Thoughts on a "Grace Year"?

[fractalgal]

I think that when people choose to homeschool, they must make education a top priority. 

 

A few years ago when we moved to our current house, I know our lives were more stressful.  But we still managed to get in our most important subjects.  It's really a question of priorities and time management.

 

Personally, I would not take a whole year off from school.  I disagree with the article author's overall solution. While I agree that it would be wise to offer support to those who are struggling, taking a year off, I think, would only multiply problems.

[marbel]

<snip>

 

I find the last bit of that quote rather condescending. Perhaps you didn't mean it that way? We as a society should certainly care about kids falling through the cracks whether they be homeschooled, private schooled, or public schooled. Yes, we all have weaknesses, and we should be concerned abut them, but that does not give us license to selfishly turn the other cheek to injustice. And yes, educational neglect is injustice.

 

Nope, did not mean to sound condescending.   Sorry it came off that way. 

[msjones]

Depends on:

 

--Ages of the kids (please don't do this to an academically motivated 9th grader...)

 

--Laws of the state (please don't be 'that' homeschooler --lying and misrepresenting homeschooling --  and drag the rest of us down with you...)

 

--Family culture (what are your goals? priorities? how will your children actually spend their days?)

 

I would never do this, as academics are our priority.  Even if my children were very young, I wouldn't go to such lengths just for a break.  If I'm not going to homeschool, I figure the kids need a different teacher.

 

 

[Alte Veste Academy]

She says, "...don’t feel the need to shield your kids from real life." Well, in my experience, real life will not ever let you take a year long break from anything. In real life, you just keep swimming. Readjust your stroke, sure. Float for a while...bob for a bit... But you mostly need to keep swimming.

 

Also, it is true of many (most?) kids that structure is protective in a crisis. Generally speaking, kids like the comfort of routine.

[stripe]

Also, it is true of many (most?) kids that structure is protective in a crisis. Generally speaking, kids like the comfort of routine.

If the parent's life is in crisis, or other situations I can think of, a child might find it reassuring to get a break from it at school, and have another adult to help. I think some homeschooling rhetoric could easily be confused with impassioned argument for marriage/monogamy.

[Dmmetler]

I think doing nothing in a crisis, if kids are used to a more structured school experience, might be worse than nothing. I've had two friends be diagnosed with cancer, and while both went into remission within a year of treatment and have, so far, been cancer-free, both of them say that their children needed more, not less structure at the time. One went to a virtual charter school for a year, the other put her DD in PS because she just plain needed the ability to schedule treatments without a 6 yr old with her.

 

In both cases, it wasn't a beneficial year academically, but the kids didn't lose ground either, and were relieved to go back to regular homeschooling when mom was up to it, and the kids seemed to benefit from having a known schedule, tasks to do, and other adults who weren't connected to and focused on the cancer in their lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[albeto.]

I'm not sure I understand what it means to have a "grace" anything. Does it mean primarily focusing on God? If so, that sounds to me like referring to the practice of taking more time to think about how one's beliefs and ideologies apply to one's life. Well, non Christians do that too, we just don't call it "grace" but something like introspection or learning how not to sweat the small stuff, or navel gazing even, lol. I think using a Christian concept for something that's not particularly Christian gives the appearance of advertising. She wouldn't get the same attention if she called itTaking A Year Off To Regroup [emotionally, mentally, functonally, whatever]. If she's suggesting that one takes a year to focus on God, then what does that say about God's seeming inability to meet the believer where they are? How many parents have the opportunity to take a year off from their obligations and just... regenerate? How does God help those who don't have that opportunity, and why didn't he help her within the already relatively privileged lifestyle she had?

 

She says, "Your break does not necessarily need to be complete. You may focus on certain subjects like literacy, the 3 R’s, or character while taking a break from other, less important (at that time and in that circumstance) subjects." What does this have to do with God's grace? I don't understand that. Homeschoolers do that anyway when they conclude it's the best option for their families.

 

She says, "Our kids did learn a lot though. They learned how family and friends and church collide to impact the world by prayer. They learned about the kindness of strangers and their parents’ absolute and utter dependence on God." Unschoolers base their entire learning and nurturing dynamic on the idea that kids learn a lot through family, friends, community, introspection, and the like. Kids learn about the kindness of strangers and their parents' ideals. Then again, conventionally educated kids learn a lot through family, friends, community, introspection, and the like. They learn about the kindness of strangers and their parents' ideals, too. 

 

 Well, those are my thoughts about this "grace year" anyway - it's a common-enough concept, re-gifted in a shiny new word. :)

[MinivanMom]

I want to comment on this idea that "God will fill in the gaps."

 

We are religious, and I do believe that in many ways God will make up the difference where I fall short. I know that during our crisis, I really felt that I was failing my children. I actually left my children for a whole week (except the nursing baby) with a woman from my church I had only recently met while dh was out of state with me handling funeral arrangements. I did not call them once while I was gone. Then dh had to leave them with a sitter all day during the times when I was out of state and he was working and handling everything on his own. When I was there, I gave my kids two hours a day and then basically ignored them the rest of the time. We made sure that holidays and traditions happened, but (for me) they were stressful and thrown together. I truly thought my kids would be emotionally scarred by the experience. The funny thing is that my children always talk about those years with such fondness! I remember everything I wasn't doing, but they remember the things I was doing. They remember the time spent cuddled up on the couch reading. They remember the one project we did - raising butterflies - which only happened because I had already purchased everything before the crisis started. They remember hours playing together in the backyard. They remember the joy they felt on the holidays. And they love this woman who cared for them during the crisis. They still talk about the week they spent in her home with so much fondness. God filled in the gaps.

 

But I left gaps, not craters. They can remember reading on the couch with fondness, because I spent those two hours doing our boxed curriculum every morning (Sonlight). If I had stopped doing everything, if I never interacted with them at all, if I had hidden in my bedroom with the covers pulled over my head on Christmas morning because I just could not deal, then it would have been a traumatic experience for them. Beyond the harm of no math and reading for elementary age children, they would have been emotionally harmed by that kind of shut-down. God can fill in your gaps, but he can't personally teach your kid to read and tuck them into bed at night. You have to do those things or you have to recognize your own shortcomings and ask somebody else to do those things. I couldn't tuck my kids into bed at night that first week; I couldn't even talk to them on the phone. But I knew that I couldn't do those things so I didn't bring them along. I asked someone else to care for them while I was gone handling the funeral. If I hadn't been able to give them those two hours of instruction each morning, then I would have put them in school. It wouldn't have been an ideal choice, but a teacher would have been able to do some kind of instruction and God could have filled in that gap also.

 

Taking a few months off while the baby is in the NICU is a gap. Spending a year focusing only on the 3 R's for elementary age children is a gap. Buying a boxed curriculum or signing up for a charter or virtual school is a gap. Even putting your child in school for a season is a gap. Why would someone think God can make up the gap of no instruction, but not think he can make up the gap of schooling in a secular environment? No instruction at all for a year is more than a gap. Regular seasons of no instruction over the course of several years is more than a gap. We need to know our own limitations and put our children's needs ahead of our own aspirations or ideals. If we are so depressed that we can't get out of bed, so overwhelmed with little ones that we can't carve out an hour for instruction, or so busy with chemo treatments that our children are home alone then it's probably time to consider the possibility that we are not currently meeting our children's needs.

 

I understand that there are many people who homeschool for religious rather than academic reasons. I understand that there are many people who focus on religion and character over academics in their homeschool. I understand that some people are coping with a one-time crisis. However, you must regularly provide your child with some kind of academic instruction. You must comply with the homeschool laws in your state. You must ensure that your children can read, write, and do math. Simply choosing not to educate your children is neither character building nor godly. It is neglect. It is arrogant to think that God will fill in the gap of neglect.

[MinivanMom]

If the parent's life is in crisis, or other situations I can think of, a child might find it reassuring to get a break from it at school, and have another adult to help. I think some homeschooling rhetoric could easily be confused with impassioned argument for marriage/monogamy.

 

This.

 

[lea_lpz]

Not a full grace year where we don't do any formal school. I can see taking some time off because of a baby, move or death, but at the point the parent cannot complete a school year within a 1 year or so time frame, I think homeschooling is no longer feasible and yes public school would be a better option. But, my motives for homeschooling are different, likes by noted. Yes, my faith is important, we do use a Christian curriculum and it is one of the main reasons we homeschool but it isn't the number one reason. My number one reason is I think it's the best education I can provide my children with because we can do individual academics tailored to my kids following a classical / Charlotte Mason model. I cannot afford private school for 3 kids, and if I kid, I likely wouldn't because I can control exactly what is provided. I looked into private schools and none included everything that I found important in our price range for 2 kids. None of them offered a hands on approach to learning, regular art and music programs, Spanish, or a classical education cycle or a Christian education. And it was clear- if my kids attended private school then I would need to start working full time as soon as my 2nd child entered k to afford it. We could not have more kids because I would need to work full time to afford private school. Period. I didn't want that to determine my family size or ability to spend time with my kids.

[stripe]

 She wouldn't get the same attention if she called itTaking A Year Off To Regroup [emotionally, mentally, functonally, whatever]. If she's suggesting that one takes a year to focus on God, then what does that say about God's seeming inability to meet the believer where they are? 

I wonder also if the implication is that God is anti-intellectual?

[ByGrace3]

I'm not sure I understand what it means to have a "grace" anything. Does it mean primarily focusing on God? If so, that sounds to me like referring to the practice of taking more time to think about how one's beliefs and ideologies apply to one's life. Well, non Christians do that too, we just don't call it "grace" but something like introspection or learning how not to sweat the small stuff, or navel gazing even, lol. I think using a Christian concept for something that's not particularly Christian gives the appearance of advertising. She wouldn't get the same attention if she called itTaking A Year Off To Regroup [emotionally, mentally, functonally, whatever]. If she's suggesting that one takes a year to focus on God, then what does that say about God's seeming inability to meet the believer where they are? How many parents have the opportunity to take a year off from their obligations and just... regenerate? How does God help those who don't have that opportunity, and why didn't he help her within the already relatively privileged lifestyle she had?

 

She says, "Your break does not necessarily need to be complete. You may focus on certain subjects like literacy, the 3 R’s, or character while taking a break from other, less important (at that time and in that circumstance) subjects." What does this have to do with God's grace? I don't understand that. Homeschoolers do that anyway when they conclude it's the best option for their families.

 

She says, "Our kids did learn a lot though. They learned how family and friends and church collide to impact the world by prayer. They learned about the kindness of strangers and their parents’ absolute and utter dependence on God." Unschoolers base their entire learning and nurturing dynamic on the idea that kids learn a lot through family, friends, community, introspection, and the like. Kids learn about the kindness of strangers and their parents' ideals. Then again, conventionally educated kids learn a lot through family, friends, community, introspection, and the like. They learn about the kindness of strangers and their parents' ideals, too.

 

Well, those are my thoughts about this "grace year" anyway - it's a common-enough concept, re-gifted in a shiny new word. :)

I am not sure she is can referring to God's grace at all...I think she is referring to having grace for yourself. Like don't feel guilty, don't tear yourself down sort of thing.

[ElizaG]

I am not sure she is can referring to God's grace at all...I think she is referring to having grace for yourself. Like don't feel guilty, don't tear yourself down sort of thing.

 

I thought she was using it in more the sense of a "grace period."  It's not quite the same thing as taking time off, but the basic idea is similar.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grace_period

 

Advantages and disadvantages

 

Grace periods can provide some advantages. For example, people who habitually are on time for their obligations, but due to occasional unforeseen circumstances are late on a rare occasion, can avoid a penalty for being late within the grace period and maintain their reputation for timeliness.

 

However, habitual procrastinators may come to view the grace period as the actual deadline, and if, due to unforeseen circumstances, they are occasionally late beyond that, they might complain about the applied penalty.^[2]

 

------------

 

BTDT, with the nice-but-non-essential break after baby #5 that got longer and longer, because there was never a "right moment" to get started again.  She just turned 2, and we're still not completely back to our routine.  ("Oh, but you have a toddler!  Nobody gets anything done with a toddler in the house!   It's just a season..."  :tongue_smilie: )

 

[albeto.]

I am not sure she is can referring to God's grace at all...I think she is referring to having grace for yourself. Like don't feel guilty, don't tear yourself down sort of thing.

 

But doesn't that idea come from the idea of God's grace? The way I understand it, the phrase "having grace for yourself" is another way of saying, "look at yourself through God's eyes, know the grace [unmerited favor] he has for you." Reading it that way, I couldn't understand what that had to do with taking time off, unless it was to focus on that. I hope I'm making sense. :)

[Alte Veste Academy]

But doesn't that idea come from the idea of God's grace? The way I understand it, the phrase "having grace for yourself" is another way of saying, "look at yourself through God's eyes, know the grace [unmerited favor] he has for you." Reading it that way, I couldn't understand what that had to do with taking time off, unless it was to focus on that. I hope I'm making sense. :)

You don't have to read it that way. Giving yourself grace could just use the definition of a reprieve, temporary immunity or exemption. To me, that is the focus of the post.

[albeto.]

You don't have to read it that way. Giving yourself grace could just use the definition of a reprieve, temporary immunity or exemption. To me, that is the focus of the post.

 

I think I understand, and thank you for helping. And it's all good, but see, I read this and the first thing that comes to my mind is, "temporary immunity or exemption" from... well... ultimately from the guilt of sin, right? I mean, why else would one use a Christian word, "grace," if not to convey a Christian idea [unmerited favor, forgiveness from sin, etc]. And that blog piece is full of Christian ideas. But she's behaving in the exact same way non Christians behave. Only she's putting a Christian stamp on it. kwim? 

 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter one way or another to me, but this idea of repackaging something for Christian audiences seems, I dunno, disingenuous to me. Like she's patronizing young parents who genuinely are struggling, offering them a platitude (God will fill in the gaps, just stop worrying about stuff, and take some time off), and reaping the rewards (attention). 

 

But that's my own personal opinion. I'm not trying to suggest this is how everyone should see it, I'm just explaining my own opinion. 

 

:)

[Alte Veste Academy]

I mean, why else would one use a Christian word, "grace," if not to convey a Christian idea [unmerited favor, forgiveness from sin, etc].

Because it applies if you use the very frequent alternate definition of the word. I am agnostic and I frequently tell my kids and friends to give themselves a little grace when they are struggling.

[albeto.]

Because it applies if you use the very frequent alternate definition of the word. I am agnostic and I frequently tell my kids and friends to give themselves a little grace when they are struggling.

 

Do you think this is how the blogger is using it? I just assumed she was using it in the Christian context, but perhaps not.

[Alte Veste Academy]

Do you think this is how the blogger is using it? I just assumed she was using it in the Christian context, but perhaps not.

LOL I do not actually care, as that is not relevant to me and is not the theme of this thread.

[KathyJo]

I've read the article three times now, trying to figure out why people are bashing her for suggesting doing nothing for an entire year. She never said that. She mentioned that this would look different for each family, that it did not necessarily mean not doing any formal academics. She spoke of including her children in life, not ignoring them for a year. So agree with her, or disagree. I don't care. But I do find it unfair to judge her based on one's own negative idea of what she said rather than what she actually said.

[Alte Veste Academy]

I've read the article three times now, trying to figure out why people are bashing her for suggesting doing nothing for an entire year. She never said that. She mentioned that this would look different for each family, that it did not necessarily mean not doing any formal academics. She spoke of including her children in life, not ignoring them for a year. So agree with her, or disagree. I don't care. But I do find it unfair to judge her based on one's own negative idea of what she said rather than what she actually said.

She should have chosen a more appropriate title for the post, perhaps. :lol:

[KathyJo]

She should have chosen a more appropriate title for the post, perhaps. :lol:

 

I just took that to mean, as you said, for people, "to give themselves a little grace when they are struggling." :-)

[albeto.]

LOL I do not actually care, as that is not relevant to me and is not the theme of this thread.

 

Oh, I was just curious, that's all.

 

:laugh:

[kiana]

I've read the article three times now, trying to figure out why people are bashing her for suggesting doing nothing for an entire year. She never said that. She mentioned that this would look different for each family, that it did not necessarily mean not doing any formal academics. She spoke of including her children in life, not ignoring them for a year. So agree with her, or disagree. I don't care. But I do find it unfair to judge her based on one's own negative idea of what she said rather than what she actually said.

 

Maybe, but she did write "take a break from the academics for a season".

 

Furthermore, even though she may have said it didn't *necessarily* mean not doing any formal academics, that leaves open that it could.

[mama27]

I've read the article three times now, trying to figure out why people are bashing her for suggesting doing nothing for an entire year. She never said that. She mentioned that this would look different for each family, that it did not necessarily mean not doing any formal academics. She spoke of including her children in life, not ignoring them for a year. So agree with her, or disagree. I don't care. But I do find it unfair to judge her based on one's own negative idea of what she said rather than what she actually said.

 

 

I guess some are assuming that not having academics as the top priority in their life somehow means they are neglecting their children.

The 8 months I did that 2 of my kids took horse back riding lessons, while my youngest played in the dirt. Our homeschool group had an International Night where families learned about and shared info about different countries and my girls chose the country their daddy came from originally. We spent a lot of time at the library. They played with their friends.

But academics was NOT my top priority. Nobody suffered for it.

There is a HUGE difference in NEGLECTING your children and not having the times tables being memorized. HUGE.

Unless you are in coma it is completely impossible to not learn something every day. It may not come from a workbook. It may not be in a lesson plan. It may not be what "they" say you should know according to your grade, but isn't that one main reason most of us homeschool?

[Hunter]

I've read the article three times now, trying to figure out why people are bashing her for suggesting doing nothing for an entire year. She never said that. She mentioned that this would look different for each family, that it did not necessarily mean not doing any formal academics. She spoke of including her children in life, not ignoring them for a year. So agree with her, or disagree. I don't care. But I do find it unfair to judge her based on one's own negative idea of what she said rather than what she actually said.

I'm not getting this either.

[...................]

The habits and lack of good habits that would form with an entire year of doing absolutely no formal school or training would be so difficult to overcome, that I believe it would negate whatever benefit there would be from taking off.  

 

The loss of academic ground would also be so detrimental that the frustration, irritation, and difficulty my students would face in later overcoming an entire year of doing no formal academics, would also negate whatever benefits there would be from taking off.

 

So, either she is setting herself up for an awful year next year, or she just doesn't care about academics like we do.  

 

But EVEN IF that is the case, I believe she is setting her kids up for a ton of frustration.  Can you imagine spending an entire year not doing math and then losing so much ground that you now probably have to start out 2 levels below where you would have been?  That would be terribly disheartening and frustrating for her kiddos.

 

IMO there must be some other option.  This to me, seems like a classic example of falling off the balance beam.

 

[KathyJo]

Maybe, but she did write "take a break from the academics for a season".

 

Furthermore, even though she may have said it didn't *necessarily* mean not doing any formal academics, that leaves open that it could.

 

Unschoolers usually don't do formal academics. Most of us don't call that neglect. A lot of learning can happen in many different ways, even just reading a little every day. I'm not going to start accusing some woman of promoting educational neglect because I think she may have implied it even though she never actually said it.

[KathyJo]

The habits and lack of good habits that would form with an entire year of doing absolutely no formal school or training would be so difficult to overcome, that I believe it would negate whatever benefit there would be from taking off.

But this is not what she actually suggested.

 

Lots of people take all summer off, which is one quarter of a year. To me, that is an extremely long time for no academic work at all, and for some people, summer is the time for doing NOTHING. But they get back to work in the fall without issues.

 

A year is four times as long, of course, but she never said to do nothing during that time.

 

I can't see myself choosing to do this, but I can see how it could work for some people. 

[Hunter]

Here is an example of a week in crisis with "nothing" being taught.

 

Attempt to get family on airplane. One sick me, one pregnant sister, one sick baby, one Aspie 12 year old, one rebellious 14 year old, and dad's cremated ashes. What was learned? The cremation process and what happens when you try to bring ashes through luggage check in a duffel bag.

 

Mom/me almost threw up on the plane, but thankfully ordered a diabetic meal. What was learned? All about motion sickness, diabetes compared to PCOS, high carb meals, etc.

 

We landed on a VERY short runway. What was learned as most of the passengers banged into the seats in front of them? Moving objects want to stay in motion.

 

We landed in a storm. Pregnant sister, baby and rebellious teen took a nap. 12 year old and me snuck into a cave and went swimming in there. What was leaned? Lots about caves.

 

Tried to bury dad and found out the crypt fee hadn't been paid in two years and several generations of family was about to be dug up and put in a mass grave. What was learned? Burial methods in an over crowded country with no top soil.

 

Tried to find dad's car and paperwork? What was learned? Saw an autopsy report. Learned that cops in other countries just erase arrest records if they are too embarrassing and the person arrested is a somebody they want to protect. Laws about car ownership in crowded countries. What a detox is like for a heavy drinker.

 

Over crowded hotel room with all 5 of us. What was learned? Lots about pregnancy--probably more than they should of learned--and what a sick baby's diaper looks like, compared to a regular runny diaper. What well baby throw up looks and smells like compared to sick baby throw up.

 

Overinflated hotel dining room prices. What was learned? That taxi drivers lined up in front of a hotel waiting for rich customers know where the nearest quicky mart is and other money saving tips. Why food prices are higher in overpopulated places with no farmland. Economics in general.

 

Trip to a museum. Now the education starts, right? Wrong! I don't they remember any of that. What did the boys ACTUALLY learn? They learned that water rationing is NO joke in some places and squirting your brother from the water bubbler is more upsetting to locals than if you ran around naked shouting obscenities. And, wow, mom really can run faster that they thought she could when she saw what they were doing.

 

They learned how to carry a baby when I almost fainted and one of the boys had to grab the baby from me.

 

They learned lots about international citizenship and birth certificates.

 

They learned about smart investing of money when we found some money in a bank that had doubled in the year it took us to get dad's ashes to the island.

 

And who knows what else.

 

Oh yeah, the difference between a custom's agent and a cop. :lol:

14 year old: "Mom, stop yelling at that cop!"

Sister: "That's not a cop. That's a custom's agent. But, yes, your mom better stop yelling at him.

 

Life is an adventure and we never stop learning. When crisis hits there is just more to learn from real life.

 

When the author of the article skipped school while the coast guard was rescuing her daughter, do you seriously think the children were not learning anything?

[albeto.]

 While I find unschooling to be an awesome option, I find not schooling to be plain neglectful.

 

Just out of curiosity, what is the difference in your opinion?

[MinivanMom]

Just out of curiosity, what is the difference in your opinion?

 

I know you didn't ask me, but here's my take.

 

Unschooling parents are emotionally, physically, and intellectually available to their children.

 

Nonschooling parents are not.

 

There is a huge difference to me between the unschooling mom I meet at the park whose tells me all about her kids' new passion for parkour as they crawl all over the equipment and then they all head off to the science museum versus the mom with 5 kids under 8 who passes the baby off to the oldest to care for while she starts crying as she explains how overwhelmed she is and how long it's been since they had school. The first mom is emotionally available to her children. She may not be engaged in instruction or use curriculum the way a classical schooler does, but clearly she is intellectually available to her kids and is supporting their learning needs. She may be doing a better job of educating her children than I am. The second mother, on the other hand, may or may not be emotionally available to her children. I'm not in her home so it's not my place to judge. However, when she self-reports to me that they "haven't done school" in the 9 months since the baby was born and before the birth they really only "did school" during her 2nd trimester because pregnancy is just so hard . . . well . . . I'm thinking that situation is a bit different from unschooling.

[MinivanMom]

I also hope that my previous comments weren't taken as a slam against unschooling. It's not my style, but I have the utmost respect for unschoolers. I was talking about nonschooling for long periods which I think is a very different thing.

[albeto.]

I know you didn't ask me, but here's my take.

 

Unschooling parents are emotionally, physically, and intellectually available to their children.

 

Nonschooling parents are not.

 

There is a huge difference to me between the unschooling mom I meet at the park whose tells me all about her kids' new passion for parkour as they crawl all over the equipment and then they all head off to the science museum versus the mom with 5 kids under 8 who passes the baby off to the oldest to care for while she starts crying as she explains how overwhelmed she is and how long it's been since they had school. The first mom is emotionally available to her children. She may not be engaged in instruction or use curriculum the way a classical schooler does, but clearly she is intellectually available to her kids and is supporting their learning needs. She may be doing a better job of educating her children than I am. The second mother, on the other hand, may or may not be emotionally available to her children. I'm not in her home so it's not my place to judge. However, when she self-reports to me that they "haven't done school" in the 9 months since the baby was born and before the birth they really only "did school" during her 2nd trimester because pregnancy is just so hard . . . well . . . I'm thinking that situation is a bit different from unschooling.

 

Ah, I see what you mean. Thanks for answering.

 

:)

[KathyJo]

In the original article, she did not promote being unavailable to her children, not emotionally, intellectually, or otherwise. She actually said the opposite, making it quite clear that the children should be with the parent, partaking in adult life. 

 

I've made comments like the ones listed above re: not getting much done at various times. What I always meant was that we weren't meeting my insane standards, not doing everything that I had planned for us. I never meant that literally nothing was going on. At our most minimal, including summers, children are at least reading a lot. I'm appalled that people might make that assumption instead of assuming the best unless there's a reason to do otherwise. Many people can't let out their frustrations about homeschooling to their families, and they assume that another homeschooler will understand.

 

This thread makes me sad. Many here seem to see in that article some insidious plot to promote educational neglect. I see in this thread the lack of understanding for the plight of others that made the article necessary.

 

[marbel]

In the original article, she did not promote being unavailable to her children, not emotionally, intellectually, or otherwise. She actually said the opposite, making it quite clear that the children should be with the parent, partaking in adult life. 

 

I've made comments like the ones listed above re: not getting much done at various times. What I always meant was that we weren't meeting my insane standards, not doing everything that I had planned for us. I never meant that literally nothing was going on. At our most minimal, including summers, children are at least reading a lot. I'm appalled that people might make that assumption instead of assuming the best unless there's a reason to do otherwise. Many people can't let out their frustrations about homeschooling to their families, and they assume that another homeschooler will understand.

 

This thread makes me sad. Many here seem to see in that article some insidious plot to promote educational neglect. I see in this thread the lack of understanding for the plight of others that made the article necessary.

 

People read things like this through their own experiences and biases.  (I don't mean biases in a bad way.)  People say things like "my kids could never..." or "I went through a tough time and we carried on..."  And even without realizing it they judge others against the standard they have set for themselves.

 

I admire people who are able to run a tight homeschool ship under crisis.  During short periods of crisis in my life, I haven't. I know other people who also haven't, but their kids were not harmed by the experience.  Kids went on to university or career even after having a period of no school, spending time keeping up the house while mom was in bed with a tough pregnancy or a back problem.   They learned a lot about compassion and real adult life that way.

 

Re: the bolded, I find that so many homeschoolers are inflexible in their thinking about homeschooling.  I've been snubbed by people at a church because I wasn't the "right" kind of homeschooler.  I've been snubbed by secular homeschoolers who assume because I am a Christian I am anti-intellectual.  My relaxed homeschool acquaintances think I'm too uptight; others think I'm not uptight enough. :huh:

 

It's just one person's opinion.  No one has to do what she suggests.  People are free to take what's good out of the article and leave the rest.  Homeschoolers of all people should be able to do that.  ;)   The article has 50-something comments; it's hardly taking the homeschooling world by storm! 

[ByGrace3]

In the original article, she did not promote being unavailable to her children, not emotionally, intellectually, or otherwise. She actually said the opposite, making it quite clear that the children should be with the parent, partaking in adult life.

 

I've made comments like the ones listed above re: not getting much done at various times. What I always meant was that we weren't meeting my insane standards, not doing everything that I had planned for us. I never meant that literally nothing was going on. At our most minimal, including summers, children are at least reading a lot. I'm appalled that people might make that assumption instead of assuming the best unless there's a reason to do otherwise. Many people can't let out their frustrations about homeschooling to their families, and they assume that another homeschooler will understand.

 

This thread makes me sad. Many here seem to see in that article some insidious plot to promote educational neglect. I see in this thread the lack of understanding for the plight of others that made the article necessary.

I can't fathom why this thread is making you sad. Pretty much everyone has agreed that if you are doing SOMETHING, no one would blink an eye. The simple fact that this many people DID infer that the article was providing comfort if NOTHING was all you could manage, does imply we are not the only ones to have that take away.

 

The negative responses in this thread about that article are in particular response to "nothing." What you are talking about is not nothing, and is not a "year." If that's not what the author meant, perhaps she shouldn't have said it? Perhaps you have not met these people, but I have. And lose to nothing is accurate. They didn't get to school because they were too busy. These are not the kind of people who are making every aspect of life into a learning experience.

 

Do they live in a vacuum? Of course not, I am sure they will learn some things.

 

Inferences are often based on experience. Perhaps you have not met the same people we have? I have met true homeschool slackers. There lack of educational focus was not intentional, it was based on the fact that they let life get in the way. Some, while not all, will suffer long time loss of dreams due to lack of parental oversight in education.

[SorrelZG]

I admit that I don't know any neglectful homeschoolers. I do know they exist because I've read about them on the internet. :D I just wasn't thinking about them when I read this article. I was only really thinking about myself.

[leeannpal]

I think doing nothing in a crisis, if kids are used to a more structured school experience, might be worse than nothing. I've had two friends be diagnosed with cancer, and while both went into remission within a year of treatment and have, so far, been cancer-free, both of them say that their children needed more, not less structure at the time. One went to a virtual charter school for a year, the other put her DD in PS because she just plain needed the ability to schedule treatments without a 6 yr old with her.

 

In both cases, it wasn't a beneficial year academically, but the kids didn't lose ground either, and were relieved to go back to regular homeschooling when mom was up to it, and the kids seemed to benefit from having a known schedule, tasks to do, and other adults who weren't connected to and focused on the cancer in their lives.

I agree with this! We've had a series of downturns lately including a car accident and finding out my father has stage four cancer. It has been stressful for the whole family,and I have been tempted to just let schooling slide for a while. I found that my daughter needed some structure to her day to make her feel that life wasn't out of control. We are not doing a full load because of the holidays, but we are structuring our days with Christmas activities as well.

[KathyJo]

The negative responses in this thread about that article are in particular response to "nothing." What you are talking about is not nothing, and is not a "year." If that's not what the author meant, perhaps she shouldn't have said it? Perhaps you have not met these people, but I have. And lose to nothing is accurate. They didn't get to school because they were too busy. These are not the kind of people who are making every aspect of life into a learning experience.

 

The negative responses in this thread are aimed at that article, but NOT at what the article actually says. Perhaps she should have said it? She DID say it. Several people have tried to point this out, but everyone keeps going back to this attitude that she said it was okay to do NOTHING. She was called an idiot, and it's been implied and outright stated that what she's advocating is educational neglect. Since she didn't, I consider this unfair. And since I would want to be defended in a similar set of circumstances, I feel a strong need to defend her. It's wrong to accuse her of what she did not say.

 

And yes, it makes me extremely sad to see Christians bashing other Christians in this way. You're saying that you feel this way because you've seen slackers, but just because there are slackers out there, that doesn't mean that's what she was advocating, and she shouldn't be judged so harshly (I reiterate: idiot, neglect) based on a single post taken out of context from everything else she might have said on her homeschooling blog. 

[ByGrace3]

The negative responses in this thread are aimed at that article, but NOT at what the article actually says. Perhaps she should have said it? She DID say it. Several people have tried to point this out, but everyone keeps going back to this attitude that she said it was okay to do NOTHING. She was called an idiot, and it's been implied and outright stated that what she's advocating is educational neglect. Since she didn't, I consider this unfair. And since I would want to be defended in a similar set of circumstances, I feel a strong need to defend her. It's wrong to accuse her of what she did not say.

 

And yes, it makes me extremely sad to see Christians bashing other Christians in this way. You're saying that you feel this way because you've seen slackers, but just because there are slackers out there, that doesn't mean that's what she was advocating, and she shouldn't be judged so harshly (I reiterate: idiot, neglect) based on a single post taken out of context from everything else she might have said on her homeschooling blog.

The article in question puts a stamp of acceptance on a "year" off. I am not sure how we are misunderstanding? That's what it says. It does say you don't HAVE to do that, but it does say you can. No one is judging her personally or her homeschool. We take issue with that sentiment. It is ok to disagree with people.

[KathyJo]

The article in question puts a stamp of acceptance on a "year" off. I am not sure how we are misunderstanding? That's what it says. It does say you don't HAVE to do that, but it does say you can. No one is judging her personally or her homeschool. We take issue with that sentiment. It is ok to disagree with people.

 

Of course it's fine to disagree with people. Calling them idiots and making accusations of neglect is another matter entirely, as is continuing to insist that she said it was okay to do NOTHING, when I can't find a single quote in the article that says that. In the interest of fairness, I went and read it a fourth time.

 

"In fact, in many cases, the things your kids learn by the experience can be life-changing – for the good!"

 

She assumes the children will be learning. That doesn't imply NOTHING.

 

"It is tempting to think that somehow this homeschool year will be different–to think that this year you will have long stretches of uninterrupted time in which to lovingly fill your children with all wisdom and knowledge, provide three home-cooked, gourmet meals a day in your perfectly clean and organized home."

 

She mentions the absurd expectations that many people feel like they have to meet. This does not seem like she's accustomed to giving her message to a bunch of slackers.

 

"I was asked, after speaking at our local homeschool convention last summer, how we did school while our daughter, Abby, was being rescued from the middle of the Indian Ocean during her solo-circumnavigation attempt. My answer? 'We didn’t.'"

 

I'm going to cut her some slack here. I don't think I would have been doing formal lessons then, either.

 

"Your break does not necessarily need to be complete. You may focus on certain subjects like literacy, the 3 R’s, or character while taking a break from other, less important (at that time and in that circumstance) subjects. Your family’s choice of how to take a Grace Year will depend on your unique family needs."

 

Not NOTHING, but a break of some sort dependent upon the needs of the family.

 

"Many years ago, when I was fairly new to homeschooling, I attended a talk put on by a group of veteran homeschool moms. They shared the stories of their homeschool years–the trials, the struggles, and the victories. I’ll never forget the statement that one mother made after one particularly dramatic testimony. She said that despite her fears and doubts, God had filled in the gaps and then some."

 

This is not a statement that God will fill in the gaps of our laziness and slacker attitudes. It's just encouragement for the Christian that God is bigger than any mistakes we make along the way.

 

"I mean, if you are drinking wine in the afternoon and watching soap operas while your kids are watching cartoons upstairs, get some help..."

 

That's the statement that reminds people she's not giving some sort of permission to slack off and do nothing.

 

That's my objective evidence. My opinion is that this article was presented in a negative light in the original post, and many reacted to what was said in the original post instead of what the woman actually wrote.

[KathyJo]

A quote from the author from the comments which further clarifies her position:

 

"Keep 'em busy for sure. I would not suggest doing no school for extended periods of time but the idea is to prioritize and not to worry."

 

ETA another one: "We'll lag in English and then the kids will get into writing stories or letters to friends and we're catching up. God is good!"

[ElizaG]

I think the article is self-contradictory in places.   Or at least, really ambiguous.

 

"It is tempting to think that somehow this homeschool year will be different–to think that this year you will have long stretches of uninterrupted time in which to lovingly fill your children with all wisdom and knowledge, provide three home-cooked, gourmet meals a day in your perfectly clean and organized home."

 

How does that fit in with the idea of taking a break?   It seems to have more to do with just adjusting your expectations in general.   Having a "grace life," if you like. 

 

My sense is that, taken as a whole, this piece of writing could end up meaning whatever the reader wants it to mean.   Kind of like a homeschool Rorschach test?  :001_huh:

[KathyJo]

I think the article is self-contradictory in places.   Or at least, really ambiguous.

 

"It is tempting to think that somehow this homeschool year will be different–to think that this year you will have long stretches of uninterrupted time in which to lovingly fill your children with all wisdom and knowledge, provide three home-cooked, gourmet meals a day in your perfectly clean and organized home."

 

How does that fit in with the idea of taking a break?   It seems to have more to do with just adjusting your expectations in general.   Having a "grace life," if you like. 

 

My sense is that, taken as a whole, this piece of writing could end up meaning whatever the reader wants it to mean.   Kind of like a homeschool Rorschach test?  :001_huh:

 

Objectively, no, I don't see how it could mean whatever the reader wants. To assume that she is advocating doing nothing, as people have argued here, one would have to ignore all the quotes I listed above, and read into other passages things that she didn't actually say. 

 

Could she, and should she, have been more specific about exactly what she's advocating? At this point, I'd say absolutely yes. :-)

[ElizaG]

Objectively, no, I don't see how it could mean whatever the reader wants. To assume that she is advocating doing nothing, as people have argued here, one would have to ignore all the quotes I listed above, and read into other passages things that she didn't actually say.

 

 As others have pointed out, this passage:

 

"Your break does not necessarily need to be complete. (...) Your family’s choice of how to take a Grace Year will depend on your unique family needs."

 

does imply that the break can be complete.  It doesn't seem like a question of reading into it.

 

Personally, though, I'm not so interested in the "complete break vs. partial break" issue.  A "complete break" means different things to different families anyway.   What stood out to me was the vagueness about the reasons to take time off. 

 

---

"If you’ve been homeschooling for a while, you know how no day ever goes perfectly to plan.  However, if you have day after day of struggles or you are experiencing signs of homeschool burnout, it may be time to reevaluate your goals and prayerfully consider taking a Grace Year.

 

It is tempting to think that somehow this homeschool year will be different. (...)

 

The truth of the matter is that every year holds something."

---

 

So what does this mean?  Every year has difficulties, so if you're having a difficult time, you should consider taking a year off (ETA: or reduced, or whatever)?  Or: it's unlikely that this year will be different, but if you take a year off (ETA: or reduced, or whatever), then the next year will be different?   

 

My head just turns to soup when I read this.

[Hunter]

I take it to mean that in some sort of EXTREME situation, with an ATYPICAL family, it is POSSIBLE that it MIGHT mean a complete year off. But that in most cases it is just triaging for a season.

 

I think she is being vague, because she is assuming the parents only want what is best for their children, are not slackers, but are confused about what is best for THEIR family, when they are COMPARING themselves to all the other blogs they are reading. I think she is speaking to BLOGGERS in general, and there are mighty few slacking bloggers.

 

Bloggers come in all shapes and sizes and I think she is attempting to speak to them all.

 

I believe I have NO trouble understanding the article until I read this thread. Then I go back and reread it trying to figure out where people can possibly be getting their rage from. I find nothing, and all I can figure is that people are purposely misreading the article, so they can post about a topic that they want to post about. It happens here from time to time. But because there are so many people that I really respect posting, I keep going back and rereading the article thinking I must be missing something. But each time I reread it, I feel reaffirmed that this is just one of those threads.

[KathyJo]

 My head just turns to soup when I read this.

 

Yes, the article lacks clarity. Remember, what I'm arguing here is that it's wrong to say that she advocates doing nothing when that cannot be shown through quotes she herself has made. That can only be argued by reading into what she said. Nothing you said here negates the points that I made in my previous post with quotes from the article itself.

 

In any case, the additional quotes from her from the comments, that I also referenced above, make it clear that her intention was not for a complete break. So, yes, the article lacks clarity. That's not the point.

[ElizaG]

Yes, the article lacks clarity. Remember, what I'm arguing here is that it's wrong to say that she advocates doing nothing when that cannot be shown through quotes she herself has made. That can only be argued by reading into what she said. Nothing you said here negates the points that I made in my previous post with quotes from the article itself.

 

In any case, the additional quotes from her from the comments, that I also referenced above, make it clear that her intention was not for a complete break. So, yes, the article lacks clarity. That's not the point.

 

Well, that's fine.  I was responding to the article & the discussion in general, not to your previous post.  

 

To some people, the lack of clarity isn't the point.  

 

To me, it is.  (And I just wanted to clarify that.)  :001_smile:

[ByGrace3]

 

I believe I have NO trouble understanding the article until I read this thread. Then I go back and reread it trying to figure out where people can possibly be getting their rage from. I find nothing, and all I can figure is that people are purposely misreading the article, so they can post about a topic that they want to post about. It happens here from time to time. But because there are so many people that I really respect posting, I keep going back and rereading the article thinking I must be missing something. But each time I reread it, I feel reaffirmed that this is just one of those threads.

 

Wow. I am not sure what to say to this. "Purposely misreading?" So that I can post about a topic I want to post about? That's...well...insulting. I read an article, I had a response to it, I posted about it to initiate a discussion. Is that not what a forum such as this is for? 

 

If I wanted to start a post on any topic I certainly do not need to link a blog to do so... I read a blog, I had a response. I shared that response.

 

 

After reading and re-reading said article (more times than I should have), I am still seeing the same things. Perhaps that is not what the author meant or intended, but I do believe this blog post as written can serve to enable a homeschool family to take a break for a year and not feel bad about it. You may not agree, but I am not placing blame on the author or judging her intent. I am simply saying I think you could get that from reading this. 

 

We may have different interpretations of a blog post, and I am perfectly ok with that...no need to add personal attack.