how true that is. I guess my mother just taught me good manners. I know how to say something isn't going to work for us without disparaging the product or the purveyor of the product. Before reading so many threads on these boards, I didn't think that skill was as rare as it apparently is.

Edited by Alte Veste Academy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell you how many times I have read these boards with wonder that she still provides this forum at all. I know for a fact that I could not be half as gracious as she is. To have so many people come into my figurative house and criticize me and my...we'll go with cooking...at every turn? To have them tell others at my party how my recipe didn't work for them because it was this insult or that insult so, here, try this recipe? It's so much better! Right in front of me? Seriously?! Get out of my house! But she doesn't kick us out of her house. She keeps opening her door for us. And she has never, not once, said or implied that the WTM is a perfect fit for all children. Never.

 

If this is so, then why is it apparently such a hot-button issue when some of us say that it is not a perfect fit for ours? But I don't think the issue is actually whether it's a "perfect" fit. It's whether what constitutes the bedrock of classical education can be so endlessly adapted and changed and still be classical education. it's whether it fits some of our kids at all, particularly at certain stages, particularly K-8. It's whether a child who is struggling under WTM methods necessarily has an LD that needs intervention or accommodation (the original topic with which the thread began). Both Cindy and I have said that we see our kids becoming more able and suited to WTM methods at the high school level. Cindy has said that with her older kids she is doing some combination of classical and unschooling. But these classical methods -- and yes, WTM is about methods; the word was used by SWB herself in this thread -- were not productive at all in earlier years.

 

And I guess I have a different understanding of the purpose of the forums themselves. I don't see them as SWB's "figurative house," but more of a seminar-type virtual room in which people come to think about, ask about, praise and question the fundamental elements as well as the details of classical methods. I see them as therefore being a very appropriate place to question and think critically about WTM's structures of thoughts, as they apply to my child and other children I have met in real life and virtually -- much as one would think critically about any text or idea or topic or philosophy or methodology, in any subject, in the upper levels of a classical education, or as would happen in a college seminar course. A text, an idea, a philosophy and method of education, if they have value -- as this one clearly does -- can stand up to such questioning and analysis. It's not dishonoring them by doing so.

 

Yes, SWB pays to hosts these boards, and we're all grateful for that. But we've also bought her books -- I bought two editions of TWM -- and many have also bought her curricula, paid to attend her conferences, paid to download her lectures. We're also supporting her and enabling her to host the boards with our financial support of her enterprise. It is not a one-way street, and I think the whole economic interplay is mutual enough that no one is obligated to post only unqualified praise here.

 

It is also mischaracterizing my view, and Cindy's, and Michele's and that of others, to say we are trashing the entire WTM philosophy. We're not; we're saying it may be a poor fit for certain types of learners, in certain years, and particularly in the area of writing. We're saying that the book itself does not give even-handed attention to RB-friendly resources and materials. We're saying that there is not enough discussion of specific ways to adapt WTM to SN kids in general. We're attempting to extend that discussion. It may go in directions WTM does not. That is not a sweeping dismissal of WTM in its entirety.

 

What is more, if posters can't openly question, can't relate their experiences with their own children, both positive and negative, can't honestly and openly explore the ways in which WTM works or doesn't work for a particular kind of learner they see in their child, can't ask whether ANY educational methodology can not only work for every single child but can be the "best" way for all -- if we can't do any of this, then what we have is thought control, where there is only one kind of acceptable response to have.

 

Let me tell you something; I am not a suck-up. If only you knew me, you could really know how true that is. I guess my mother just taught me good manners. I know how to say something isn't going to work for us without disparaging the product or the purveyor of the product. Before reading so many threads on these boards, I didn't think that skill was as rare as it apparently is.

 

This is your idea of good manners, implying that those of us who find WTM doesn't work with our child and are theorizing that there is a right-brained mindset or way of processing that is at the root of this mismatch -- while SAYING, REPEATEDLY, that it clearly has value for so many, WTM exerts a continuing pull on us, and we still share some of it goals -- were just badly brought up? To imply if WTM didn't work for my child I must therefore simply not know how to adapt as well as you do?

 

Cindy has also been attacked mercilessly on these boards, and in quite a personal manner. She has been explicitly attacked as a bad parent and a neglectful teacher for having an 11-year-old who is not yet reading fluently -- before anyone bothered to find out that she has four other children who have learned to read, at widely disparate ages. She has been attacked by people who have not read her archived blog posts, which address subtleties and complexities of her general overarching description of a RB learner. I fail to see how that is somehow okay because she's said it here.

 

But then, as I said, although I am deeply grateful for this space, I don't see it as requiring me to think in a certain way. I have tried to be respectful and acknowledge the many people for whom WTM works and who feel they have successfully found ways to make it mesh with their kids profoundest learning needs at all stages of education. I have not, but I refuse to think that's somehow because I, and all the other parents who have likewise come to this conclusion are inadequate teachers, incompetent adapters, and generally grouchy people who get their kicks from putting down WTM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is so, then why is it apparently such a hot-button issue when some of us say that it is not a perfect fit for ours? But I don't think the issue is actually whether it's a "perfect" fit. It's whether what constitutes the bedrock of classical education can be so endlessly adapted and changed and still be classical education. it's whether it fits some of our kids at all, particularly at certain stages, particularly K-8. It's whether a child who is struggling under WTM methods necessarily has an LD that needs intervention or accommodation (the original topic with which the thread began). Both Cindy and I have said that we see our kids becoming more able and suited to WTM methods at the high school level. Cindy has said that with her older kids she is doing some combination of classical and unschooling. But these classical methods -- and yes, WTM is about methods; the word was used by SWB herself in this thread -- were not productive at all in earlier years.

...

 

Yes, SWB pays to hosts these boards, and we're all grateful for that. But we've also bought her books -- I bought two editions of TWM -- and many have also bought her curricula, paid to attend her conferences, paid to download her lectures. We're also supporting her and enabling her to host the boards with our financial support of her enterprise. It is not a one-way street, and I think the whole economic interplay is mutual enough that no one is obligated to post only unqualified praise here.

 

It is also mischaracterizing my view, and Cindy's, and Michele's and that of others, to say we are trashing the entire WTM philosophy. We're not; we're saying it may be a poor fit for certain types of learners, in certain years, and particularly in the area of writing. We're saying that the book itself does not give even-handed attention to RB-friendly resources and materials. We're saying that there is not enough discussion of specific ways to adapt WTM to SN kids in general. We're attempting to extend that discussion. It may go in directions WTM does not. That is not a sweeping dismissal of WTM in its entirety.

 

First of all, I was not speaking of you and you alone. I'm not even speaking about this thread alone. I've lurked on this board for a long time because the VSL/RB info is useful to me. As far as my manners go, since the entire remainder of that paragraph was completely inaccurate, I see your criticism as irrelevant. But now I've got more to say and, indeed, it will be difficult to get it all out in a way Miss Manners would like.

 

My bottom line point is who cares if the WTM doesn't work for someone? Its methods weren't a match for your child. No biggie! Move on. I fail to see what the point is of pointing it out a thousand times from the rooftop. I mean, yes, mentioning that it didn't work is absolutely reasonable, especially in relating to others struggling and coming to the same conclusion regarding their own child. But harping on it incessantly, as if the WTM and classical education have failed you? There have been tones of that in this thread and others. I'm always truly :confused:.

 

Maybe a particular child can't have a classical education, or maybe the child will develop along a timeline which allows it in the future. OK. So, that is what it is. Classical homeschooling has not failed that child. The WTM hasn't failed that child or been inadequate in some way. That's like saying broccoli fails my child if she doesn't like it and throws up when she eats it. Just move on to peas! You don't have to wail and moan about how inadequate broccoli is and how the Green Giant sold you a bill of goods. It just wasn't appropriate for that child.

 

As to the bolded, I agree with you, up until the point where you said "enough." It doesn't do these things. SWB has no inherent responsibility to provide adaptations. She wrote a book on the methods of learning that fall under her area of expertise. There are other resources. I understand about sharing and relating these other resources and reflecting on experiences and learning from others. I understand discussing negatives but there is a way of doing it politely. I don't understand why you always sound so doggone angry and self-righteous. And, again, I have two kids (at least) whose needs are not wholly met by the WTM. I guess I just see no need to resent it and, to me, you sound like you do. The last few sentences you wrote are just...:confused:. You're reading a lot into other people's opinions. Try not caring; it's liberating.

 

Yes, SWB pays for the forums. Yes, we are free (and should be free) to be critical of WTM and her other resources. I have no problem with saying that this or that thing doesn't work and here's why. But again, I go back to the whining about it. Honestly, so many times it goes beyond politely expressing a negative to being just plain rude to our host. Your arguments about being able to challenge paradigms and relate experiences are heading way out into the land of hyperbole. And if you don't see that, well I can't help you see it. The above that I bolded, is what you do here all the time. Take insult. Yes, I think you have been rude in this thread. You're not the only one. I was getting pretty testy myself. I am also not saying that I know how to adapt better than you. I'm saying it was adaptable for me and maybe it isn't for you. I'm saying basically the same thing that you were saying but I'm adding in a big fat who the heck cares?! I like to listen to myriad stories of struggles, right fits, wrong fits, adaptations, switches in thinking, evolution of philosophy. I like to hear it all. But I don't care that it is different from what I do or need. I don't care if you think exactly opposite what I think. I just think everyone should be more secure in it. Own it without apology or defensiveness.

 

I absolutely do not buy into the thinking that because I buy her books and products, I'm paying for this forum. I paid for the books. Period. Geez. She had/has no obligation to provide this space and, frankly, I am always shocked to hear that argument of entitlement.

 

Why is this such a hot-button issue? Exactly my question! LOL It's not! Mountains out of molehills and all that. Again, what? The WTM doesn't work for everyone. Not a big shocker. Not worth complaining about. Let it go and find what works. SWB has never claimed to be the be all, end all of classical education. You will not convince me otherwise. As a matter of fact, in one of her lectures, she encourages us to break away from the expert mindset. She says people come up to her all the time at conventions, wanting to show her their plan and get her approval for it. She says parents know their kids best. They've thought long and hard about their kids and that plan, and yet they still feel the need for her approval. She says to trust ourselves. I replay that in my head a lot and I think it's why these doggone threads get me so hot under the collar. Because this...

 

What I find too simplistic is WTM's insistence that ANY kid, whatever the learning orientation or issues, can learn -- not only well, but best -- through following an extremely left-brained, linear-sequential, heavily text-based, systematic curriculum.

 

is a load of hooey.

 

My personal opinion about why we have so many hot-button issues around here? People get their knickers in a twist projecting their own issues and insecurities onto other people instead of just getting right with themselves and their own set of circumstances. And don't get me started on the lack of empathy... Because I find it crazy that you can be so upset about Cindy getting "attacked" while ignoring the aspersions cast on Susan's character. But, wait, when we talk about Susan, we're challenging and sharing and relating to one another. When we're talking about Cindy, we're attacking. Fascinating.

 

ETA: I'm getting really emotional on this thread and I don't want to. Doodler, I remember you before your name change. You've had some extraordinarily helpful posts. To be honest, I've always felt like I could be you in 10 years. But you do have a tendency to sound very angry and frustrated. I don't know. Maybe the privilege of hearing about other people's trials has allowed me this zen feeling of who gives a heck. Maybe you're still carrying the burden of feeling misunderstood. But my two oldest are very much like your DD and I don't have that same sense of frustration. I'm grateful for that. But maybe it makes me judge you instead of extending you empathy as well. I'll work on it.

Edited by Alte Veste Academy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's whether what constitutes the bedrock of classical education can be so endlessly adapted and changed and still be classical education.

 

But the methodology ISN'T the bedrock of classical education. Classical education has been around thousands of years longer than TWTM and has used all sorts of different methods to achieve its "big picture" goal of cultural literacy.

 

My understanding is that the ancients Greeks did most of it orally, hence the famous quote from one of them (Socrates? Plato?) bashing reading books as destroying the ability to memorize & recall long passages.

 

For most of the time that classical education has been around, formal academics were not taught until much later in childhood, more in concert with a so-called "right brained" timetable. Starting formal academics at age 8-12 was the norm, not 4 or 5 like our modern society. The Bluedorns fall under the umbrella of classical education, and they advocate delaying the start of the grammar stage until age 10. Now the Bluedorns *DO* advocate phonics, but I would presume that they care more about the goal (ability to read fluently) than the specific means of achieving that goal.

 

Classical education is about knowing the history, philosophy, literature, and other cultural achievements of one's civilization. The nitty-gritty details of exactly how to go about achieving that goal can be debated, but those aren't the "bedrock" of classical education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll bite . . .

 

I initially came to the WTM forums 8 years ago because I wanted to learn more about homeschooling and it was the largest and most active group. I have owned two editions of the WTM, FLL 1 & 2, FLL 3, WWE 1, 2, 3 & 4, SOTW 1 in hardback and the activity guide, SOTW audio versions of 1 & 2, and Writing Without Fear. I became puzzled and frustrated because they didn't fit my children as written. I tried to tweak them and it still didn't go very well. That doesn't mean that the WTM doesn't work for many and even some with special needs. It simply didn't work for my family.

 

I have recommended products here that seem like they may fit someone else's situation, even though they didn't fit here. When others have slammed a program for it not working, I have suggested that just maybe it could have been the timing, not a good fit for that child's learning style, the wrong level, or just not a good mesh with the instructor. That doesn't make it garbage.

 

When I read about other children struggling with classical educational methods, I remember how it felt to want it to be the magical answer, but it just not fitting my kid. This is the reason I hang out on the SN's board, to encourage others with whom the WTM is not working, that there are other options and it's okay to have a different path.

 

Sometimes what our children have is not just a matter of a different learning style that can easily be accommodated by adding more visuals, more audiobooks, more projects, and altering the assignments. There are times when the student is developmentally in a completely different sequence than the WTM suggests.

 

So why do I come to the SN's board you have provided? Because it is the most active and diverse board. SN's parents need to brainstorm with others what options are out there and find one that reaches their child. For these students, it's not just a classical method being tossed out completely, but a traditional mindset. It's nothing against you personally, it's just the way it is and we have to do what we have to do to help our kids be the best them they can be.

 

Michele

 

And I love this! To say that the WTM didn't work for us but here's what did is completely respectful. Not to mention incredibly helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I read about other children struggling with classical educational methods, I remember how it felt to want it to be the magical answer, but it just not fitting my kid. This is the reason I hang out on the SN's board, to encourage others with whom the WTM is not working, that there are other options and it's okay to have a different path.

 

Sometimes what our children have is not just a matter of a different learning style that can easily be accommodated by adding more visuals, more audiobooks, more projects, and altering the assignments. There are times when the student is developmentally in a completely different sequence than the WTM suggests.

 

 

And I love this! To say that the WTM didn't work for us but here's what did is completely respectful. Not to mention incredibly helpful.

 

:iagree:And this is why I come to this board. Because it is incredibly helpful to know what did work for other kids with my ds's profile when what I had planned didn't work. I love the WTM (I own most if not all of what PHP has published) and it is the way I wish I had been taught, but my ds is not me, and has almost polar opposite strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes what works uses pieces of WTM recs (like the sentence diagramming in FLL but adding more pictures as descriptors), and sometimes it means moving on to more direct writing/reading instruction for dyslexics and away from PHP products (WWE).

 

Maybe we are trying to get down to what constitutes the core of classical education? In my mind, that means a language-centered education. But my reality is that with a ds who has a language-based LD, his education is going to have to focus much less on language and much more on symbols and images and tangible products to be successful. That is how he learns and I would be ignoring neuroscience to push on otherwise.

 

Let's face it, in true antiquity, my child would not have gotten a classical education. He would have been left out of the system entirely and been out building aqueducts for Rome. This is not just a problem of WTM, I doubt that in any time or place ds would fit within the paradigm of classical education and to acknowledge it doesn't make it any less true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is all in the wording. How we say things makes all the difference and I will be the first to admit that I need work on that myself. Giving people other alternatives when something from PHP does not work is understandable. Making it sound like the WTM or other PHP materials will not work for SN kids is not. Harping on it is unfair for those that provide this forum for us. Constructive criticism is the key.

 

The only concern I had with the WTM was the emphasis on auditory means of teaching, while also emphasizing how we should avoid visual means. Reading my WTM (2nd edition) earlier this year, I started feeling like I was messing up my kids by making and having made things so visual for them. I am not saying it is the authors' fault but I remember, after I had straightened out in my mind that I had followed the best approach that I felt suited my kids learning styles, that I hoped that there was at least some mention of the different learning styles. Some acknowledgement. I don't expect the authors' to do the tweaking for me. This would be an impossible task anyway. It just would make those of us that are and have visual or tactile, kinesthetic, a combination, learners, not feel like we are messing up our kids because we are following what our kids need and how they learn best.

 

I also own the WTM, WWE 1-3 (with the main guide), FLL 1 & 3 (with guide), SOTW 1 with AG and more. We are still using PHP materials. These just arrived at my door from Rainbow (in case there are any doubts ;)):

 

 

 

My situation is different though and I can tweak the materials for them. Some might not be able to for their own and that's ok. This thread somehow went from finding ways of meeting our kids needs (left brain/ right brain, whatever) to blaming everyone else for not providing the means for us to do so, though. Our kids live in this world and will have to eventually adapt to it. If it is left brained dominant, they will have to learn to work with that, or they will not survive in it. I think even classifying people as strictly right or strictly left brained is ludicrous. Most people are probably in between, albeit closer to one end or the other. I don't allow my kids to be limited by things like this. I don't allow anything to limit them. If people with no arms, legs, vision etc. can find ways beyond their limitations to compete in the Paralympics etc. or to even live a regular life, then we can find ways of helping our kids to adapt and move beyond their own limitations.

 

Just my two cents anyway.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, I was not speaking of you and you alone. I'm not even speaking about this thread alone. I've lurked for a long time. But, yes, you are completely correct, of course. I misplaced my manners. Profuse apologies, Kettle. ;)

 

My bottom line point is who cares if the WTM doesn't work for someone? Its methods weren't a match for your child. No biggie! Move on. I fail to see what the point is of pointing it out a thousand times from the rooftop. I mean, yes, mentioning that it didn't work is absolutely reasonable, especially in relating to others struggling and coming to the same conclusion regarding their own child. But harping on it incessantly, as if the WTM and classical education have failed you? There have been tones of that in this thread and others. I'm always truly :confused:.

 

Maybe a particular child can't have a classical education, or maybe the child will develop along a timeline which allows it in the future. OK. So, that is what it is. Classical homeschooling has not failed that child. The WTM hasn't failed that child or been inadequate in some way. That's like saying broccoli fails my child if she doesn't like it and throws up when she eats it. Just move on to peas! You don't have to wail and moan about how inadequate broccoli is and how the Green Giant sold you a load of goods. It just wasn't appropriate for that child.

 

As to the bolded, I agree with you, up until the point where you said "enough." It doesn't do these things. SWB has no inherent responsibility to provide adaptations. She wrote a book on the methods of learning that fall under her area of expertise. There are other resources. I understand about sharing and relating these other resources and reflecting on experiences and learning from others. I understand discussing negatives but there is a way of doing it politely. I don't understand why you always sound so doggone angry and self-righteous. And, again, I have two kids (at least) whose needs are not wholly met by the WTM. I guess I just see no need to resent it and, to me, you sound like you do. The last few sentences you wrote are just...:confused:. You're reading a lot into other people's opinions. Try not caring; it's liberating.

 

Yes, SWB pays for the forums. Yes, we are free (and should be free) to be critical of WTM and her other resources. I have no problem with saying that this or that thing doesn't work and here's why. But again, I go back to the whining about it. Honestly, so many times it goes beyond politely expressing a negative to being just plain rude to our host. Your arguments about being able to challenge paradigms and relate experiences are heading way out into the land of hyperbole. And if you don't see that, well I can't help you see it. The above that I bolded, is what you do here all the time. Take insult. Yes, I think you have been rude in this thread. You're not the only one. I was pretty rude myself. I am also not saying that I know how to adapt better than you. I'm saying it was adaptable for me and maybe it isn't for you. I'm saying basically the same thing that you were saying but I'm adding in a big fat who the heck cares?! I like to listen to myriad stories of struggles, right fits, wrong fits, adaptations, switches in thinking, evolution of philosophy. I like to hear it all. But I don't care that it is different from what I do or need. I don't care if you think exactly opposite what I think. I just think everyone should be more secure in it. Own it without apology or defensiveness.

 

I absolutely do not buy into the thinking that because I buy her books and products, I'm paying for this forum. I paid for the books. Period. Geez. She had/has no obligation to provide this space and, frankly, I am always shocked to hear that argument of entitlement.

 

Why is such a hot-button issue? Exactly my question! LOL It's not! Mountains out of molehills and all that. Again, what? The WTM doesn't work for everyone. Not a big shocker. Not worth complaining about. Let it go and find what works. SWB has never claimed to be the be all, end all of classical education. You will not convince me otherwise. My personal opinion about why we have so many hot-button issues around here? People get their knickers in a twist projecting their own issues and insecurities onto other people instead of just getting right with themselves and their own set of circumstances. And don't get me started on the lack of empathy... Because I find it crazy that you can be so upset about Cindy getting "attacked" while ignoring the aspersions cast on Susan's character. But, wait, when we talk about Susan, we're challenging and sharing and relating to one another. When we're talking about Cindy, we're attacking. Fascinating.

 

ETA: I'm getting really emotional on this thread and I don't want to. Doodler, I remember you before your name change. You've had some extraordinarily helpful posts. To be honest, I've always felt like I could be you in 10 years. But you do have a tendency to sound very angry and frustrated. I don't know. Maybe the privilege of hearing about other people's trials has allowed me this zen feeling of who gives a heck. Maybe you're still carrying the burden of feeling misunderstood. But my two oldest, my dd in particular, is very much like yours and I don't have that same sense of frustration. I'm grateful for that. But maybe it makes me judge you instead of extending you empathy as well. I'll work on it.

 

Kristina,

 

I had a friend email me and ask me to specifically re-visit this thread (we had been emailing each other about and I told her yesterday that I needed a board break.)

 

Thank you for this post. It was predictable to me that this is the way the thread was going to go. My perspective is that while KarenAnne/Doodler is a tremendous advocate for showing parents how to work w/non-traditional approaches, she is simply moving kids from one box into another. Participating in the conversation when you have a child that does not need to strictly fit into the new box nullifies the your contributions to the conversation.

 

There have been multiple threads in the past that the topics themselves have been interesting and helpful. However, it is the attempt to define the parameters of how to educate these unique children to only methodologies which are opposing to WTM or even traditional school approach which always lead to the frustration and disintegration.

 

Goodness, I am not a WTM educator (sorry Susan!! I have read the WTM and have the utmost respect for it and recommend the book!!) I have a very, very difficult Aspie. I have a 2E dyslexic VSL learner who spells like a 5th grader and is handicapped by incredibly slow reading. Yet, my contributions to the threads have always lead to my "not understanding what it is like to educate children with these types of issues" b/c my goals and approaches are dissimilar to what the methodology of the "opposing" approach (and yet, ironically are far more similar, especially in the younger yrs, to what is proposed.)

 

I think the frustration arises b/c some people are wanting to work with their children w/ the deliberate objective of learning to function w/in a more traditional framework while other people are insisting that it is not possible for these children to function in a traditional framework and that only possible way to success for these children is a persistent accommodation of the "new box."

 

Like Crimson Wife stated so eloquently further up in the thread, it is perplexing why the view is so confining. For encouraging out-of-the-box thinking, why is the option simply the other "box"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

moving kids from one box into another.

 

You certainly said it better than I did. I get this feeling so often here. I have been lurking on the SN/Accelerated boards for years, feeling unqualified to post much because I haven't faced any real struggles with teaching them that I haven't been able to adapt my way out of (yet). Honestly, I can't even pinpoint what their "special needs" are outside of being VSL/RB perfectionist and dreamer types.

 

Like Crimson Wife stated so eloquently further up in the thread, it is perplexing why the view is so confining. For encouraging out-of-the-box thinking, why is the option simply the other "box"?

 

I agree. I always thought of "out-of-the-box" as, um, out of the box, as in walking the unfettered path all around the boxes, feeling free to reach in and cherry-pick the best tools for your own situation (without anyone slapping your hand if you reach into the "wrong" box :tongue_smilie:). Since no two situations are ever going to be exactly the same, I think there should be a heck of a lot more "that's interesting, how you're doing ___" and less judgment or (seriously?) bickering about whether you ever truly left the box at all. Again, if it's working, who cares?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kristina and 8FillTheHeart you have made several good points. One of the reasons why I took a forum break was because I too was beginning to feel uncomfortable on this board because my kids are not behind and I am able to adapt and find ways of meeting their needs. I know there are many others that have more serious challenges to face but I also agree that going from one box to another is not the solution. I was trying to say that from the beginning also. I am just not as eloquent :tongue_smilie:.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my experience that when it comes to our children, it's easy to get emotional and sensitive and passionate and all sorts of feelings, especially when our children don't follow the standard school model and timing for learning. (Admittedly, I don't see Doodler as being angry or frustrated, but it's probably because I understand where she's coming from and why she feels so strongly about her experiences.)

 

I wasn't getting emotional about my kids. :lol: I'm perfectly comfortable with the way they learn and how I teach them. I got emotional about the out and out rudeness and inaccuracies expressed in this thread. And, no offense, but your article didn't really hold much sway with me or get me up in arms either. I felt it was just another example of an expert du jour who doesn't know my kids thinking she knows how I should teach them and raise them.

 

I think Michele knows her kids best and should decide how to teach them and raise them.

 

I think Doodler knows her kid best and should decide how to teach them and raise them.

 

I think (fill in the blank) knows... Oh, you can figure out where this is going. :tongue_smilie:

 

Of course, expert advice informs my opinion. But God forbid I ever let it replace my own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This sentiment is at the crux of what most people believe. Your measuring stick of "not being behind" is the left-brained scope and sequence found in schools. You are actually adapting to meet the expectations of the scope and sequence. For instance, if they say addition facts should be memorized in 2nd grade, and your child isn't by the flashcard method, you may adapt it by using a different memorizing tool, like songs, for instance. In this way, your child now is meeting the expectations of the scope and sequence. But, what if the natural scope and sequence for your learner was to know addition facts in 3rd grade and the "normal" way to teach it was by association. You may not need to "adapt" at all.

 

And she may not be adapting in the way you assume she is. That's not how I read her post at all and I find yours incredibly presumptuous. In fact, I understood "not behind" through my own filter of meaning that has nothing to do with scope and sequence. You are not omniscient. Maybe what you wrote is accurate and maybe it's not but this "all knowing" condescension is disturbing.

 

And I have VSL/RB kids and I know darn well that other people have more serious challenges. I think you might benefit from less talk about your own RB kids and more time out in the field observing those who, in fact, are facing more serious challenges. You are correct. Having a RB learner is not a serious challenge. But what people are telling you is that RB can go along with x, y, and z that are. You are spinning everything in this thread to meet your definition and experience, but doing that is just not ever going to miraculously make your words true.

Edited by Alte Veste Academy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never imagined when I started this thread that it would end up probably the hottest SN's thread ever.

 

Cindy, I didn't intend to throw you into a fire! I am so sorry for starting this thread! It's gone in so many different directions and I'm still left wanting to discuss the purpose of sharing it, which was your questions in the article. :confused:

 

A few final words in response the last few replies. -

 

I am pro following my internal guide, observing my child’s cues, inspiring their talents, involving them in their educational decisions, encouraging their natural development, blending learning with life, nurturing the whole child, and customizing their education to embrace that child’s strengths and goals.

 

I don’t care what others call it. I look for validation in my children.

 

There are WTM’ers who attack us personally when they join those types of conversations.

 

There was a post in this thread that was edited before I got to my computer and had a chance to quote. However, I read it from my phone and it implied my 8.5 y/o is not reading because he hasn’t been taught, exposed to print, and audiobooks. Anyone who knows me here on this board knows the lengths I have gone to in order to reach him, I have been very transparent. We checked 1300 items from the library in the past year. Trust me, I do not lug that amount of books back and forth just for a form of working out. So, yes I did take offense to that! Was it pointed out or noticed by anyone else, no!

 

I also feel OhE's comments to me crossed the line.

 

We’ve moved so far beyond the original question which was would the student who struggles when learning in a left-brained fashion be able to learn if given the opportunity to take a different developmental path to the same destination? When we simply tweak or accommodate left-brained ways, what price are we paying for doing so?

 

We have asked before about changing the heading of the board or having a sub-group as I agree “special needs” does not fit. These kids are special, but they simply learn differently.

 

Children do not fit in boxes, in fact we are saying quite the opposite. Children who learn differently are not a lump of clay to be molded into a left-brain ideal. ALL children have a right to be educated in a way that enables them to learn and to be respected.

 

It’s the PM’s, the replies in threads, the emails, and the wonderful friendships I’ve developed because of this board that keeps me advocating for the different learner. I bring a unique perspective to the board as I not only have three children who learn quite differently, but the traditional educational system failed me as a child. I want different for my sons. I have experienced how a change in mindset and approach, as I listed in the beginning of this reply, has not only enabled my children to learn, but has made our lives so much richer. Our relationships are deeper now that we are a team, my children are more eager to learn and it has blurred with life, we have more fun as a family now that we aren’t just “doing school”, and we don’t have the educational battles I read about so often - and it’s not just because I have boys. ;) There have been many threads on the boards about pre-teen hormonal boys. It’s hard to explain, but it’s been simply magical and fulfilling beyond words.

 

I will not be revisiting this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michele,

 

For what it's worth, I thought you remained respectful throughout the thread and I wasn't speaking of you at all in my posts. Not in the least. I have always enjoyed your posts.

 

ETA: I've invested too much energy in other people's problems here, so I think I will permanently quit this thread as well. I should get to dinner. My babes will be home from swimming soon. :)

Edited by Alte Veste Academy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've yet to read all the replies (only on page 6!:001_huh:) however, I wanted to jot down thoughts as I have them...hopefully it won't be redundant.

I'm a very left-brained person. I need orderly, sequential learning. That makes sense. Breaking down the information into small chunks makes sense. Have a checklist of things that should get done by a certain time makes sense. Then came my dd7 who is WAY right brained. I mean, she fits every.single.description. Thanks to this board, I've learned SO much about how her brain works, and am coming to view her strengths and emphasize THOSE things instead of focusing on her weaknesses. We've changed our path of HSing to better fit HER, while using teaching materials that are comfortable for ME to teach. There is still struggle. It's still hard at times. However, it is MUCH improved over the past six months, as we BOTH learn.

But. She truly, honestly, really DID NEED vision therapy. We are just about done with our six months of weekly appointments, and oh my goodness. What an incredible difference!!! Of course I can see a difference in her school work, and most of all her reading, but her confidence in herself is through the roof! She now ENJOYS to read, asks and begs to read. :D It really has made her more of a whole person, not changed who she was. Does that make sense? She is still my creative, free thinking, highly sensitive, brilliant kid. She is just able, now, to concentrate and focus and read things SHE wants to. She understands that the reason why certain things are harder for her than her sister is not AT ALL because she isn't smart enough, but because her eye muscles weren't strong enough. She gladly does her therapy, because she sees how much she has improved in the past six months. She is SO proud to be reading chapter books. This is the kid who would cry trying to read Bob books or level 1 readers just a few months ago.

So, all this to say, that I agree with both views. We definitely should teach to each child's strengths, and gently work on their weaknesses. We are lucky (I count my blessings daily because we are HSing) to be able to tailor curriculum/schedule/expectations to our children. THEY are lucky to have a caring teacher who would go to the ends of the earth for them. AND they are lucky that if there is truly a NEED, therapy exists and we can get them help. For us, vision therapy was worth every single penny. I wouldn't hesitate doing it again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My views and my understanding of my child and her way of learning have indeed changed over time, very much so in the past year as she has become much more mature, academically independent and totally self-motivated, and any remaining academic issues from her younger years (dysgraphia) have completely disappeared -- thus my response on this thread which began as a discussion of whether and to what degree some LD labels result from a misunderstanding or incomplete awareness of how some children, who can be generally spoken of under the category of right-brained, learn. I have finally come far enough along the path with dd that I can look back and see her earlier development as a pattern rather than a series of crises.

 

I consider being able to search out new ways to understand what my dd does, to look at her past from new angles, and to constantly acquire new knowledge about neuroscience as it may pertain to her, as a benefit and strength rather than as a weakness or hypocritical inconsistency. I consider it part of this search for understanding to question whether and where any specific educational philosophy or approach can be tweaked to the point that it departs from its central tenants, or is inappropriate for my particular child. Not everyone's search is going to include exactly what mine did, or have need to question in the ways I have. My changing views or my evolving use of categories and labels are a story of my own growth in understanding. I don't think I know it all, for myself much less for everybody else! And let me say I envy those who think they do know it all or who have never battled through the process to understanding in all its byways and detours and obstacle. It's exhausting.

 

It is also, equally, the highest privilege to try to see learning through my dd's eyes, to truly enter into one another's different neurology as much as possible. It's a lifelong task, the most exciting one I've ever undertaken. I don't at any point consider I know her completely, or know once and for all a single way to work with her that is going to be our pattern from now on or that explains every single unique aspect.

 

Only someone unfamiliar with the complexities of Cindy's writing can claim that seeing someone as right-brained is putting them into another box or playing fast and loose with labels. From what I've seen so far, Cindy's forthcoming book deals with different subgroups or variations, with ADHD, dyslexia, spectrum disorders, and more. It also deals with individual variations within and outside of these groups. It fully acknowledges the range of characteristics and learning profiles these kids can have, as well as laying out their common qualities and developmental time frames. Her book is not an instruction manual for one single method to teach these kids. It is a call to awareness that left-brained methodologies and practices can be inappropriate for many of these kids, particularly very creative, self-driven, and/or kinesthetic kids, particularly in grades K-8.

 

As I have a child who has been diagnosed with Asperger's and NVLD, I have a pressing concern in the fact that educational programs which stress early and frequent writing, downplay or discourage image-based learning, divide skills into separate, isolated categories, insist on teacher-made lists of content and skills to be mastered rather than integrating skills into a student's obsessive interests... all of these things have been shown to be disadvantageous for an Aspie's intellectual AND emotional health. A constant focus on remediating weaknesses, or inappropriate teaching to a learning mode that is not dd's natural one, would heighten the anxiety and lack of self-confidence that is an integral part of being on the spectrum. Research into the right-brained aspects of people on the spectrum is very much ongoing, but it is currently playing a large part in how professionals are re-imagining what an ideal education for ASD kids might look like. If professional knowledge and scientific research is in flux, even more so is my own understanding going to be an evolving process. Discovering a clearing house of information on right-brained learning profiles, both commonalities and differences, has been a hugely helpful step in that process and has for me come at a perfect moment.

 

The whole point of this thread, originally, was the proposal that some things that would be described as delays or deficits or weaknesses in a typical LB course of study or way of proceeding, are actually a reflection of the way that courses of study and methods are so entangled in a LB world view that they can't recognize a difference as a difference and not a deficiency. One result of presuming a left-brained way of learning to be universal is that for SOME of the apparent deficits in MANY right-brained kids, this wrongly presumes LDs or delays, when the child's abilities and performance will actually align more readily with normative timetables, without intervention or therapy, in mid to late adolescence. By working with dd's natural development frame and her visual processing in reading and spelling, by accepting the way she was clearly going to be a learner who waited until she had processed all instead of being able to work on parts and pieces, I've lessened her anxiety, made her confident about how she learns, and found ways to eliminate her earlier dysgraphia. I do not understand her as having been "delayed," because that assumes only those who develop in tune with a left-brained framework have a valid and perfectly normal, "on-time" if you will, development. I do not see her as needing accommodation or remediation (with the exception of the very physical visual and fine motor problems she has had) or tweaking or adapting. I see her as having a fundamentally different relationship to her education as that in WTM. I see this only after many years of thinking, research, evaluations, and working to understand her mind.

 

I'm not saying, here's the magic way to go for all right-brained kids, or "I knew this all along and look what we've accomplished," but rather, here's what I have learned and am still learning from my dd about how her mind works, what she needs and how she thrives. What I've discovered shares many core elements with what Cindy is suggesting about right-brained learner profiles and so has potential implications for others (surely not all) struggling to educate right-brained kids.

 

To call this musical boxes or label switching is a basic misunderstanding of the qualifications and careful discriminations Cindy makes among right-brained learners. It's also a misunderstanding of the total feeling of freedom I felt on seeing at last a coherent pattern that made sense of dd's early years, which seemed before this totally chaotic to me. I now see a pattern, a structure, an angle through which certain aspects of my experiences with dd fall into clarity and allow me to make sense of the wild and sudden way in which her dysgraphia seemed to evaporate despite little to no actual writing instruction. It also allowed me to see how the activities she freely pursued and still pursues, though they seem nothing like "school" in the WTM sense, uncannily developed her strengths, worked on her individual weaknesses (not LDs), and has aligned recently with a typical LB academic stage of development. The naturalness and ease with which this happened as we followed a different relationship between parent, child, and knowledge/skills was so utterly perplexing -- I couldn't understand how it could possibly have happened, because I still had a left-brained view of the need for incremental, steady, systematic methods and practice.

 

I did not set out searching for a way to critique WTM. I was looking for a way to explain why it didn't work for my child, no matter how far and furiously I tweaked; and to explain how on earth her utterly different way of learning DID work, because I certainly didn't get it. I was looking for other people who had experienced anything remotely resembling what I had, who had followed their child's lead, researched neuroscience and learning, and found any or all of the obstacles or the successes I did. This wasn't a one-stop process and it wasn't without a lot of confusion and fumbling on my part. I gradually realized that much of what I was seeing in dd was incompatible not just with methods, but with a certain relationship to content and skills that I saw in WTM. Again, that's not hypocritical inconsistency or a dedicated attack on WTM in its entirety. It's a history of my own evolving and never perfect understanding. I hope such histories have a place on this board, as it is exactly such stories from other moms whose children shared some of dd's learning characteristics that have been of such great comfort to me along the way. I don't expect everybody else's experiences to resemble my own, or their conclusions to parallel mine. But it would be nice to have a place to express them without attack.

 

I have been reminded so vividly of the impasse in Congress between Republicans and Democrats as I've read and written. What I say is clearly going to be continually misrepresented and reduced to absurdities, or pointed to as evidence of some kind of inadequate teaching or failure to figure out how to adapt instruction, or as inconsistency and loose use of labels. It would be pretty silly to try to continue from this point. As I said before, I envy those of you who have it all figured out and truly believe the lack of courtesy and of understanding is all on one side. It must be a very comfortable place to be. As far as I'm concerned, this thread is all yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cindy, I do agree with you about the different learning styles. I have lived it in person and through my kids. However, you seem to generalize too much on a lot of what you have said and have lumped everyone on this forum in one category, the left brain mentality.

 

Just because something is not black, it does not mean that it is white. I can tell you now, from my short one year experience on this board, with moms that I have agreed and disagreed with, that no one that I know on here wants or believes that their child is broken. If they did, they would be on a different forum. Nor do they live by ps standards, otherwise they would not be homeschooling. On this board we are constantly discussing options on how to help meet our kids needs, through their strengths. This is what Temple Grandin advocates and what I have followed all along with my boys, and even more so since I have read some of her books.

 

I agree that we are coming from an entirely different premise though. You have arrived to the conclusion that many kids are labeled with certain "disorders" when they simply are right brained and have a different timeline. You seem to have an issue with the term special needs. Special needs for me includes different methods of learning. It does not exclude them. And... some labels are in fact necessary in order for some of us to be able to distinguish the areas that we need to target with our kids.

 

Also, you believe in timelines. I believe in Montessori's sensitive periods. I applaud you for what you are trying to do, but, just like there are different theories of how a brain learns (multiple intelligence, modalities, Temple Grandin's categories etc. etc.), your left/ right brain dominance is just that, another theory. We each pick what suits us and that is what we go by.

 

You will never convince me to wait when it comes to my kids. You couldn't anyway, since what my kids learned at a very young age was of their own initiative. I was just the facilitator. I have spared no cost, often going without many things for myself, in order to get what my boys want. I have not done this to keep up with the Joneses or left brain thinkers, as you classify them. I have followed this for my kids' sake. It is why I don't visit nor post in the advanced forum. My way of thinking does not agree with theirs, even though we have gifted IQ's and my kids are very likely 2E.

 

As Kristina pointed out, you tend to presume to understand where we are coming from, and speaking for myself (just as Kristina pointed out, who knows me a bit more from these forums), what you have said about my approach is only about 20% accurate. You see, while you may have been on many boards, you only just visited ours. While we know each other (some of us know each other more than others) more or less, from this board and these forums in general, you don't really know any of us. Presuming that you understand where we are coming from because you believe that we are all coming from a left brain mentality, is a bit too narrow minded, and will not help your cause in the long run. As I have said before, this approach only serves to alienate those that you are hoping to cater to with your book. At least that's how I feel anyway.

 

So then, when I say that my kids are not behind, essentially, what I am saying is that my kids do not face any major challenges that we have been unable to work with or around. But I challenge my kids, whether that be academically or in our daily life. I do not follow the wait and see approach. Overcoming obstacles is my mentality and this is what my approach is based on, regardless of what these obstacles are. The wait and see approach is just not me. You may feel that this is not the right way to go for right brained learners but as I have said before, we do not fit the right brain model exactly, just like we don't fit the left brain model. I cannot judge what I cannot relate to though, this was why I said that there are others that face challenges that we have not faced. Whether you chose to call them just a difference in the right brain timeline, give it a mainstream label, or whatever, it still remains a challenge that a child needs to either overcome or work around. I feel that if I don't challenge my kids, they will not try to overcome their challenges. In life, we all have different challenges that we need to overcome, even those that are nt. Personally, this was what I meant by adapting. I meant adapting to a society, not adapting to a curriculum.

 

This is for Doodler. If your last comments were due to my comments, I have explained what I meant by adapting (near the end of my last post) with my comments above. When it comes to curricula, I have always been a firm believe that if you cannot get it to work, move on. I don't think anyone here has had an issue with you posting that the WTM has not been a good fit for your child. I also don't feel that anyone expects you to adapt it to suit your child when it clearly does not suit the way she learns. What people have been saying is that you are harping on it too much and making it sound like you believe that just because it did not work for your learner, it will not work for any right brain learner. Also, Cindy has accepted that she has essentially created another box but you view things differently. Can we agree that, no matter what the method, philosophy, or whatever, we perceive it based on our own mentality and background? I mean, all you have to do is just look at what you felt this thread was about, vs. what Michele did (who started it), vs. what Cindy did. There are slight differences in what you each perceive as the main point of this whole thread, just like I am sure every other poster, including myself, has.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way Michele, your thread is number six in views and number one in posts. I thought I would let you know since you were wondering :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...