WishboneDawn
-
Posts
7,712 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by WishboneDawn
-
-
She's talking about unschooling as an environment in which a young person learns without schooling (not-school, or un-school), as opposed to homeschooling most subjects but taking a break from something like science or language arts for a time. I agree with her - that's not unschooling, it's just not doing science or language arts for a time.
Do you understand unschooling to be a style in which a student learns an academic subject? Like, one can take a science class, or one can unschool science, as a part of the homeschool curriculum? If so, I would disagree. I've not heard any advocates of unschooling suggest or support this (as your quote illustrates). Unschooling itself is radical in that it gets to the "root" of learning, and I think Dodd's more recent desire to move away from the adjective "radical" reflects the desire to not confuse the issue unnecessarily.
The quote reflects unschooling and radical unschooling as I understood it when I was a radical unschooler. I was a very active participant in Sandra's email list and on the now defunct forum that used to be hosted at unschooling.com. There's actually a comment of mine from the list preserved on Sandra's site as proof of my unschooling roots. Thought on what unschooling is may have changed since I was a part of that community but we used the term radical then because it created a space for discussion separate and apart from the homeschoolers who "unschooled" a subject. It's hard to talk about principles and the foundations of a different approach to life and learning, hard to be radical and push that paradigm shift, when homeschoolers who "unschool" are mistakenly stumbling into the conversation and dragging it back to curriculum concerns. So "radical" gave fair warnings to others and some structure to ourselves in discussing the issue.
I am under the impression many people consider "radical unschooling" to refer to the kind of family dynamic in which parent's and children's roles are not conventional (there is no "authority" and "obedience" but rather mutual cooperation). The idea isn't that "radical unschooling" means unschooling all subjects as opposed to unschooling 20% of one's education, kwim? But ultimately, Sandra Dodd no more "speaks" for unschooling than Sam Harris "speaks" for atheism. Unschooling is the lack of schooling - it is by definition, not school. It's un-school. If one was to use Dodd's comments to support an argument, I think one would find it very difficult to support the concept that unschooling is a learning style that is separated and compartmentalized.
I didn't really mean to mean to support any argument. I was simply sharing what radical unschooling meant to me. I was formed in the Forge of Dodd so her views and the discussions we had around the term are a good reflection of what it means to me. I haven't been in unschooling circles for awhile so it may well be I'm behind the times and radical is old news.
eta: I don't mean to suggest I'm right and you're wrong. I certainly have no authority over the matter either. It just doesn't make sense to me that there is a "right" way to not do something. Or that one can classify Not Doing Something as opposed to Radically Not Doing Something. That's why I get ticked to see comments about doing unschooling "right" or "legitimate unschool" (that's a new one for me ^_^ ). Either you do it, or you don't. But... how do you compartmentalize what you don't do? :huh:
See, that was the stuff we were sorting out with the radical label. Those were the discussions we were having and we could only have them if we had the space created by the word radical. :D There WAS, for us, a difference between Not Doing Something and Radically Not Doing Something. One was, as you mentioned before, an understanding that unschooling was a style to learn a subject while the other, our other, was considering what principles lay at the foundation of our decision to be unschoolers and choosing to keep those front and center while trusting that our children would learn what they needed and wanted to know.
I'm a little wary of the "right" and "legitimate" assertions around unschooling as well. Especially when they're applied by people who don't unschool. I don't think those judgements should be made any more then I think an unschooler should be speculating whether her Classical homeschooling neighbour is properly Classical.
I do want to say that I think unschooling and Classical homeschooling seem, to me, to have some very fundamental things in common and it's probably why I am torn between the two and love them both. They are both generally practiced by life-long learners who are very curious and who's educational approach is informed by principle more then rules. The methods may be very different but the motivations, to me, seem very similar. I'm generally caught in the tension between the two and that tension, though really uncomfortable at times, seems to have worked really well for my kids.
And now I have to tie myself to my mast and sail over to Sandra's site to read. Maybe on to Life Learning as well. It has been waaaaay too long since I dived into that wonderful part of the homeschooling world. :) -
I know "radical unschoolers" who sign their kids up for regular structured classes with teachers. I am a "radical unschooler" who has signed my child up for regular, structured classes. Does that surprise you? What makes an unschooler "radical"? Where is this objective resources that tells us what unschooling really is, and how do we know when one radicalizes it?
Not the kind of "I was unschooled one summer" or "We unschool science and history, but not math or reading" kind of so-called unschooling.
REAL, deep, committed, clear, purposeful, focussed, heartfelt whole unschooling.
If it moves from the realm of rules to principles, then how could one really compromise without also compromising integrity?Unschooling can be compartmentalized. Radical unschooling can't. There are no exceptions for coersive or imposed "learning".
Darn. I have more thoughts on that but the baby just woke up. I'll be back.
-
So let's play which one would you pick!!
Obviously it depends based on his interests, but assuming a not-sure-yet 18 year old..... my rankings are:
1. Brown - great mix of quirk and accomplishment
2. Harvard - same as above, but I like Providence more than Cambridge
3. Yale- Hillary Clinton & George Bush and every other distinguished politician
4. Columbia - I don't know anything about Columbia undergrad so I'll put it in the middle
5. Princeton - it looks like Hogwarts!
6. Penn - the angstiest choice
7. Cornell - Because Ithaca
8. Dartmouth - Redditors
Brown. It's like the nerd in the chess club that's got an insanely cute smile and a secret passion for jazz.
Dartmouth is like the guy in khakis and loafers with the plastic smile and wandering hands.
-
Okay, fine, I'm going to say what I've been wanting to say: I hope the schools have the good sense to be embarrassed about their collective lust over this candidate because he is a black man. My white daughter has stats as good as or better than these (higher SAT; more APs--5s all around; a star athlete at a real, year-around sport, not shot-put!; long-term volunteer work), and there is no way under the sun that she would get into every one of these schools. One or two? Maybe. Three? An incredible long shot but not entirely out of the realm of possibility. But never, in a billion years, would she get into all 8. And neither would any other white or Asian student, or even any other black woman, on the planet. Anyone who thinks he got into all of these schools because of his solid test scores and resume needs to spend some time researching what it takes to get into super-selective colleges these days. Ninety-nine percent of the applicants to Harvard, Yale, Stanford, etc., have applications that are indistinguishable from this young man's except for race and gender. Ninety-five percent of those applications are turned down, and this kid gets into all of them.
I am not saying affirmative action is right or wrong--that's a whole 'nuther thread, and this kid sounds awesome, like someone I would want my kids to be friends with (heck, if he's not dating anyone, he and my daughter would probably be really cute together), but the fact that he got into every single one of these schools is practically an Onion article.
First off, this likely has absolutely nothing to do with affirmative action. Affirmative action is a different kettle of fish where schools might set quotas or relax certain expectations of students from certain groups in order to offer more opportunity to traditionally disadvantaged kids. If you think it does have something to do with it, please support that claim.
Just because he has dark skin does not mean affirmative action has anything to do with this. It's extremely unfair to assume that, simply because he's black, it does.
That said, his ethinicity may well have played a role because most good schools are interested in creating a diverse student body to enrich the educational environment. The more diverse a student body the more opportunity for interesting and innovative thought and discussion. It's why homeschoolers are so attractive to some schools. A homeschooler might well be more attractive to a university then a public or private schooled student who's more accomplished academically because his/her experience will be somewhat unique on campus and add to the diversity the school is looking for. Same thing with the child of first generation immigrants. He will likely have some really interesting experiences and perspectives to share because of that.
When a school has thousands of accomplished, intelligent applications it will be the little differences that stand out. When there are stacks of kids with accomplishments similar to this boy's, yes, it may well be his ethnicity that stands out and makes the difference but that's not affirmative action and it's not unfair.
I don't get it. There's an impressive kid who's done very well and by every measure is more then qualified to attend any of those schools yet because of his skin colour people are getting upset? What in the heck does a black kid have to do to prove he's worthy of being accepted to those institutions???
-
They're probably wishing that they were in a different admissions pool. That's the sad thing about affirmative action- the guy could be very competitive against the general admissions pool but most people are going to assume he got in only because he's black.
Not wanting my qualifications to be questioned is a big reason I turned down Harvard (where I was a legacy) to attend Stanford (where I wasn't).
It's already happened. Reddit was full of that kind of assumption. But I think it's pretty clear that this kids deserved it. He had great SAT scores, AP classes, was accomplished at the violin, kept of an active life outside of all that...He sounds like a great kids who would do well wherever he went. What school wouldn't want that?
-
Why would you apply to all the ivy's. Seems like a waste of application fees. Or it is just a stunt. I mean are there really that many people out there who have to settle for Harvard because they couldn't get into Penn or Columbia?
I knew several people who I thought could get into any Ivy they wanted, but I never met anyone who wasted their time and money applying to all of them.
He applied to the because it WASN'T a waste.
It WAS a gamble but one he won. Now he has all the Ivy league schools competing against each other for him (especially since its now in the media) and will likely get an absolutely wonderful deal at whichever school he picks.
He dreamed big and it paid off. Well played young man, well played. :)
-
It think that in order to find offence you have to be emotionally invested. That can be positively or negatively and it sounds like, for you, it's negatively. You don't like her.
You don't like her so she irritates you. She irritates you so you focus on her repetitive behavior. Her repetitive behavior annoys you even more and you start to ascribe motive to it. Because you are invested in the relationship you assume she is and that motive is a negative one.
She may just be falling into the pattern of small chat you guys have established. All you've got in common is homeschooling so she shares what is ofinterest (a run down the week's seat work would pretty boring) and generally some outside activity. She doesn't know you well enough to talk about much more. She may not even be aware of how much of a pattern it's become. -
In my radical unschooling days I'm not sure I would have been a great person for a Classical homeschool to have a conversation with. I was very sure I was absolutely right.Some of us have interesting things to contribute to the conversation.
:blush:
Like, we do read books and stuff.
:laugh:
That said those were also my early homeschooling days and that's a time, I think, when many homeschooling moms can be obnoxiously sure of themselves in some respects. :D
One of my friends is an unschooler and we have good conversations about education, probably in part because of my mixed homeschooling history. I can suport her and she helps pull me back a bit when I'm a little too caught in academic concerns. -
I think you've done what you can.
-
Doing a search for Sonlight should bring up a couple of big thread that cover those issues and make for some interesting reading.OK, there are stories there, but I won't ask. I do have a friend who is Catholic (I am not) who was told not to post on one (or all?) of their forums.
I haven't been on their forums for years. I don't know if I could access them now if I wanted to. *SIGH* -
Amy in NH has got your answer on the batting. Celticmom has a really important suggestion with the venting; that is something usually dictated by local building codes so a little research should tell you how much venting you need per square foot.
Did you notice any discoloration before you saw the mold on your bedroom ceiling? If it was a leak I would bet you'd notice a wet patch long before you saw mold. I'm guessing you have a master bath. You have a shower, come out and the humid air comes out and rises to the bedroom ceiling. When it hits the cooler ceiling condensation forms and mold grows. Use the bleach and water to clean it and then make sure you close your bathroom door while showering and while the vent is running. While you're cleaning the mold you can double check to make sure the ceiling isn't damp our discolored from a leak but I'm betting there's no issue.
An air exchanger brings fresh air into the house. In our house it has ducts running through the walls and white circular vents high in the ceiling of most of the rooms. Sometimes it's tied into the heating or AC system as the HVAC system.
Don't give up on your dream house! It may just be a matter of some tweaking and I suspect their are lots of us here who've owned some houses that were as far from dream houses ppl as you can get who can give you good advice.:) -
Oh, doesn't she have the prettiest skin and eyes? LOL--
I love Nestof3's hair, too.
There's a lot of beautiful people here, aren't there?
You don't know the half of it. I resist using a picture of myself because I know my beauty would be terribly disruptive.
It's a curse really.
ETA: Seriously though, Garga posted a picture once. She's model material with the cheekbones of a goddess.
-
We bought what I thought was our dream house a few years ago. Now, it is just a disaster.
1) not enough storage space. I did not realize it had very few closets. And the attic space was unfit for any sort of storage. The storage attic space area, that has a door right off from the media room, has no insulation. As a result, even our artificial Christmas tree melted in there. Also, the secondary bedrooms do not have big enough closets. We cannot even keep all the children's clothes in their own bedrooms, even though they really do not have any sort of excess. This is a 4000 square foot house. But then our bedroom closet is huge. But get this..it has a big window that faces south. The sunlight that comes in potentially could damage things in the closet. I have very few spots within that closet that I can put things that cannot be exposed to the direct sunlight...like photo albums. There are blinds on the main part of the window, but there is a round part that is custom and would cost a lot of put anything over it. Knowing we will move eventually has led us to not want to pay that. Now, due to lack of storage space, everything has to be kept in places where our two toddlers can get in to them.
2) French doors. Oddly, the builders put in French doors everywhere. And they do not lock! I am tired of hearing how someone once saw French doors that locked, because fact is, even if you can lock the doors to each other, like with a deadbolt, since both sides open, you only have to pull on them to open it. This includes our bathroom door. This means, I rarely take a shower alone. The pantry doors, office doors, and so on.
3) the lay out prevents safety gates...even on the stairs. Not kidding.
4) its a mess. The lack of anyplace to put anything means that everything is at the will of the toddlers. I feel like I am spinning and going like crazy the entire day, just to find things destroyed on a regular basis. The toddlers now know how to pull chairs up to everything. We no longer even have vitamins because they can reach everything.
Now to get in to the worse stuff....
5) I called in the builder a while ago because I suspected foundation problems. They checked it over and said no. Now we are 6 months out of warranty and it has become extremely obvious over the last month or two that we definitely have foundation problems. The signs were mild before...but now they are beyond obvious. Since we are out of warranty, we have to pay for all these repairs ourselves, and will take a hit on the resale value. And it won't be just the foundation that needs to be fixed. Once that is done, we will need to repair the brick and the cracked walls and so on.
6) I looked up and realized I have mold on my ceiling. That is recent too. Don't even know what to say about that.
I am sure this is not a complete list..but this is a long enough post for now. I wish the house fairy would come and clean my house, add closets, and fix everything.
I know you're venting and none of this will solve your feelings about the house but maybe it will help a bit...
1) Can you insulate the attic? It's not difficult with batting, just dirty work. With the round window in your closet could you just put up a rod that's as long as the window is wide and hang a covering? Not pretty but it would make the room more functional.
2) French doors can have a bolt at the top or bottom that goes into a hole in the floor or ceiling on one side. Once that bolt is set then that one door won't move and you can lock the doors and they will stay locked. You might be able to retrofit your doors with these.
3) I don't know. If you want any ideas on that maybe you could post some pictures. I imagine there have been others with the same problem so maybe we could help you find a solution?
4) I'd be looking at built in shelves (or Ikea Billy bookcases) and baskets to dump stuff in and shove on the bookcases. I know this won't solve the toddler issues but hopefully in another year or so that will remedy itself.
5) You should not let that drop. It could very well be that the builder was dishonest when you called before. Call them again. Call your municipality/state/province to see if there's an ombudsman who deals with builders specifically or consumer affairs generally. Call up your state/provincial rep. Call a lawyer. Call any professional builder's organization that the builder belongs to. Don't let that one drop before you explore every possibility.
6) My house is relatively new and I have had mold on a bathroom ceiling. Houses are a lot more tight then they used to be so sometimes that happens because of condensation that doesn't escape. Spraying it with water and bleach in a ratio of about 10:1 (more bleach in the ratio is not more effective) should take care of it. Do you have an air exchanger that might need looking at?
Otherwise, :grouphug: .
-
Not even $20.
Who elected the members of this committee?
There should be no question that a self-selected committee has no power to decide on matters like this without authority from the neighbourhood and certainly no right to ask for money. No money until it's a real neighbourhood initiative and not a hobby dreamed up by some folks that wanted something to chat about while they played tennis.
-
I think I would be actively and publicly questioning this committee.
Was there any attempt to get community consensus on retouching the sign, the design of the sign, the cost of the sign?
Who's legally responsible if something happens to the funds collected? Is there a procedure for letting everyone know how the money spent?
If legal trouble results, who will be held responsible: the committee, the people who paid our the entire community?
Will some residents feel pressured to contribute money they can't afford? Will there be any fallout for those who couldn't contribute?
Do they have answers regarding who owns the land? Who pays for electricity?
Have they our well they hold public meetings where these questions can be sorted out?
I would be resistant. A precedent could be set referring the authority and power in the neighborhood that I would have big issues with. -
A little nicer then normal. It's a pretty relaxed congregation. Dressing up too much would be weird.
-
I burned out two Kitchen Aid Pros - one with bagels, which they replaced on warranty, and the second with WW bread. I'm looking into a Bosch, too.
Cook's Illustrated didn't rate the Bosch since it couldn't make only one loaf of bread at a time. Come on! That's a feature for me!
Technically, you shouldn't use a Kitchen Aid for kneading for more than 2 minutes without a break - this is in the use guide. This is a deal breaker for me.
:confused1:​ I'll have to start reading my user guides more closely. Perhaps my oven manufacturer wants me to give my oven a break every 30 minutes when cooking a turkey? :glare:
-
Christianity is about love, but also to not deny God. This student in the movie was asked to deny God or else fail the class. It wasn't an issue of loving others! We should stand for Christ. There was no lack of love being shown. Those in this movie who have accepted Jesus as their Lord and savior were being asked to choose between their faith or something else, and in this situation the college student was choosing Christ over passing a class by denying God's existence. He was challenged by this professor, and if anyone was unloving, it was definitely those who overtly refused God, when in fact, no one was shoving God down their throat.
That's what I meant by how some non-Christians can be. I have family members who are bothered by myself and my DH just knowing we believe a that God is the only one true king. We typically don't talk to them about it at all because we know it's not accepted well, but they throw digs at us every now and then that are random and unprovoked. We love them dearly, even though they have unbelief and we don't force anything, or even mention it to them, but still get grief in passive ways.
Christ should be our idol. We're supposed to worship him and him only, we are to have no other gods other than him. He is supposed to be our entire being when we follow him. Does that mean that our every breath has to say Jesus, Christ, God, a Holy Spirit, etc? No, but ultimately, everything we do is supposed to be for the glory of God. We are supposed to stand for Jesus, and that is certainly not unloving! I didn't say, nor did this movie portray that Christianity should be used as something to convince people otherwise. In fact, this movie portrayed those who were Christians were being ASKED about their faith, and they answered honestly.
Sure the acting wasn't the greatest (much better than Fireproof or Facing the Giants) but if went into the movie knowing that may be the case, I loved the message!I'd respond that it is ALWAYS an issue of loving others. Love God, love your neighbour. While there may have not been any Christians acting without love in the movie, the movie itself, with it's stereotypes and caricatures seems like it's not an act of love at all. I resent the idea of the movie because I think it stalls us in self-congratulation and indulges in feelings of persecution but if it needed to be made, why make a villain of the Muslim father? Why portray non-Christians in a shallow and negative fashion? Can we not tell interesting stories about ourselves without denigrating others?
I think there's a fundamental difference in theology between us. Standing up for Jesus, doing things for the Glory of God, for me that's all empty if the "why" isn't addressed, if we don't wrestle with what that challenges us to do. The why is probably implied for you when you're using those terms so I'm not questioning you're commitment to that at all but I don't think the movie implies it. It's call to stand up for Jesus (and I'm Anglican so I'd probably blush and move back a pew if I were called on to do that :D) seems empty to me when that call, for me, means loving others but the movie can't seem to display any of that love in how it treats non-Christian characters.
Hope that made sense.
-
That depends on age, really.
Younger students still have ReadAlouds, which tend to be fiction. So Lit is usually fiction, (as well as the ReadAloud for those ages).
History/geography/biography, OTOH, are almost always non-fiction, particularly the older the student gets.
Again, maybe I just assume too much of people, but I just have this idea most people can tell the difference between fiction and non...I don't think confusing factual events with fictional ones is the big issue.
I don't think quality of writing is the big issue.
I think the big issue is that many parents and schools) use historical fiction to introduce a time period to a child, give them a sense of what that period was like, what it felt like to live there and most historical fiction does nothing of the sort. Even the very best of it (as the articles Kathryn posted early on in the thread and everyone should have read stated) can make the very big mistake of populating a period with modern thinkers.
So how does a child get any sense of the the powerlessness of a children in certain times if the heroine/hero in a novel of great literary quality can display some pluckiness and overcome those restrictions? How are the accomplishments of women like Hildegard of Bingham, Artemisia Gentileschi or Hapshepsut understood and really appreciated if a child's reading fiction, with the expectation that it gives some insight into what living in a particular time was like, where heroines routinely rout social convention? And if one runs up against (to use an example from one of Kathryn's links) a character like Marmee in Little Women, how does someone appreciate the strength and power she had within her context if she's measured against a piece of historical fiction like where a female character seizes full control of her destiny and prevails without social consequences?
How do you wrestle the letters of Paul if you don't understand the thinking of the time? How do you understand why the Egyptian empire never grew like the Roman one if you think they were all essentially like us but just clothed differently? Why the Romans had steam power but never used it to any great effect? The different implications of God telling Abraham not to sacrifice Isaac at the end or why the Greeks loathed Ares but the Romans loved Mars?
How do you respect the people of the past if you have an idea that they all thought like us but just weren't quite as bright or kind or civilized or not quite, "there" yet?
THAT'S the biggest issue with historical fiction. And the biggest issue with using it is that so many of us aren't even aware that's a consideration so we give the books to children with the idea that they'll illuminate something about history without being aware of the ways it could actually cloud a real understanding of history.
-
What is the point of the statement of faith? Is it to ensure only Christians join? That a certain beliefs are shared? That certain behaviors are expected? That certain views (creationism for example) will be taught? Is it just because that's what is done (I'd that's the case maybe isn't really needed)
I think that's the first question to answer before creating a SoF. -
But the "message" of this movie isn't One Christian Confronts One Jerk, is it? Isn't it more along the lines of Christians Are Being Persecuted For Their Beliefs But You Don't Have To Be Intimidated? I've read a few reviews of the movie, and it seems to me like a modern morality play where the student plays Every[Christian]Man and the professor plays All Atheists, the Muslim father plays All Muslims, the girlfriend plays All Lukewarm Christians, etc, etc. The end of the movie, from what I've read, is an emotionally charged reminder that no matter what happens, God is not dead and we'll all find that out one day. My question for acsnmama, although it's for anyone really, is if they've actually encountered this kind of bullying that's been portrayed, the kind that demands the believer to reject his or her belief.
Okay, I missed the point. :)
My answer is no. I have some atheist friends who I imagine are no less shy then you and they have never asked me to reject my belief. We've certainly gotten into heated discussions but that happens over any number of things, not simply religion. -
Is the "throwing digs every now and then" what you meant by "how strongly some non-Christians feel"? But not the part about being put on the spot to deny Christ? I've not seen the movie, but as someone who is not shy about her lack of faith and less than amicable opinions about the Christian religion, this caught my attention. I've seen, and been involved with many conversations in which one's faith was explained (defended, a la 1 Peter 3:15), but never heard of anyone demanding someone reject their belief. Is that something you've witnessed yourself? I suspect from the point of view of your family members, the comments are not unprovoked at all. Perhaps you could ask them next time what inspired them to say that.
There is also the possibility that one has simply encountered a jerk. Jerks happen. But they happen in relation to all kinds of issues whether it's Christianity or homeschooling or veganism or sexuality or which hockey team one likes. The hallmark of a true jerk is that they really don't need provocation beyond knowing you are our you do something they disapprove of.
*sigh* And that last sentence has me thinking of a lot of Christians especially with the recent thread on AT I and Vision Forum. -
When I buy it will be a Bosch. The KA mixers are pretty but I don't think they really compare in terms of quality.
-
I can give you some examples of what we do, using literary historical fiction. When we studied industrialization and the Victorians, my dh read Oliver Twist out loud to my then 13 and 9 year old. Now when studying the great depression and civil rights, he is reading To Kill a Mocking Bird to the boys. I just pick classics for read aloud; its not typically to hard to find an appropriate one.
Ruth in NZ
One of the links pointed out that there's a difference between historical fiction and period fiction and ur sounds like you're talking about the latter. I think that's probably where I'll condense my efforts as well.
Being friends with an unschooler . . .
in General Education Discussion Board
Posted
Auto correct?
Regardless, that is an awesome expression. :D