Ending the Bully-Victim Paradigm

Today the East York Mirror (a free weekly newspaper for the little pocket of Toronto where I live) published a  piece on bullying under the title "Parents play a key role in mediation".

The article describes how the mother of a "mercilessly" bullied 10-year-old boy did everything she could to work with the school to solve the problem but that eventually she pulled her son out of public school and sent him to a private school.

Apparently her attempts to work with the school and the other parents were not accepted, as the parents of the other children refused to participate.  I was pleased to see that a representative of the school board, someone described as "a gender-based violence prevention co-ordinator", was quoted as saying, "That's sad, because the support for the perpetrator is as important as the support for the victim--perhaps even more so."

Friends, let's get very clear about bullies.  A person acting as a bully is a scared, lonely, hurting, sad, insecure and immature person, no matter their age.  All the rules and interventions and education in the world are not going to stop the bully because bullying is not a behaviour problem:  it's a relationship problem.

Bullying is not a behaviour problem:  it's a relationship problem.


And it's not about the bully's relationship with the victim--it's about the bully's relationship with him or her SELF.  A confident young person who is in total integrity with his or her self will never act as a bully.  That's because we act on the outside the way we feel on the inside.  A sad and broken person knows only how to create more sadness and brokenness.

Certainly, both the victim and the bully need support and counselling, and so do their parents.  Their parents need to learn how to empower their children with confidence and integrity.  The school cannot truly solve the problem, but they can be instrumental in providing the assistance.  Perhaps there have to be sanctions in place to force parents to get involved in a committed and serious way--long term suspensions of their child unless the parent complies, or a fine or even the threat of removing the child from the home.  It's sad that taking responsibility would have to be mandated, but the current system is clearly not working.

Maybe a proactive approach would be that all children in Kindergarten and Grade 1, along with their parents, would be required to attend workshops that teach confidence building, conflict resolution skills and self-awareness.  We can't blame parents for not teaching these skills at home when they might not even know how! The school system could be instrumental in solving the bully-victim paradigm by mandating participation, and all children and their parents would benefit.  Attendance at a series of workshops is a pretty small price to pay for 13 years of schooling, no?
********************************************************************************
I've prepared a FREE AUDIO that addresses this topic, which will soon be available on my new website, www.canadianunschooler.com.  (It's not up and running yet, as my web designer is still putting on the final touches.)  To make sure you don't miss out on my free offers, you can LIKE my new Facebook page:  CanadianUnschooler.  (Eventually, the Jazzy Mama blog will cease to exist, but I hope to better serve my readers on the topics of Homeschooling and Unschooling over at my new site.  See you there in about a month!)

Are we even asking the right questions yet?

The public education system.
Brought to you by the same people who thought Residential Schools were a good idea.

Your Child. Stress-Free Learning. Right now.

Assuming that the school system knows what’s best for your child is like saying that the bank knows what’s best for your money.

In Which a Child is Assaulted and the School Does Nothing

Trigger Warning:  Contains sexual content


Recently, a colleague from my days as a teacher shared the following story:

A class of Grade 3 students was assembling on the carpet of the library.  An 8-year-old boy walked in front of a girl in the class who was seated.  He faced her, bent his knees and began to pump his pelvis in front of her face.  Other children pointed and laughed.  Then he bopped her on the head with his hand and sing-songed, "Ha ha, you got tea-bagged!"  Children continued to laugh as the boy skipped away and the little girl began to cry.  She wiped her eyes and sucked back the tears as the librarian called the class to attention and began the lesson.

Are you as horrified as I am by this event?


Let's be perfectly clear:  That little girl was sexually assaulted.


Hopefully she went home and told her parents exactly what happened.  It doesn't matter if she understood what the boy was acting out--she knows that she was uncomfortable and humiliated and that she was treated with aggression.  Hopefully her parents raised some hell at the school, at the very least demanding that the boy be moved to another class.

But from what I heard, nothing happened.  The boy was not punished nor even spoken to about his actions.  His parents were not phoned.  The little girl's parents were not phoned.  The incident was ignored and school life continued.

Friends, this is normal every day stuff in the life of a child attending school.  And yet every time someone criticizes my family for choosing a different path of education, they invariably start with the argument that my children need to learn how to "cope in the world" and "how will they ever be socialized?"

If that had been my daughter who was sexually assaulted on school property while a teacher did nothing, I would have immediately pulled my daughter out of school, contacted the director of education and phoned the media.  Somebody would have to answer for why school personnel are unwilling or unable to prevent and stop an act of sexual aggression.

It literally makes me feel sick to my stomach when I hear parents who really believe that events like this are no big deal and that the little girl will get over it.  If I were sitting at a library and some guy came up and started grinding his pelvis into my face, would we all decide that it was no big deal and I should get over it? Do children not deserve to be free from assault and aggression, regardless of the age and maturity of the perpetrator?

Parents:  Protect your Children.  You are not teaching them anything positive when you believe that they must go through bad experiences as they grow up.  What a horrible way to view life and to teach your child to view life!  I want my children to grow up with the belief that the world is a kind and wonderful place, where life is full of abundance and richness and where the spreading of joy results in more joy coming their way.

It's funny how it makes some people uncomfortable that I think that offering my children experiences of joy and freedom and abundance is good for them.  It's too bad so many people are so committed to their lives of scarcity and misery and frustration that they want the same experience for their children.

No thank you.

Cultural Influence on Education

I can certainly see with my girls that learning is a cultural phenomenon, unique to each family and community. 

If we made our living as dairy farmers (as my parents did), my girls would have a big understanding of the life cycle of cows and the planting of crops. If we ran a landscaping business, they'd know about trees and flowers and grades and soil. If we belonged to a church, it would form part of their community and they would learn there, too. Because we are literate, environmentally-minded, world-issue-conscious and committed to healthy living, our children will have those ideas as part of their culture. And because we live in a fast-paced, ethnically diverse city, they will have access to more ideas which will form their complete culture.

I think that culture is incredibly important in the education of children. (And by education I basically mean learning.) Culture determines priorities, perceptions and core values. I have read about a group of Mennonites or Hutterites who formed an isolated community in which to live within their beliefs without outside influence. Within two generations they were completely illiterate. But I bet their children could tend the animals, plant crops, bake bread, butcher a pig and make cheese. They probably understood weather patterns and the habits of wild animals, too. It goes to show that priorities determine education, as established by the culture of the community.

On Monday morning the principal at Partner-Guy's school made a school-wide announcement asking the students and staff to observe a moment of silence to remember the victims of the earthquake in Haiti and to be conscious of how many Haitian children are now without food, water and schools. Partner-Guy almost choked on his coffee when he heard her say that. As if schools are as important as food and water? And what about the Haitian children who are now without parents? Not as important as being without schools, apparently.

So why is it that whenever humanitarian aid is offered to impoverished regions, immediately teams of Westerners are sent to establish schools in the typical style of North America? Wouldn't it make sense to let the community establish its own educational priorities as reflected by their history, lifestyle and core values? I remember watching the Oprah special when she went to South Africa and built schools. Every child showed up for school wearing an American-style uniform and sat in desks in neat rows and wrote in notebooks and studied from textbooks. I couldn't believe it. Was she trying to make them into Americans? Just because the children study South African history, or read a novel written by a South African, does that mean their true educational needs are being met? And meanwhile, they are removed from the work of their parents for 8 hours a day and they lose the opportunity to learn meaningful life skills from them. I'm still confused.

I'm not anti-education. Really, I'm in favour of access to education for all. For example, preventing girls from attending school in Afghanistan is clearly just one more way that women are oppressed in that country. And literacy is a basic life skill that everyone should attain. Throughout the world ample evidence exists that access to education opens doors for people who would otherwise live generation after generation in perpetual poverty. But why has the word school come to mean just one style of education all over the world? ( It's like the word milk automatically connotes cow's milk, not soy milk or human milk even.)

This issue of forcing North American style schooling on the people of developing nations is one of the things that prevents me from giving to humanitarian groups such as Oxfam or Compassion or WorldVision. Instead, I keep my giving local by handing my pocket change to the homeless or panhandlers I see. I can't help it that my tax dollars fund a system of education that I don't endorse. (My tax dollars also fund a healthcare system that is wasteful and misguided, but I can't cover everything in one post.) But I can question where money is spent if I am going to make a donation to provide humanitarian aid overseas.

And I can remember everyday how fortunate I am to be raising my daughters in a time and place where I can not only ask these questions, but also follow my heart with regards to our priorities and core values.

School by Default

At least once per week since I wrote You're Not Homeschooling Because...Your Spouse is Against It, someone finds that post by doing a Google search:

• husband won't let me homeschool
• husband against homeschooling
• I want to homeschool but husband says no
• can I homeschool if my husband is against it

I totally get that a parent would not support homeschooling: choosing any path that is against the mainstream is a difficult decision.  It is hard to forge a new way.  And it is especially hard to choose NOT to do something for your children that you believe was actually really GOOD for YOU.

Even some of my friends who are pro-homeschool have chosen to send their children to school because their husbands won't accept homeschool as a viable option.

What is strange to me when spouses disagree about school vs. homeschool, is that SCHOOL always seems to be the default choice.  It is especially perplexing to me when the parents have otherwise been following many attachment parenting practices.

Should the default choice be to send small children away from all that makes them feel safe and confident?

Should the default choice be to surround small children with people who don't know anything about them?

Should the default choice be to put your unique child into an environment where conformity is demanded?

The longer I watch my children learn and mature on their own terms, the more I become surprised at the reasons why parents choose school even if they aren't sure it's the right choice.  When I imagine my authentic, creative children in an artificial and conformist environment, I cry for them.  And when I see children who were previously confident and happy but have turned both aggressive and insecure after just a short time in school, I also cry for them.  

Parents, if you are unsure whether school or homeschool is the right choice for your family, might I suggest considering the following?

1. Create a Family Mission Statement.  This means examining as a family what your priorities and values are and then deciding how to spend your time focussed on what really matters to you.
2. Define 'success'.  Look at whether your definition of FUTURE success depends on what you do right now.  For example, is your definition of success timeless, or do you define success according to age or dollar value?
3. For both School and Homeschool, describe what it will look like, sound like and feel like for EACH member of the family.  This is SO important...
4. Answer the question "What will this decision COST me?"  Financially?  Letting go of fears?  Family support?  Relationships?  Career?
5. Trust your child.  Love yourself.  Listen to what your child wants.  Listen to your heart.  Approve of your own decisions.  Seek support.  

I'd love to hear how YOU decided whether or not to homeschool.  What would you add to this list to help others decide what to do?

ETFO's Ultimate Block Party

This past June, the Elementary Teachers' Federation of Ontario -- the union in which I used to be an active member -- hosted an Ultimate Block Party at Fort York National Historic Site in downtown Toronto.  Community organizations and individual artists partnered with ETFO to set up 25 play centres where children could take part in all kinds of play:  music, art, drama, and dance;  science experiments, physical play, adventure play, and story telling.  The entire event was free and all teachers' families were invited.

I did not attend with my children.

It's not that I think the event was inherently bad.  In fact, the activities were phenomenal!  Mountains of Lego, art supplies galore, awesome building supplies, science investigations with REAL microscopes and other exploratory tools and devices.  I would love to have access to all those wonderful things for my children on a regular basis.  But, just as importantly, I would love it if every child had non-stop access to the tools of creation, investigation and imagination every day.


You see, ETFO's event was great, except that it took the same old attitude that all the 'experts' take:  that children should have time to play, but not all the time and not unsupervised and not without sharing and taking turns.  


You see, for PLAY to really be the source of learning for young children, they need three things:
TIME, PRIVACY and SPONTANEITY.  They need as much time as they want, they need to be alone so that they don't fall into the trap of just doing what everyone else is doing, and they need to be able to choose their activities whenever their own spirit moves them to participate.


What if the first five years of 'formal education' were a non-stop ultimate block party?  I mean, just imagine it!  Kids ages 4-9 years old who build, create, draw, imagine and MOVE all day long.  They would have the option of sitting for a story if they wanted or they could print some letters if they wanted but they would have the freedom to choose their own activities all day long.  There would be no report cards because the concept of 'progress' would be irrelevant.  It wouldn't matter if a child wanted to build with Lego for 6 months solid because Who knows? Maybe she'll grow up to be a world-renowned architect!  Another child wants to spend a whole year painting pictures?  Magnificent!  Perhaps he'll be an artistic designer! And what if a child spends a year running around from one activity to another with no real purpose or specific interest?  Fantastic!  A well-rounded citizen in the making!

But what about reading and writing?  Oh, come on.  Do children have to learn to read and write when they are 6 years old because otherwise they'll never be literate?  What if the next 5 years of school focused on just 2 areas:  technology and communication.  Aren't those the two most important skills anyone will need in our ever-changing world twenty years from now?  And what if 5 more years of FREE education were spent letting the children pursue whatever subjects they were interested in, perhaps with expert mentors?

We're Unschoolers, but what I've just described is the FLOW that I envision for my children as they grow into adults.  Right now, they are given access to as many adventures and investigations and opportunities to create as I can find and afford.  Whatever they express interest in doing or seeing or exploring, I find a way to make it happen.  I read if they ask me to and I help with printing words if they ask me to.  They do not use computers and we don't own video games.  In a few more years, I open up the world of technology to them by buying them digital cameras, a cam-corder and likely a laptop.  We will engage in communication via the Internet to learn about people all over the world.  And as they become teenagers I envision them following their passions and continuing to learn whatever they want.

What if they flounder around and don't show interest in anything?  Then I will continue to provide a loving, nurturing home environment where I will support them in any endeavour.  I will value them as unique, compassionate, curious people.  I will treasure their contributions to humanity.

I weep for the way that traditional schooling destroys the lives of children.  Strong language?  Not to me.  Unless the modern system of education MODERNIZES in the manner I suggest, we will continue to churn out young people who are totally prepared to live in 1960.

Ingenuity, imagination and communication are the way of the future.  And until the schools throw out their textbooks, their archaic rules of discipline, their ridiculous heavy emphasis on early literacy and their stranglehold on creativity in favour of forced conformity, we will continue to see a society that is struggling to move forward.

Are you considering Unschooling?  What are you doing to keep your eye on the Future as your child plays today?

Want to Destroy your Child's Creativity? Send Her to School

My opinion:
The curriculum and the structure of the school day work cohesively to stifle and destroy the natural creativity and curiosity of children. And as if that wasn't enough, the teachers and other children would effectively smother it anyway.I'm sure that writers and researchers who are far smarter than I am have written epics about how children are naturally curious and how important creative play is for their development. My own experiences with my children would actually prompt me to say that the opportunity for creative expression is as fundamental to child development as learning how to walk and talk.

My children can spend hours with paper, scissors, glue sticks, glitter, markers, stickers, pipe cleaners, play dough, plasticine, paint, popsicle sticks, toilet paper rolls and anything else that they can turn into art. They paint pine cones. They glue dried beans and seeds. They cut wrapping paper, magazines and boxes. They make cards for their cousins and grandparents. They make presents for their imaginary friends. They drip glue and they spill the glitter. They get messy.

And they DRAW.  Their drawings look nothing like the standard stick-figures and triangle-on-top-of-a-square houses that are common for other children their age.  My children have never seen the way that other children draw and I have never critiqued their drawings.  As a result, they are completely uninhibited in their creations.  And they draw prolificly.  In the last year, Anna and Holly have filled more than 80 36-page drawing tablets with carefully drawn masterpieces.  Many of the books have been made into stories:  Anna and Holly narrate each picture or series of pictures and I write down their stories for them.  Creative writing, anyone?

The point is, they do it because it is fundamentally in them to do it. I don't make them sit at the table and do a craft, draw a picture or write a story. I leave them alone to do whatever they want with whatever materials they choose. Very occasionally Anna, Holly or Jasmine will ask me to make something with her or to help her make something that she has seen on TV. Mostly they do not want to me interfere.

And isn't this the opposite of what would happen at school? In a Kindergarten setting, Holly would have access to about 1/100 of the materials that she has at home. And she would be lucky to have 20 minutes of 'creative time' before she was told to clean up because she and the rest of the class would have to move on to 'library time' or 'gym time'. So much for creativity.

And in the higher grades (I have taught Visual Art in Grades 5 - 8) there is no opportunity for creative artistic expression at all because the curriculum dictates what type of art the students must produce. Students are rarely motivated to produce the required pieces because the assignments are boring and trite, or else they are so sophisticated that the students don't even want to try to produce them for fear of not meeting the 'standard'. There are no other opportunities to be creative in the form of visual expression. Even projects are judged and critiqued for their relevance to the curriculum, and their creative expression is given no value.

And what about curiosity? Teachers have no time to answer the questions of curious children. And besides that, the teachers have curriculum to cover; they simple cannot have 20+ children all doing something different according to their individual curiosity, interests, strengths and inclinations. Also, other students are inclined to ridicule the children who show 'too much' interest in school and certain subject areas. The social 'rules' of the classroom restrict a child's natural enthusiasm for any area of study.

The term 'creative writing' is one of the biggest oxymorons that exists in school. How can a child write creatively when she knows she is writing for one purpose only? So that the teacher can mark what she has written. The Literacy Coaches and Consultants are always talking about how to motivate kids to write. My suggestion would be "Leave them alone."

It's a wonder that any person leaves highschool and goes on to become a graphic designer or a visual artist or a novelist or have any other type of career that involves creative expression. I have heard so many adults say "I'm not very creative" and I now know that that's because their natural creativity was destroyed in their early years in school. Creativity that is unappreciated or that is treated as irrelevant is soon hidden away by its owner.

Want to foster and protect creativity?  Never offer judgement on what your child produces.  Provide materials, opportunity and time.  Engage your own creativity by writing, knitting, painting or whatever interests you.  Show that you value the creative self-expression of others.

And, if you can, don't send your child to school.

It's Not Necessary to Control Children {Even Though Schools Try To}

I'm not a big fan of Public Education.  Maybe you've already noticed?

Let's talk today about another of the hidden agendas of education.

Classroom Management is a euphemism for control.


Which is fine if you think that children need to be controlled. Which I don't.

Teachers' reputations are defined by whether or not they have good classroom management, which means whether or not their students are orderly, do as they are told, are 'on task' when required to be, don't get too noisy and more or less get along with each other in the room. It also means that teachers are expected to make their classes comply with school rules, even when the rules don't have much context within the confines of the classroom.

For example, if it's 5 minutes before the students are dismissed for the day and the principal walks into the room to deliver a message to somebody, and she sees one kid eating an apple and another kid wearing a baseball cap, then this makes the teacher look bad because apparently wearing hats and eating apples are forbidden under the school rules, even though the teacher might find it perfectly acceptable. So the principal may come in and enforce the nonsensical rules in the name of 'maintaining control' but it's really all about her having the power and the student's having none.

If someone would like to leave me a comment to explain why children should NOT eat when they are hungry and NOT wear outdoor attire 5 minutes before going outdoors, I'd love to read it.

I don't find it necessary to control my children. I'm not the mother at the playground yelling "Why don't you go on the slide?" or the mother at the grocery store trying to force her child to say "Thank you" to a total stranger who happened to pick up her hat off the floor. I instruct my children regarding their behaviour only when there is an issue of safety or when there are certain social considerations. For example, they know that if they burp in public they should say "Excuse me" but at home they don't have to if they don't want to. Why have a double standard? Because it's not worth fighting about.

But at school the teacher can't have some rules for some kids and some rules for others. And the teacher can't pick some rules to allow to be 'broken' in the class, but 'upheld' elsewhere on school property. There are two reasons for this. One, as I mentioned before, is that the teacher's reputation has a lot to do with how well-controlled the class is. Two, it is nearly impossible to administer the required curriculum without keeping all the children under the teacher's thumb by way of enforcing a lot of otherwise arbitrary and demeaning rules.

Let's take the rule about children not being allowed to eat in class. Why is this so important? Don't most adults eat when they are hungry, regardless of where they are? Is it because of the potential for a mess to be created? Then why don't we just expect the kids to clean up after themselves, and then enforce that rule? Is it because when a child is eating, he isn't working? Well, who can learn anything on an empty stomach? Is it because it's not fair if some kids didn't bring something to eat? Well, in that case, the hungry kids will likely remember to bring a snack for the next day if they feel jealous of the kids who are eating!!

The only place I've ever been as an adult with my children where eating is forbidden is the Royal Ontario Museum, where the rule is not arbitrary, as food residue could lead to the deterioration of the exhibits.

What about the rule about standing in a silent straight line? The only time I've ever been silent in a straight line was at a funeral and it didn't take me from Kindergarten to Grade 8 to learn how to stand still and be quiet.

What about rules regarding bathroom breaks? Can you imagine as an adult being told by your boss that you weren't allowed to go to the bathroom? Yet children are denied bathroom privileges all the time. They are expected to go at recess or lunch, unless it's an emergency. Like any kid is going to admit in front of the whole class that it's an emergency.

In my opinion, parents and teachers try to control children because of their own fear. The adults are afraid of what the children will do if they are not controlled. For teachers responsible for large groups of children who all come from different backgrounds and experiences, the fear is somewhat legitimate. But as a parent, I don't fear my children's behaviour. Mostly, I'm delighted by their behaviour, even when it is unexpected, unusual or unbecoming. If they act in a way that is generally considered to be 'socially unacceptable' then I am there to connect, instruct or console, depending on the circumstances. Since I accept that they act on the outside because of how they feel on the inside, I usually try to determine the inner feelings that precipitated the behaviour. Then I deal with the feelings, which always solves the behaviour problem.

The more rules a child has to follow, the more rules she is likely to break. That just makes sense. And the more nonsensical the rules are, the more likely she is to ignore them. Especially if the rules happen to make her feel physically uncomfortable or emotionally vulnerable.

I have no worries whatsoever about my children growing up to have manners, to recognize and show respect to authority at appropriate times and to get along with their peers and associates. They don't have to spend 10,000 hours (the approximate number of hours a child spends in school from Kindergarten to Grade 8) having it arbitrarily and dictatorially drilled into them by strangers.

How the Public Education System Encourages Parents to Abdicate their Parenting Responsibilities

This is my opinion.
An overwhelming number of parents have abdicated their parenting responsibilities to the school system, and they think this is right, good and normal.


So let me clarify.

The school system has taken on the responsibility to 'teach' children the characteristics of being a good person such as honesty, kindness, helpfulness, patience, tolerance and trust. The system also takes responsibility for teaching basic life skills such as hygiene, nutrition, health, sexuality and lifestyle choices. In my opinion, these areas are fundamentally the responsibility of parents.

What has happened is that the school system caters to what I would describe the lowest-common-denominator of its community. In other words, since there are going to be children in the system who, sadly, come from circumstances where they will not learn basic life skills or where they will not see in adults the attributes of good citizenry, the school has taken on the responsibility to provide opportunities for these children to learn what they need, supposedly, to live successfully as adults.

But this so-called solution to a sociological problem (and let me point out that the problem rests with the parents, not with the children) has completely backfired. If the point was to educate the 'less advantaged' children about topics that their parents might not have the resources to teach about, what has actually happened is that most parents, even those with the means and background, have stopped teaching their children the fundamentals of growing up.

Here are a few examples:

For two years I taught Grade 6 in a predominantly white, English-speaking working/middle class neighbourhood, where most families had two incomes. I was responsible for teaching Health, which included the topic of puberty. I was STUNNED that not a single student in my class knew the difference between the uterus and urethra. I was also required to teach a unit on nutrition, and I gave my class a challenge to not eat any junk food for 48 hours. They accepted that they couldn't eat candy, chips or soda, but they were STUNNED that they also couldn't eat fries, pizza, hamburgers, hotdogs, donuts, ice cream, popsicles, pudding, cake or cookies. Their parents showed up to ask me "So what are they supposed to eat? Lettuce?" Uh, ......yes.

You see, the more the school takes on the role of parent, the more parenting can be avoided by the actual parents. The school system has made it easy for parents to avoid important but uncomfortable topics like puberty, sexual health and lifestyle choices. So even 'good' parents allow themselves to be relieved of some of their responsibilities. They even stop trying. I have seen for example, that parents don't have to put effort into learning about what the healthy eating habits of adolescents should look like, because the school will tell their children what to eat. And what if the children won't eat healthily? Well, it's the school's fault, of course.

And it's not just the teaching of certain topics that parents have left up to the school system. Parents have asked me tell their child what time to go to bed, what time to get up, to be nice to his little sister, to help her grandmother, to spend more time on homework, to spend less time on homework, to do more chores around the house. The list goes on and on. I had parents asking me to issue punishments to their children for 'offences' that had nothing to do with me or school. This, when I was only 22 years old and my students were 13 years old!

Craziness.

Another area that parents have left up to the school is to allow them to label children and then 'fix' them. If a child is even slightly behind her peers in literacy or mathematics, her teacher will inform the parents that she is at risk. The parents are thrown into a dither of disappointment and relief: disappointed that their child is not, apparently, going to be a brain surgeon and relieved that now the school will 'fix' her and make her problem go away. It's ridiculous. How could parents let a person who has known their child for a few months make such a big judgement? And the parents beg for the school to help their poor child, as if there is nothing that the parent can possibly do, because after all, isn't learning something that happens at school?

Honestly, and speaking as an insider, teachers are horrified when a parent refuses to have a child tested for a learning disability or removed from the regular program to a remedial program or put in a Special Education class. Now that I am a more removed from the world of public education, whenever I hear a parent talking about a child who 'needs' testing or a special class, I always tell them they should never let the child be removed from the regular class, and they should get a private tutor or do whatever else it takes to help the child keep up with her peers. Why? Because whatever academic benefit the child might get by being part of school-based remedial program will be completely nullified by the sledgehammer that destroys her self-esteem when everybody knows she's gone to the 'dumb class'. It's not worth it.

Yes, I acknowledge that there are some good parents who truly believe that they have a greater role in their child's life than any teacher or curriculum. Those parents deserve some laud and honour, because they are parenting against the mainstream and they are incredibly rare. The good parents don't care about homework, while the rest of the parents are begging the school for more homework--because they don't know what to do with their children in the evenings!!!

I just can't have my children around other children who come from a culture of hands-off parenting. Children whose parents figure very significantly in their values and actions do not know how to be around children whose parents are largely irrelevant. I don't even know how to be around these hands-off parents. I can't remember how many times I have heard a parent at the playground say "My kids never listen to me." I always want to suggest "Why don't you try saying something relevant?"

So really what I am rebelling against in this particular derisive commentary is the parenting culture that puts teachers and curriculum above the instincts, knowledge and responsibilities of parents. Teachers and principals may love the power they have achieved in society, but society does not benefit from unloading the job of parents onto teachers.

I have decided to raise my own children, not hand them over to the government at the age of 4 to be raised in a culture that I don't subscribe to.

"But How will they be Socialized?" {My Own Perspective on the Social Skill Development of Schooled Children}

This is my opinion.
The social atmosphere in schools is toxic, it does not reflect 'the real world' and it is hard enough to navigate as an adult, let alone as a child.


Everybody's big concern about children who are homeschooled is "How will they socialize?" My own family and friends have shown concern about whether my children have or will have friends and they ask what I am doing to provide them with opportunities to be around children their age. Before I started to study child development (which happened only after I became a mom, not while I was in Teacher's College) I too believed that children needed to be with each other to learn how to behave in socially acceptable ways.

What I now understand is that it would be impossible for a group of immature beings to help each other achieve maturity. Social skills and socially acceptable behavior are learned from people who exhibit the skills and behaviours that we want children to adopt, namely their parents or other adults who we hope our children will emulate.

Gordon Neufeld explains in his book Hold on to your Kids how 'getting along' with others does not occur because of peer contact but from the gradual development of authentic personality and from having developed both self-respect and value for the personhood of others. He also explains how children who have spent time in daycare before attending school initially seem to have an advantage over children who have not attended daycare. This is because the children who had been to daycare had been 'socialized', which is to say that they were more comfortable around large groups of children and interacting with adults whom they had never met. In other words, their shyness (which is what naturally repels children from people to whom they have no attachment) was gone. However, this so-called advantage is an illusion: Neufeld sites research that the longer a child had been in daycare, the more likely they were to exhibit defiant or aggressive behaviours, the opposite of socially acceptable behaviours.

My personal observations from 10 years as a teacher back up Neufeld's research. Sending a child into school who has never been to daycare is throwing a sheep to the lions. School is not a level playing field, whatever that means. Rather, the school system is hierarchical, and that does not just include the principal, vice principal and teachers. In every classroom there is a hierarchy, and each child finds their place. It is never the smartest child who is at the top of the hierarchy. In fact, the most intelligent children are usually treated with disdain by the other children, and as a nuisance by the teacher. It is the loudest child who gets the most attention, not the nicest child. And if a child has any attribute that makes him or her 'different', the child is ostracized completely.

So many negative social interactions occur in a day with 20-30 children, that a teacher cannot possibly assist in finding a solution or creating a balance every time a dispute or problem occurs. In fact, a teacher is more likely to settle a dispute by siding with the aggressor, in the hopes of appeasing him or her and having fewer behaviour issues to deal with, at least in the short term. The pecking order is cruel and random and it can change daily. The children are always vulnerable to the whims and moods of the teachers and to ever changing power dynamics amongst their peers. Nothing can ever be taken for granted.

The 'power' exhibited among 25 children who are all the same age has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with playing a 'social game' with rules that are constantly changing. Is this the way we want power to be gained in the adult world? And is it what is really happening? Is Obama the President because of merit or personality? Is Harper the Prime Minister because of merit or personality? For me, it's all too complicated and if I can't figure out the 'social game' (this, from a chick with virtually no friends) how can a 5-year-old figure it out? School is an ever-changing popularity contest, and if that's a reflection of the 'real world' then I definitely choose to opt out.

Does this mean that I'm not sending my kids to school because I'm afraid they won't make friends? Not at all. What I'm afraid of is that their brains will be so stressed out trying to navigate the social game that there will be very little of it left for actual learning. Besides that, nobody needs to be with people 5 days/week in order to be their friend. Most adults would say that their best friends are NOT the people they see at work everyday.

One of my friends experienced this frightening social order that I have observed in schools is several profound ways. Being significantly smarter than his peers and possessing a strong need for social justice, he was almost always rejected and ridiculed. His creativity was thwarted and his natural authenticity was put down. One time he planned a huge art project--a mural--but was told that he couldn't complete it because the school was focused on literacy at that time. Another time his personal property--a math text!!--was confiscated because it was different from the style of mathematics being taught at the time. Incredibly, he was even sent home for refusing to be in the same room with a student who had told him to f*ck off, and he was subsequently told (by a person with no authority or training to make such an assumption) that he had an anger management problem.

Now, re-read that paragraph with the new knowledge that all of those things happened to my friend while he was a teacher, not a student. If an adult can be treated with such arbitrary and contrived 'rules', imagine how difficult it must be for a child to exist authentically in the same environment? How can a child possibly learn the rules of 'socially acceptable behaviour' when they change every day? Or when the adults who are supposed to be modelling them for the children do not apply them to their relationships with each other?

For me, raising authentic children is my highest goal, which really means that I must act as a guardian of their authentic selves. In school, their authenticity would have no value, and would certainly not be protected. They would be expected by their peers and teachers to conform to a pre-existing standard, a standard that probably doesn't have anything to do with the values of our family.
 
That's not what I want for them. 

Why My Kids Don't Go to School

The other day my friend's husband asked me about why my kids don't go to school.  He's a highschool teacher, and while he isn't anti-homeschooling, he is definitely pro-public-schooling. 

He asked, "Was your decision to homeschool based more on your experiences as a student yourself, or on your experiences as a public school teacher?"

I thought it was such a thoughtful question, without a trace of judgement or criticism that usually comes from people who question our choices regarding the education of our children.  I paused before I answered in order to give the question the type of thoughtful answer that I felt it deserved:

When I think about sending my children to school, I can't ignore all my experiences as both a student and a teacher and all the anxiety that it produces in me when I imagine them in that environment.  But when I was a teacher, I never considered that I would someday homeschool my own children.  Never.

It has actually been my experiences as a mother that most influenced my decision to keep school out of our lives. 

When I observed that my first two daughters, just 20 months apart in age, were absolutely the best of friends, dependent on each other not just as playmates but also for emotional support and social skills development, I knew that I could never bring myself to separate them for schooling purposes.  It would be like performing an amputation on a healthy limb--what would be the point?

When I observed how resistant my oldest daughter was to learning anything that she wasn't immediately motivated to learn, I started to ask myself how I could send her to an environment where 'learning' follows a linear timeline requiring absolutely no deviation.  In fact, deviation is punished (by low marks or by separation from peers for the purpose of 'remediation').

When I observed how easily my children fill their days--with drawing, make-believe, story telling and reading, interaction with adults and gross motor skill development--and as I listened to their constant chatter and giggles and shrieks of delight, I couldn't imagine asking them to sit still and be quiet for 5 hours.

And by the time my third child came along, and I was already pretty sure that I wouldn't be sending the older two to school, I suddenly had an epiphany as I observed that my tiny baby was always just doing her best to learn and survive in the environment into which she'd been born.  It hit me that my older two daughters were also just doing their best all the time, every day.

I understood that my role in their lives was going to be to provide the best possible environment in which to grow and learn.  I knew that I had to work on myself to be healthier, more patient, more creative and more joyful.  I had to create an environment where Freedom is our guiding principle and where Trust trumps control.

And now we just live our lives together everyday.  It just works.

And I can't imagine doing it any other way.

A big 'Thankyou' goes out to a friend for asking such a great question.

What is your motivation for choosing an intentional role in the education of your children?

How We're Asking the Wrong Questions about Public Education

I'm the weirdo homeschooler in my neighbourhood.

Except that I'm not homeschooling my children;  we're unschooling.

And even though I'm that weirdo, I'm also a former elementary school teacher (and still an employee, though not currently on the payroll), so a lot of my friends and neighbours seek me out to ask questions about the local school (although I've never worked there), their children's teachers, school board policies, rules and homework, and other public-education-related issues.

Here are some of the recent questions I've been asked and comments I've heard:

• My child's teacher assigns the same homework every day for the whole school year.  Isn't that a bit redundant?  What can I do about it?
• Should I be worried that my child went from B+ in math D- in one term?  What should I do about it?
• I'm so offended that my child's teacher asked me to volunteer in the classroom!  Doesn't she know I have a baby at home?
• The teacher gave my child a C+ in reading.  Now she'll be 'labelled' for the rest of her school life.  Should I complain to the principal?
• The new principal is a total jerk!  She yelled at me because my child has been late 60 times.  She needs to get over it.
• Can I tell the principal that I don't want D_____ in my child's class again this year?  Two years of the entire class being subjected to his tantrums is enough.  I mean, I get it that he's Special Needs, but doesn't my child deserve some attention?
• Am I allowed to tell the school that I won't be making my child do homework?
• Am I allowed to send my child to school every other day?

I genuinely have sadness in my heart when I hear about these problems and complaints.  I listen.  I empathize.  I explain school board policies or the laws under The Education Act of Ontario.  Often I defend the teacher, who is simply a servant of the system and doesn't really call the shots at all.  Rarely, I offer advice.  Never, can I solve the problem.

Friends, the problem with the public education system isn't The Problem.  The System is the The Problem.

Every scenario described above can be reduced to this:

• I'm not happy with the status quo.  How do I change the status quo?

Friends, you cannot change the status quo.  You can only reject it.

There is no other solution.  The status quo is not a lot of small problems that all need individual solutions.  No.  The status quo is an institution that is destroying the joy of children and robbing them of their freedom.  An institution is what it is;  it is unchangeable.

We cannot seek to change the institution--the status quo--by asking how to get the teacher to give less homework or more homework or by having more bake sales or fewer bake sales.  Those are the wrong questions.

The question to ask is this:
If I don't like the public education system, do I have to use it?
No, friends, you do not.

You are a consumer.  Public education is a product.  If you don't like the product, stop using it.

If you (and enough other people) reject the status quo, it will cease to exist.  But what will replace it? you ask.  You don't need to know the answer to that question because nothing can replace it until it is gone.  It cannot be tweaked into improvement;  it can only be rejected and replaced.

You do not have to choose to accept the status quo.
I reject it.  And I have no regrets.

******************************************
Tomorrow:  School will not solve your child's problems

I Know What You're Doing for "Back-to-School" (that I'm not doing)

Just two more weeks of summer!  Yup!  And I know just what you're up to....

1.  You're shopping.
Isn't it amazing how the pencils that your child hasn't picked up in two months are now not appropriate for use and have to be replaced?  And the backpack that's been sitting in the closet since June is totally unacceptable, isn't it?  You'll be buying another one.  And obviously you're replacing all your plastic containers for sending lunches because your child will probably never eat the carrot sticks that you pack in them anyway.

But most importantly, you're buying clothes, right?  Someday I'll have to wrap my head around the way that all the kids here in Southern Ontario (where the weather is more or less the same in June as it is in September) need all their clothes replaced before they can head off to school.  Do school kids save all their growing for July and August?  They must, otherwise why would they all need new clothes and shoes after just two months?  Lucky for me that my kids still fit into the clothes they were wearing at the beginning of the summer.  I'm saving a lot of money!

2.  You're worrying.
You're worrying about whether that bully from last  year will be in your child's class again this year.  You're worrying that your child is not keeping up with her peers academically and the school is going to ask you to put her in a Special Education class.  You're worried that your child's teacher won't get along with him.  You're worried that your child won't make any friends.  You're worried that the new principal is a control freak and will limit the influence of the parent council.  You're worried that your child's new clothes aren't as expensive as what the other kids will have.  You're worried that the teacher is going to ask you to volunteer in your child's classroom when you just don't have time.  You're worried that your child is experiencing anxiety about the start of school.  Yup, you're worrying.

Want to know what I'm worrying about?  I'm worrying that the raccoons are going to eat the tomatoes in my garden before I get a chance to pick them.

3.  You're getting back into the 'routine'.
You're getting the kids to bed earlier and earlier and getting them up in the morning earlier and earlier because you MUST be ready to tackle that routine by the time school starts. 

And it makes sense, you know, because if you knew that you were going to jail in two weeks you would DEFINITELY spend your last two weeks of freedom PRACTICING how to be in jail.  Any reasonable person would want to be prepared.  Of course.

We have a routine, too.  After supper we ride our bikes until the street lights come on and then we come in the house and eat Ontario-grown watermelon and homemade bread with fresh homemade Ontario-peach jam.  We hit the pillows around 10:30 pm and the kids wake up at 9am.  Gawd, it's a rough routine, I tell ya!

4.  You're reminding everyone that time is running out.
You're cramming in those trips to the zoo and the beach and to Grandma's house that you've been trying to get to all summer.  You're telling the kids to 'enjoy their freedom' because it's going to end soon.  You're turning off the TV and sending everyone to bed.  You're putting the kids on their bicycles and sending them out to ride because YOU KNOW that they won't be getting much exercise once school starts.

My time is running out too:  I haven't put in nearly enough hours laying on the beach.  I have GOT to get some more time in the sand before the snow falls.  Maybe I'll drag the kids down to the waterfront tomorrow....if they aren't too busy chasing the chickens and racing their bicycles.

5.  You're counting down the days.
Sing it with me, friends:  It's the most wonderful time of the year.....That's right, just 17 more days of having to deal with your children 7 days a week.  It's OK.  You can admit it.  You are so RELIEVED to get the kids out of the house to school!  You are so tired of the fighting and the whining and the cleaning up and the fighting and the whining and the cleaning up!  It is just so. much. easier. when someone else can entertain the kids all day.  After all, those teachers better earn their pay cheques!

I'm counting down the days too!  I'm practically GIDDY thinking about all the places my children and I can enjoy now that everybody else's kids will be back in school in just 17 days!  Toronto Zoo, here we come!

**************
Did I forget anything?  Is there anything else you're doing (or NOT doing) before Labour Day?

The One where I get Really Critical of Other Parents {In my neighbourhood}

We live in an affordable middle-class neighbourhood.  By 'affordable' I mean 'low-end.'  Most of the houses are bungalows, built post-war.  A few have been turned into two-storey houses.  There are lots of stay-at-home-mothers in my neighbourhood because families can afford to live here with just one professional income.  But there are also lots of two-income families, empty-nesters and retirees.

I'm pretty well-known in my neighbourhood.  We play in the front yard a lot, we are frequently at the local playgrounds and green spaces and I take my children out for walks and bike-rides multiple times daily.  I guess you say we are 'high profile' but only because we are around all the time.

But even though everyone seems to know 'of' me, I am really on the outside looking in.  I'm fine with that.  I chose this life--Parenting against the Mainstream--and I accept that it makes me left out of the dominant culture in which I reside.  I don't stand around the playground with the moms who are complaining about their babies STILL not sleeping through the night.  I'm not behind the school with the moms who can't express enough their RELIEF that their youngest is finally in kindergarten.  I don't fit in with them, and I don't WANT to fit in.

But from my place on the outside I certainly have an interesting perspective.  Here are some questions that I would love to ask some of my mainstream neighbours.

1.  Does getting married mean that the wife must give the control of her uterus over to her husband?
There are three different mothers in my neighbourhood who have told me that they would LOVE to have a third baby but their husbands say absolutely not.  And there is another mother who is obviously overwhelmed by her two children and she can hardly organize getting one kid to school and one to pre-school (although she doesn't have a job), yet her husband is all gung-ho to have a huge family and so they're expecting a third baby this fall.  I don't get it.  The decision to have more children should be agreed upon by both parents.

2.  Why do you call yourself a 'stay-at-home mom' if all you ever do is run around?
There are mothers on my street who drive by my house 6 times a day.  Sometimes with their kids, sometimes not.  In fact, I once asked one of my neighbours (a mother of 3) whether she would like to stay home if her husband could provide for the family.  She said, "Oh, I'd love to quit my job.  But I could never sit around at home all day with the kids.  I'd take courses and go to the gym."  I don't get it. 

Well, actually, I do understand that not all mothers are content to be home with their children.  There are some people who are genuinely able to be better parents in just 4 hours a day than they would if they were with their kids for 14 hours daily.  But I don't understand all the running around--to activities, to the school, to daycare, to the grocery store (every day!?).  I guess I just don't have a 'car mentality'.  And I guess that for me, the value of being home with my kids is that I'm not always dropping them off at different locations.

3.  If you are constantly fighting with the school system, then why do you send your children to school?
Yeah, this really confuses me.  We live in one of the best places in the world to homeschool--the laws protect us and there are resources widely available.  Why would parents fight with the school about everything from homework to vending machines to bullying to playground equipment when they could just keep their kids out of school?

4.  Are you completely unaware of all the mainstream parenting advice in every mainstream media?
All three of the mainstream publications I read (Maclean's magazine, The Toronto Star and Today's Parent Magazine) are full of advice for mainstream parents, not to mention the advice people get from their doctors and what they see on TV ads.  So for example, parents are constantly being told how to prevent/fix childhood obesity:  walk to school, spend time outdoors, have more family activities like biking, etc.  Yet there are many, many parents in my neighbourhood who always drive their children to school (less than 300 meters).  And the children never play in their yards.  And the parents never take them to the playground.  Do these parents think that the school provides adequate physical activity?  Not even close.

And here's another piece of mainstream advice you've probably heard about:  babies need 'tummy time' to prevent their heads from getting a flat spot.  Well, those of us who use carriers and who don't leave our babies in carseats for 8+ hours daily don't have to worry about that problem.  Yet in spite of all the warnings, I see parents whose babies spend hours and hours in strollers (the kind that hold the carseat) and guess what?  Their babies have flat heads!

How is it possible that the mainstream media with the mainstream advice for mainstream parents is not getting through to these parents?

***************
OK, that's it.  End of rant.
I'll be more positive tomorrow.

What IS and ISN'T Reading

Like just about everything that makes up the artificial world of modern schooling, READING has been completely misunderstood and then fabricated into an activity that barely resembles what it is really all about.  If you learned to read at school, I would challenge you to contemplate and compare the READING that you did in your school days to the reading that you do now as an adult.

Reading is not a performance.  When was the last time that someone gave you a challenging piece of writing that you had never seen before, asked you to read it aloud, and then critiqued and evaluated your performance?  If you are an adult, the answer would be "I can't remember."  If you are a child between 5 and 18 years of age, the answer would be "Everyday.  Or at least a few times a week."  What an unnecessary stress for a child!  And what does it prove?

A few years ago we were at a wedding where Partner-Guy was the MC.  One of the ushers in the wedding party wanted to tell a story about when he had first met the bride but he was nervous about going to the microphone.  So Partner-Guy wrote out the story for him and the usher practised it a few times.  Then he went to the microphone......and we all held our breath in utter embarrassment for him as he stumbled through the reading of the very story that he had just talked about with a friend.

Can that guy read?  OF COURSE!  He reads the newspaper everyday, he accesses information online, he reads the directions on any number of things.  Can he read aloud in public?  Apparently not.  Public read-alouds do not prove whether or not a child OR adult can read.

Reading is not a re-tell.  Sometimes I read something in The Toronto Star or in Maclean's magazine that I want to share with Partner-Guy.  And often while I am telling him about what I read he asks "Is that what the article said or is that your interpretation?"  Or he says, "I don't get it.  Did you leave out something?"  So even though I am an articulate, intelligent adult with multiple University degrees, re-telling what I have read does not prove that I can read.  It only proves that certain details of what I have read stay with me.  And in re-telling, I still bring my own interpretation.

Reading is not opinion-forming.  Remember the usher I mentioned above?  One time he and I were discussing a book we had both read about Sir Wilfrid Laurier (the 7th Prime Minister of Canada, 1896-1911).  He disagreed with me about the reason why Laurier's government was defeated prior to World War I.  The fact that he and I each formed opinions about what we had read does not prove that either of can read.  And our differing opinions do not prove that one of us can read but the other can't.

Reading is not a writing exercise.  Recently Partner-Guy was administering the standardized test for Ontario Grade 3 students at the school where he works.  The students were given a story about an old woman who lived near the sea and witnessed a shipwreck during a storm.  She went to the beach and built a huge fire to guide the sailors toward the shore and she even swam into the water to help rescue some men. 

The students were asked How was the old woman a hero?  Give details from the story.  One boy wrote "The woman lived alone.  The beach was dark.  Even the cabin-boy was rescued."  You are probably thinking that none of the boy's answers prove that the old woman was a hero.  He would be given a 'D' for his answer.  But the problem is with the question itself.  The boy gave details from the story, thus fulfilling the part of the question that stuck in his brain when he went to write his answer on the test paper.  Does that mean he can't read?  OF COURSE NOT!  But when his parents and teachers see the grade of 'D' for reading, they will think that it means that he cannot read.  He will be labelled and remediated.  He will believe that reading is hard for him.  He will see himself as not being as smart as other kids.

And all because someone who doesn't know him judged that his written answer to a poorly written question proves that he didn't understand the story.  Nuts, eh?

So what is reading?  I'm glad you stayed with me long enough to ask. 

Reading is when your eyes and your past experiences work together to form meaning from symbols.  Reading is meaningful only when it creates meaning for the person who is reading.  Coerced reading is not meaningful.  Bored reading is not meaningful.  Creating meaning from reading is a unique process for every person.  If you and I both read the same thing but learn different things it only proves that we have different experiences through which to filter what we read.

So how do we know if kids can read if we don't find a way to test them?
Easy.  We all read for different reasons.  We read the directions that come with our IKEA furniture so that we can built it correctly.  We read the ingredients on the loaf bread to see if it contains things that we want to eat.  We read a novel for entertainment.  Reading is purposeful.  For children it is no different.  We know that children can read when they do things because of reading that they couldn't have done without reading.

Anna (7 yrs) has never read anything aloud to me, yet I've noticed that she can now do some of the activities in her little workbooks without asking me to read for her. She does things that serve a purpose for her, not because I want her to show me whether or not she can do it.  Similarly, I'll know that she can do alphabetization when she can look up our number in the phonebook.  I'll know that she can do math in her head when she calculates her change at the toystore.

Reading is a personal, productive activity.  Children who grow up in a literate culture where they observe reading for a variety of purposes are going to learn to read AND are going to want to read increasingly complex things as their lives and ideas expand and mature.

There is no test required.

Unschooling and Unjobbing

Yesterday I wrote about how I hired Steve Biggs, a Toronto writer, horticulturalist and gardening coach, to help me maximize the vegetable-growing potential of  my postage-stamp backyard.

As inevitably happens when an adult notics that my school-age children are at home in the middle of the morning, Steve asked me if they were in school.  I said "No.  We live and learn together all day."  He said, "You homeschool?"  I said, "No, we Unschool."  I'm not sure what he thought of that answer.

At the end of our session I asked him if he was able to do this work full-time.  He replied that he was, in fact, home full-time with his three children (only one of whom is old enough for school) but that he has a babysitter two mornings per week so that he can do home visits.

I said, "Oh, you're an unjobber.  Just like we're unschoolers."

I love that word:  UNJOBBER.  I didn't invent it, although I wish I had.  I've seen UNJOBBING defined as pulling all areas of your life into alignment with your personal values and living more simply and consciously.

I would define UNJOBBING as requiring two elements:

1. Being able to think outside the predefined idea of a 9-to-5 work day and a 40 hour work week.
2. Making money doing what you love to do anyway.

It's interesting how many people have asked us about how we can keep unschooling if our kids want to go to university someday.  I mention that because the question is based on two incorrect assumptions.  First, that you have to graduate from highschool in order to attend university, which is not true.  Second, that the only definition of success is to obtain a degree and use it to make a high level of income. 

Well, that's not my definition of success.  Partner-Guy and I agree that the greatest success we wish for our children is that they will discover what they love to do, find a way to make money doing it, and be content in a lifestyle that they can afford based on following their passions.  We admit freely that neither of us have managed to achieve success on those terms.  When I was an elementary school teacher, I did not love teaching although I did love being a teacher.  (I was great at planning and organizing and doing paperwork, but being with the students actually got in the way of the parts of the job I really enjoyed!)  Partner-Guy goes to work everyday only out of his sense of duty to provide for us at the lifestyle we have become accustomed to.  If we could see fit to adjust to a different lifestyle (read: poorer) he could quit his job and become an UNJOBBER, doing something he actually enjoys.

What really appeals to me about unschooling our children is the way that it leads directly into unjobbing.  People who have been through the public education system are processed to become 9-to-5ers.  From the age of 4, public schoolers are trained to be subservient to a boss.  It's a wonder any of them go on to become entrepreneurs and small business owners.  By contrast, unschooled children will have a life of continuity:  having followed their passions as children they will continue to do so as adults.  There is no graduation day where suddenly they are adults and they have to find a job and earn an income.  They are free to pursue their dreams from the day they are born. 

Degrees don't mean much if you hate your job.  I have dreams of unjobbing in a way that has nothing to do with the three degrees I obtained.  And maybe Partner-Guy will get to follow his dreams too.  It's not too late!

What would you do if you could follow your passion and make money doing it?

Time for a Snow Culture

Yesterday, amid a frenzy of media reports of an impending snow storm, Chris Spence, the Director of Education for the Toronto District School Board, closed the schools.  It was Toronto's first Snow Day since 1999.

The uproar was immediate.  Parents, confused and furious, flooded his office with phone calls.  He was there, fielding phone calls and reporters, his two children (aged 9 and 11) beside him.

Responding to critics he said:

It's like anything else.  You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't, so you might as well hang on to what you believe in.

Student and staff safety trump everything!  To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing and be nothing.
Source:  The Toronto Star

That parents were angry about having to keep their children home or find alternative care for them proves two things.

1.  It's Time for a Snow Culture
Weather happens.  Parents know it, school boards know it and employers know it.  If children stay home because of school closures many parents face hard decisions.  Take the day off and lose a day's pay?  Use up a sick day or a vacation day?  Leave the children with someone who you maybe don't completely trust?  Take the kids to work with you?  Work from home?

Everyone's options are different.  So maybe the government needs to step in here.  Maybe the government needs to set a standard about what will constitute a Snow Day (factoring in wind speed, temperature and snow accumulation) and declare that all employers must provide for two paid snow days per winter if necessary.  Yes, there are some essential services, but maybe hospitals and transportation providers and other services could create a reasonable contingency plan.  It could work, with a little planning and compromise.

The critics would say What about the effect on the economy?  Well, what about the effect on the economy of people trying to carry on as usual in spite of the weather?  A couple of years ago a woman was travelling the 401 with her children during a heavy snowfall, trying to get to work and school.  She stopped under an overpass to clear the snow off her vehicle and was struck and killed by a snowplow as her children watched in horror.  I would venture to say that her family doesn't give a damn about the effect on the economy.

If we as a society believe that safety matters more than money then it is time for us to act like it.  Loss of potential revenue is unimportant compared to loss of life.  It's time to recognize our limitations.  Business leaders and government need to say that it's OK for staff to stay home when the weather is dangerous.

2.  Schools Really are all about Babysitting
All the parents who were angry about the school closures yesterday had a single complaint:  What are we supposed to do with our children?  D'uh.....how about spend the day with them?  Were all the whining parents scheduled to perform open heart surgery yesterday?  How important to their jobs do they really think they are?

I get it that some parents would lose income by not working yesterday.  And some parents work in situations were it would be inappropriate to bring their children along, but the majority of parents can probably use a sick day or a vacation day and stay home.  If that is the case, then it really just comes down to a question of selfishness, doesn't it?  You'd rather save those days for when you want them rather than spontaneously take a day to spend with your children.

Primarily, parents need school for babysitting so that they can go to work.  The fact that parents are unable to figure out alternatives to school on a Wednesday sort of proves this.  In fact, this inability to solve the 'child-care problem' is exactly what school is all about.  School teaches people not to think for themselves, to follow along with what everyone else is doing, to keep a strict routine and never deviate from it.  Going to school makes both children and adults into helpless marionettes controlled by the economics of modern culture. 

It is the people who didn't conform to the status quo who weren't scrambling for child-care yesterday:  families with a stay-at-home parent, self-employed parents, multi-generational families under one roof, unjobbers and entrepreneurs.    And yes, some parents dropped the kids off to Grandma or had the nanny show up as usual yesterday.  But parents don't have to be rich (or lucky) to have alternatives to sending kids to school and daycares.  They just have to be creative and pro-child, two things a school can never be.

If Chris Spence were to read this post I would want him to know that I totally respect his decision to close the schoosl yesterday.  But I would also want to him to know that there is nothing he could do to get me to enroll my kids in one of his schools.  For us, everyday is a snow day.

Yes, Homeschool in Ontario is Legal

I am posting this information for a friend who is considering taking her child out for school for half of the instructional day. I'm incredibly excited that someone I know is attempting something outside the 'normal' way of sending a child to school. 

But as an aside, I must mention that many people who have learned that we are homeschooling have asked "Is that legal?" or "Is that allowed?". I always respond with, "Yes, Canada really is a wonderful country of great freedoms, isn't it? Free education for some, free from education for others."

Actually, the law in Ontario states that school attendance is mandatory. However, exceptions do exist. The Education Act of Ontario specifically mentions 'instruction at home' as a legitimate reason why a child may be excused from school.

Subsection 21
When attendance excused


(2) A person is excused from attendance at school if,

(a) the person is receiving satisfactory instruction at home or elsewhere;

For many years The Ontario Federation of Teaching Parents asked the government to clarify their relationship with homeschoolers. Unbeknown to me, there are places around the province where homeschoolers are or have been regularly harassed by the local school board authorities. Eventually, the government of Ontario created a memorandum to help school board officials recognize the rights of homeschoolers and to know the limits of their authority. The result is Policy/Program Memorandum No. 131 which was issued in 2002.  (A person wishing to withdraw their child from a public school would do well to read the entire document. It is not particularly long.)

Parents who decide to provide home schooling for their child(ren) should notify the school board of their intent in writing. Parents should provide the name, gender, and date of birth of each child who is receiving home schooling, and the telephone number and address of the home.

This section pertains primarily to families who are withdrawing a child from school. Families who have never enrolled a child in public schools are not required to notify the local school board of their intention to homeschool.  This is an important distinction.

Procedures for School Boards

When parents give a board written notification of their intent to provide home schooling for their child, the board should consider the child to be excused from attendance at school, in accordance with subsection 21(2), clause (a), of the Education Act.  The board should accept the written notification of the parents each year as evidence that the parents are providing satisfactory instruction at home.

This sentence is perhaps the most important part of PPM 131 because it frees the majority of parents from further contact with the school board and other authorities of the Ministry of Education.  It means that the school board and its agents are not permitted to ask how or why the parent intends to homeschool the child.

Although most parents are unaware, children of any age are permitted to attend public schools on a part-time basis.  'Part-time' is considered to be less than 210 minutes of instruction time per day.  When I was a teacher I was unaware that part-time attendance was entirely permissible and I wonder if today's principals are similarly uninformed.  (PPM 131) states the following regarding part-time enrollment:

Funding for Part-Time Attendance

The Ministry of Education provides funding to boards for students who attend school on a part-time basis. The per-pupil grants are prorated according to the amount of time the student is in attendance at the school.


Enrolment Registers


A school will not record a child who is receiving home schooling on a full-time basis in the enrolment register for full-time day school students. If, however, a student is receiving some instruction at a school operated by a board, the student's enrolment for this instruction will be recorded in the appropriate register.

So if I a child has been attending school, the parent will need to prepare a letter for the principal informing him/her that the child will be withdrawn from school for part of the school day.  I would suggest that the letter be very clear as to the preference for attendance.  For example, you should indicate that the child will attend mornings only or afternoons only or Mondays and Tuesdays only or whatever is going to work best for your child.


Circumstances do exist which permit the school board to investigate whether or not a parent is actually providing for the education of the child at home.  I think it is important to know the reasons why an investigation might be launched so that the parent can avoid the unnecessary intrusion into their lives.

Reasons for an Investigation



As stated above, it is the responsibility of school boards to excuse children from attendance at school when home schooling is provided, in accordance with subsection 21(2), clause (a), of the Education Act. However, where a board has reasonable grounds to be concerned that the instruction provided in the home may not be satisfactory, the board should investigate the matter.

The following is a list of some of the reasons that may give a board cause to investigate a particular instance of home schooling:


refusal of a parent to notify the board in writing of the intent to provide home schooling


a credible report of concern by a third party with respect to the instruction being provided in the home


evidence that the child was removed from attendance at school because of ongoing conflicts with the school, not for the purpose of home schooling


a history of absenteeism by the child prior to the parent's notifying the board of the intent to provide home schooling

The first, third and fourth reasons for an investigation can reasonably be controlled by the parent.  In other words, don't fight with the school about something or keep your child at home for a while and then withdraw your child from the school.  A parent in Toronto recently faced legal action when he withdrew his disabled son from school after months of fighting to get proper support for the child while at school.  So if you intend to withdraw your child after a period of regular schooling, don't get involved in a conflict first.
 
The risk that a third party might report you to school for lack of satisfactory instruction is always present.  Whenever a neighbour or someone who has sporatic contact with my family (such as the dentist or the mailman or the gymnastics coach) asks about the schooling of my children I always let them know that I was a teacher for 10 years so I know what to do.  This leads the prying person to believe that I am replicating school at home.  I'm OK with that if that's what it takes to keep people out of my business.  Parents should be careful who they tell about the details of their family's private life.
 
The PPM 131 goes on to give instructions about the type of questions that a parent should be prepared to answer should an investigation be launched into their homeschooling practices.  I won't even bother to start a tirade on how ironic it is that a school board official has the power to decide if a parent is providing satisfactory instruction--in most cases, if the school system were capable of providing satisfactory instruction the parents would send the child to school, wouldn't they?  
There are instructions to the investigator to be aware that different styles of instruction exist, but there is also a checklist of specific things to look for (such as evidence that a variety of subjects are being taught.)  I think my perfect job would be as a homeschool investigator.  I could really help parents as opposed to trying to prosecute them or force their children to attend school. Having an intimate knowledge of the public school system as well as experience as a homeschooling parent might turn out to be the perfect combination to get into a new career someday. 

 

A Homeschool Morning (and a few other relevant comments)

This morning we didn't wake up until 8am. Partner-Guy had already left for work and Anna commented when we came out to the living room that it was already "really light outside". Holly and Jasmine are just getting over colds and it was nice to sleep a little later than usual, which seemed to benefit everyone including me.

Anna and Holly had slept in clean clothes (they like to be ready to start the day as soon as they get out of bed and they consider pyjamas to add an extra and unnecessary step) and Jasmine helped herself to some semi-clean clothes out of the laundry basket and got herself dressed. (She prefers to sleep naked, a preference she has had since she was about 6 months old when her eczema started to appear all over her body.)

The last few nights at bedtime I have been making up ridiculous stories for Anna and Holly, usually including many of their outlandish suggestions. Anna had suggested last night that we should make one of the stories into a book so this morning she immediately set about finding a sharp pencil, assorted markers and pencil crayons and a new little unlined notebook. Then she and Holly helped me remember one of our made-up stories (about 2 princesses: one likes to get dirty and one thinks dirt is "Eeeewwww!") and I wrote it down in the notebook, one sentence on each page.

Then Anna and Holly sat beside each other and shared the job of illustrating the book. No fighting. No competition. No criticism of each other's drawings. It was quite a family moment.

Meanwhile, Jasmine got out the playdough and I entertained her at the table and kept her from swiping the markers. When some of us got hungry, I found that Partner-Guy had forgotten his lunch in the fridge, so Holly, Jasmine and I shared it for breakfast.

When the illustrations were finished Anna and Holly disappeared into the bedroom with their Barbies while Jasmine and I cleaned up the playdough, vacuumed, read about 25 books (at her level, of course), loaded the dishwasher and did my 20-minute workout. (I use a DVD that has a gentle toning/stretching/yoga style program that gets progressively more intense.)

It was 11:30 before Anna and Holly were ready to take a break from their make-believe Barbie world. I read a dozen-or-so books to Holly while Anna and Jasmine played a running-through-the-room-and-jumping-off-the-couch game, then we all ate lunch and suddenly the morning was over and it was time for Jasmine to take a nap.

A mundane morning, you think? Well, I recount the details of our morning only to be able to now comment that it's a great life. Homeschooling is neither a burden nor a hassle. I am not Supermom. I am just going along with the kids and doing what suits them. The housework gets done in bits and pieces, each child gets whatever individual attention she requires each day and there is no schedule to be followed. Everyone benefits.

I think the part of homeschooling-in-an-unschooling-way that seems to worry some of my critics is that the content of the children's learning is determined by them and not by me. People are so convinced that the North American model of formal education is the only way that children learn anything, that they can't possibly imagine that children can have meaningful, interesting lives without their days being scheduled into little blocks of time dedicated to topics that an adult has decided is important. The extent to which my children already know about Canadian history and geography, the water cycle, weather, healthy living, animal habitats and the food chain and even their literacy and numeracy is because of their interests and natural curiosity, not because I have decided what they will learn and when.

I can certainly see with my girls that learning is a cultural phenomenon, unique to each family and community. If we made our living as dairy farmers (as my parents did), my girls would have a big understanding of the life cycle of cows and the planting of crops. If we ran a landscaping business, they'd know about trees and flowers and grades and soil. If we belonged to a church, it would form part of their community and they would learn there, too. Because we are literate, environmentally-minded, world-issue-conscious and committed to healthy living, our children will have those ideas as part of their culture. And because we live in a fast-paced, ethnically diverse city, they will have access to more ideas which will form their complete culture.

I think that culture is incredibly important in the education of children. (And by education I basically mean learning.) Culture determines priorities, perceptions and core values. I have read about a group of Mennonites or Hutterites who formed an isolated community in which to live within their beliefs without outside influence. Within two generations they were completely illiterate. But I bet their children could tend the animals, plant crops, bake bread, butcher a pig and make cheese. They probably understood weather patterns and the habits of wild animals, too. It goes to show that priorities determine education, as established by the culture of the community.

On Monday morning the principal at Partner-Guy's school made a school-wide announcement asking the students and staff to observe a moment of silence to remember the victims of the earthquake in Haiti and to be conscious of how many Haitian children are now without food, water and schools. Partner-Guy almost choked on his coffee when he heard her say that. As if schools are as important as food and water? And what about the Haitian children who are now without parents? Not as important as being without schools, apparently.

So why is it that whenever humanitarian aid is offered to impoverished regions, immediately teams of Westerners are sent to establish schools in the typical style of North America? Wouldn't it make sense to let the community establish its own educational priorities as reflected by their history, lifestyle and core values? I remember watching the Oprah special when she went to South Africa and built schools. Every child showed up for school wearing an American-style uniform and sat in desks in neat rows and wrote in notebooks and studied from textbooks. I couldn't believe it. Was she trying to make them into Americans? Just because the children study South African history, or read a novel that offers the South African version of To Kill a Mockingbird, does that mean their true educational needs are being met? And meanwhile, they are removed from the work of their parents for 8 hours a day and they lose the opportunity to learn meaningful life skills from them. I'm still confused.

I'm not anti-education. Really, I'm in favour of access to education for all. For example, preventing girls from attending school in Afghanistan is clearly just one more way that women are oppressed in that country. And literacy is a basic life skill that everyone should attain. Throughout the world ample evidence exists that access to education opens doors for people who would otherwise live generation after generation in perpetual poverty. But why has the word school come to mean just one style of education all over the world? ( It's like the word milk automatically connotes cow's milk, not soy milk or human milk even.)

This issue of forcing North American style schooling on the people of developing nations is one of the things that prevents me from giving to humanitarian groups such as Oxfam or Compassion or WorldVision. Instead, I keep my giving local by handing my pocket change to the homeless or panhandlers I see. I can't help it that my tax dollars fund a system of education that I don't endorse. (My tax dollars also fund a healthcare system that is wasteful and misguided, but I can't cover everything in one post.) But I can question where money is spent if I am going to make a donation to provide humanitarian aid overseas.

And I can remember everyday how fortunate I am to be raising my daughters in a time and place where I can not only ask these questions, but also follow my heart with regards to our priorities and core values.