The Homeschool Journey

A Computer for an 11 Year Old?

Here is a slightly reworked post from the Waldorf at Home discussion forum. The person who wrote in had an almost 11 year old son and her relatives were suggesting they buy him a laptop for his 11th birthday. What did I think about this?.... Read on!

 

You know what I'm going to say..... DON'T DO IT!!! It will completely change the dynamics in your house in terms of learning. He'll want to type things and not handwrite them.... he'll pester for Internet use...and pester and pester if he's anything at all like 99% of children on earth....all computers come with Encarta or similar so he'll want to use it to look up info for projects instead of books....and if it's a so-called educational thing it will come with so-called educational software which he will want to use....

And the Encarta/Wikipedia thing is a real problem, I can tell you - I (and my colleagues) have a lot of trouble in high school with my students limiting themselves solely to Wikipedia when doing reports. I think Wiki is great and I certainly use it all the time - but only as a key and a guide to deeper knowledge. It often helps me get started on my research and gives me ideas of what to do next - but it is a huge problem to get high school students to stretch and take things further. And I would say that it could be far worse if at 11 or 12 (how long will you hold out?!) a child starts to see Wiki etc as a source - THE source - of information.

There is PLENTY of time to learn all the skills he will need in high school. At the high school where I teach most of the kids enter 9th grade with no knowledge of computers either because their folks are back-to-the-land low tech types or Waldorf people (or both). Within days the kids have learned to set up MySpace things,  use Facebook, watch YouTube videos and can type and print out and e-mail....and use the internet. It takes no time at all to learn these things at that age. And in 3 or 4 years technology will have changed tremendously - the argument that "they need to learn when they're young" holds no water AT ALL in terms of computer technology. Never ever worry that you are holding your son back in terms of computer technology - he will learn easily when he needs to. He is of the computer age - and that is a wonderful thing. But not for children.

What he needs to learn is HOW to learn. How to be a thoughtful, creative, flexible person who has a large context of knowledge and experience so that when he hones things down and starts to specialize when he's older this will have a context. The broad knowledge from the Waldorf curriculum is one of THE best ways a child can learn to be a part of the world, with a historical context, with broad scientific and artistic knowledge, with an acquaintance with the myths, stories, history, literature, art and science of the world.... so that when he needs to find information on a computer and in his life when he's much older, he will know what to do with it and where it fits.

 

A lap top also brings special problems as it is transportable - many parents insist that a computer used by children be in a "public" space in the home. With a lap top it is both exhausitng and demoralizing - for both of you - to monitor where it is and how much a child is on it. We got our then 14 year old son a lap top when he started high school and the idea was that when he was at school all day he wouldn't be on it - he'd only have access to it for a couple of hours at home in the evening for homework. Well, he's returned to homeschooling - and there's the *%$$###!! lap top - in his room. Or there he is on the couch - on the lap top..... etc etc. We work hard at establishing limits for the computer - and that's ok, it's part of learning and our parenting of him. But I tell you, it gets exhausting. If the darn thing was a desk top in our home office, for instance, there would be nautral boundaries to its use which would make things easier!

 

And he's 14 - not just turned 11. Big difference! And life changes completely for a child once he gets one of these things. Do you really think he will let you rest if his friend is designing web pages as you say?

And because you know me,  Forum Member X, I have ranted here a bit without restraint - you know that I say this with passion but gently and with the knowledge that this is a tough choice for you to make - not easy at all. And if you do get the computer, well, there you go! That's your choice.

 

Here are a couple of wonderful articles about computers and children to read - and to print off and hand to friends and relatives worried that computerless children will somehow be at a disadvantage:

 

Fool's Gold

Meetings with a Snake

 

Then there's The Future Does Not Compute, a wonderful book by Steve Talbot of NetFuture , a e-mail newsletter dedicated to "addressing especially those deep levels at which we half-consciously shape technology and are shaped by it." According to Peter J. Denning of the New York Times it is a largely "undiscovered national treasure." The book is available to read online.

Helping Little Ones with Manners

Here's another reworked post from our Waldorf at Home discussion forum.... If this is a topic which interests you, do consider purchasing my talks on Good Manners and on Talking Pictorially to Young Children for more practical help with this! The following is my response to a post from a member who asked a number of questions about what she should expect from her children (under 5 years of age) in various social situations.

 

 

I think it's right to want one's children to be pleasant to be with - and I wish all parents thought about that! There are a lot of folks out there who seem to think there's no problem when their children are anti social - either thinking that it doesn't matter or that "that's what kids are like." Neither is true. All children like to be pleasant to be with - we are, after all, social beings. But it takes a long term for children to learn how to be social - and longer for some than for others!

However.... everyone has different parameters here - and that's where the confusion can start. I think that tiny children who are shy should not be expected to say thank you etc - but that it is quite right for the parent to say it to the person for them. As they get a little older, you could start to whisper to them (perhaps bending down to them "shall I thank Granma for the present or will you?" Or - "Let's thank Granma together" and playfully trying to do it.) Sensitive adults should see that your children are shy - but I do think it's important that they are seen as participating in good manners in some way - it could be that you pick each one up as you thank the person - they are thus participating via you.

I think the whole kissing and hugging issue is very sensitive and very difficult. Part of me (despite a part Jewish part Italian very huggy and kissy family) thinks it's awful to submit children to that ordeal. On the other hand, on the rare occasions when I brought my sons (brought up in the UK where people stand about a mile apart when expressing gladness to see each other) to NYC to see the family, I figured it wouldn't kill them to be kissed and hugged and thrown around and generally passed from hand to hand by my enthusiastic relatives. OK - they were a bit shocked by the end of it - but they survived - and they learned something about the other side of their family.

So there's a lot of cultural issues here - very hard to navigate.

As for the play thing.... stop talking and start doing!! You need to keep them fairly close during those times that such squabbles are most likely to develop and get right in there and show them how to play. Remove the toy from the offender. Give it back to the one who had it stolen. Take the offender away from the situation and go peel carrots with her in the kitchen. Accompany her back and hand her a new toy - if she insists on the old toy, take her back to the kitchen. If she cries and screams - let her. It is ok for children to cry. There's a bit of an AP (attachment parenting) thing against crying which sneaks in, inappropriately, to the post-baby years. Letting a baby cry it out in a crib - I also could never do that and don't think it's healthy. But as the child grows, if she needs to cry out of frustration or anger, that's ok. She has no other way to express herself - and does not need another way until she grows into an ability to start to express her feelings - and that kind of self awareness should not come at such an early age. Many of us fear our children's strong emotions, feeling somehow we are failing them if they rage or cry. Thus so many parents try their hardest to teach their children various skills so that they can speak and name their feelings. But I would say that this is actually far more harmful than letting the child cry or rage. By bringing her precociously into self awareness (which is  what one needs in able to name ones feelings) then one is shortening the pre intellectual stage of consciousness of the young child, the stage of oneness where there is no true sense of "I". These are the years of working and learning via the physical body - and physical responses from the child such as crying and screaming are part of that.

As for the whole apologizing for hitting her sister thing, I would just say simply but firmly to the child in such situations "No - that's not ok." Remove her. Then later on, help her do something nice for her sister (redemption - always redemption). At 3 1/2 she is too young to do this on her own. So you say "We're going to draw a nice picture for your sister. She felt bad before when you hit her." No recriminations, no guilt, no therapy-speak, no fuss. Simple fact - this happened, this how we make it better. Even if she does not cooperate - you do it. You are still powerfully connected to your little ones and what you do influences them. You give the other child the picture in the "offender's " presence - and in her hearing say "This is a card from X. " You don't even need to explain. They know.

I think part of your quandary, Member X, might be a missing piece from the modeling/ discussion thing - it's the physical aspect. Little ones need to be picked up, handled, moved from one place to another, removed from situations, held when they scream etc etc. This is scary - and hard. But without it, one is forced into discussion with them - and we all know how useless that is. And you have discovered the limitations of modeling - it is important what we do, but when the child is in a state of anger, is out of herself, she can no longer copy our behavior. She needs the parent to provide a physical response.

__________________

The "S" Question

(This is from a thread from my discussion forum on that great homeschooling nemesis - the Question of Socialization! No matter what form of homeschooling one works with, the spectre of a poorly socialized child will haunt even the most confident of homeschoolers. Here are a few pithy thoughts of mine on this subject....)

 

I think there is an extraordinarily unbalanced perception in our society of how much socializing children need. And I think that this lurks in Waldorf circles too - it seems to me that the general (ie non Waldorf) homeschooling circles have this one about right! They often point out that children - especially little ones - need far less socializing than is normally expected in this day and in this country (and probably most other Western countries as well).

Human beings are not pack animals! Yes, we are social beings, but our primary and most important arena for socializing is the home. Little ones need mama - and dad and any other siblings - and occasional visits to this or that person and into the larger world - but until they can really play properly, ie have started to develop a sense of "I", they really don't need much. Even then, home is the most important place - and should, in my experience, be the main arena of life until  about the 9 year change. And if there are no siblings? I still think little ones do not need much other than their family.

Pretty bold, eh? This is my observation of children both who have this kind of life and those who don't. And it's my observation of my family, too.

This does not mean no play dates, being isolated and avoiding park days! It's a question of age and a question of balance. I think that until about 3, there is no need for more than occasional visits to play or regular play dates - yes, more can often work, but I would keep a close watch on the child's behavior. Many "issues" and "challenges" which arise at this time are nothing more than symptoms of a child with an overly busy, overly stimulating life.

From 4 on this can gradually increase. And (List Member X), looking at what you wrote, that is a pretty busy schedule to me! And it might be fine if the rest of your family life is very ordered, predictable and has strong rhythms and that, most importantly, you are not feeling stressed out by going here and there. With such young children, that could really effect them. (and no guilt intended!)

And I know that many of us go out a lot with our young children because being home all the time can at times be so lonely, boring and stressful (it can be - let's be brave and admit it!!) So sometimes we also have to do things to help ourselves as mothers so that in balance, the children will benefit (happy mom equals happy home). There's no one recipe for this. But I do know from many consultations with homeschoolers, that the more they cut back on commitments which took them out of the home, the more perceived problems with the children seemed to disappear - even if they didn't change anything else. That has been quite amazing and right across the board, something said by people with very peaceful calm home lives and those with hectic lives and no sense of rhythm.

Fourteen year old beaten to death

I'd like to pause a moment and send thoughts and prayers to the family of Martin Lee Anderson, a 14 year old boy who was filmed being kicked and beaten over a half an hour period by the guards at the "boot camp " where he was held. Martin died. A camp nurse observed the proceedings while they took place and the camp's security camera caught it on film. Martin died. The guards and the nurse walked free. Martin is not walking anywhere anymore. Apparently Martin had a form of sickle-cell anaemia that had not been known about. Perhaps if the guards had known they would have beaten him more gently.

 

The boy is dead, the family handed a bill for medical expenses and the fault apparently lies with the boy's genetic time-bomb. The guards and the nurse have not even received disciplinary measures - which would still be unbelievably patronizing to the family - but even that would somehow be something. The family's lawyer says "You kill a dog, you go to jail. You kill a little black boy and nothing happens."

 

I'm sure Martin Lee Anderson was a very difficult child - one doesn't end up in a boot camp for nothing.... yet.... can any of us with very difficult children imagine our beloveds winding up in a boot camp? And even, with a really generous stretch of the imagination, we can imagine our children had to go to one of these places - would we find it acceptable for him to have been beaten and abused in this way?  Murdered? Can we imagine into the pain of those parents, that family? Would we accept an excuse - "oh sorry, your child had something wrong with him so he died when we beat him. He would have just been beaten and lived through it otherwise." Just think of all the care we take with our own difficult children - didn't Martin deserve the same care and attention? But Martin was black, male and poor - three strikes in a society that fears such a combination. And add in any behavioral or learning challenges that he might have had.... well, now he's dead.

 

 

Supporting Family Farms

I live in what is called the Driftless Region of Wisconsin, a strange geographic anomaly that was bypassed by the glaciers that once covered the rest of North America. It is a rough land of ridges and valleys, rolling hills and thick forests. It is not an area conducive to large-scale industrial farming and this is why a number of Amish families moved here in the 70s, to find small farms which were not about to be bought out by corporations or which had already been ruined.

This area also attracted many "back to the land" people, some of whom became organic farmers. Small family farms, some conventional, some organic dotted the picture postcard perfect landscape of white farmhouses, red barns and happy cows grazing along ridges and river bottoms. This area soon became home to the largest concentration of organic farms outside California. It is home to Organic Valley, a major job provider in this otherwise impoverished area, the poorest county in Wisconsin.

Farming is hard work - physically, mentally, emotionally. A friend told me the other day of her hunt through the county looking for cabbages. Part of her crop had been wiped out by the recent floods. She makes her living by making sauerkraut (it's wonderful!) and she had bought a neighbor's cabbages and made a batch - but his variety was one she wasn't familiar with and her stock failed. This is her sole source of income.

Even when things go well - when cows don't get mastitis, when sheep stay they're put, when frosts stay away, when there's not too much snow (or too little) - farming is back-breaking, grinding work. It is also challenging, thrilling, satisfying and awe-inspiring. But it is hard and no one gets rich on a small family farm.

So when I look at the series of hits I see on this small but vitally important farming community, I get worried. And this summer into fall has seen one hit after another.

First is NAIS, the National Animal Identification Scheme, brainchild of the US Dept. of Agriculture and seemingly designed to close down small farms. Not only is it a potential trial run for the identity-tracking of people, but it is created to put the most amount of bureaucratic paperwork on owners of small flocks and herds.

Then came the possibility of our county's first factory-sized pig farm. The community sprang to action, asking for more information and more time but the machinations of vested interests and fear pushed the possibility of such an environmental and ethical horror to find a home here.

Next were the floods: when one lives in an area of ridges and valleys, one can be sure that the rivers run along the valleys and that that is where the best farmland is to be found. There are many dams in this area - but we also know that thoughtless damming of rivers can cause more problems than they solve, not least the spectacle of farmers and homesteaders living next to stressed dams wondering whether it is safe to remain. This area got hit pretty badly by the floods and many of our local family farms were hit the worst.

The latest hit has been the declaration by our local coal-fired gas plant in Genoa, right on the Mississippi, that it needs a new site to bury its coal ash and - hello! - you five families need to leave your farms as this is the site we've picked. One can only guess at the shock and horror experienced by these farmers, some of whom have lived on their farms for generations, to be told that their land has been chosen for a landfill. And what about nearby farms, some of which are organic farms with sensitive certification issues. We all know how many lies have been told about clean drinking water and soil.

Do these sound like NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) issues to you? Sure - the coal ash needs to be stored somewhere and factory farms ... nope, sorry, not going there. I eat only organic meat and see no need to torture animals for food. Not a NIMBY issue - the things just shouldn't exist at all.

However I do use electricity - my home is not off the grid. And until we as individuals and as a society find creative ways to generate enough clean energy for all, we will need to deal with the mess our power utilities produce. But does that give them the right to throw people off their property and to ruin the landscape for everyone? I refuse to believe  that there aren't better solutions, right now and not in the clean energy future.

So I write this to let you know about what is happening here and to say to each and every one of you - it is happening everywhere. We all want organic food for our families and it has to come from somewhere. These farms are delicate - a few hits and they disappear. Farms have gone under here.

The flooding is a local thing - but weather disasters happen everywhere and are possibly more severe now in many parts of the globe due to deforestation, overcrowding, soil erosion and other factors. It can threaten organic farms. And if, on top of that, farmers are expected to comply with bureaucratic excesses which benefit no one but big corporations and they also have to deal with whatever other environmental or economic horrors life throws at them, it will become too much. Farms close. And a beautiful piece of land which people cared for could be lost.

I write this to urge all of you who care about the earth and about the quality of life of not just our families but generations to come to find ways to support local family farms. Join CSAs. Urge your co-op to favor locally-produced food, even if it's not quite 'organic'. Keep an eye on zoning laws and state and federal (or national for those of you in other parts of the world) regulations that make life harder for organic and small family farms.

This is our food, our air, our soil, our water - do what you can to support local family farms!

A Change of Clothes

Earlier today I had a conversation with a client about Daena Ross' cd on the Twelve Senses (read my review here). This is an enormously important topic with important ramifications for the health of our children - and we will be having a study of the Twelve Senses led by yours truly starting on 29 October (2007)on my on line discussion forum (see the Christopherus homepage for more details about the forum).

 

Anyway.... we were talking about transitions and forms for her and her family of young children and I started to think about the fact that after we finished speaking I would make lunch for my husband and I - and that before I did this I would put on my apron. And so I began to tell her about when I wear my apron, how I used an apron when I was a Camphill housemother - and then expanded to talk about children and having clothes for them for various events - this is what led back to Daena Ross' talk.

 

Let me share here...

 

When I am doing Christopherus work, I just wear my normal clothes and I am totally focused on whatever task it is I have to hand. I might be doing research for a book; I might be writing a chapter; I might be writing here on my blog or contributing to the conversation on the forum; I might be talking to a client on the phone. I am in Christopherus work mode and that is what I am dressed for.

 

At around 3'o'clock I anticipate my youngest sons' arrival back from high school (my eldest will be upstairs studying for his British exams). I put my apron on. I am now in a different role - instead of walking past the dishes which need to be washed in the kitchen as I had earlier when I was in Christopherus mode and which I did not even flick my eye toward because they have nothing to do with Christopherus, I now take in the fact of those dishes and perhaps start to wash them. Or decide to do them later. But the point is, that now that I have my apron on, I am in the role to care for the house and for my family and that is where my awareness is. Christopherus is forgotten - I am now fully in the role as a homemaker.

 

By using an apron, I use a prop, as it were, to remind myself or bring attention to the various things I do in my life. Instead of going crazy trying to do everything at once, I can give different things the attention they need at the right time - and my apron is one way to help myself do this.

 

Even before we had Christopherus, when my sons were younger and no one was at school, there were definitely times when the apron was put on - I would be cleaning the house, cooking or doing other household chores. My focus was there - then the apron would come off and we'd have a story or make a craft or whatever else it was that we were doing.

 

Now I don't know if this sounds counter to some of you to what I usually say - the kind of "let's live our lives all together and no school at home" kind of thing. But I don't see it as contradicting that at all. It's about being conscious - and about finding a way to bring one's full attention to matters at hand when one chooses - when one puts that apron on - and then at other times choosing to have one's consciousness elsewhere.

 

Related to this is having different clothes for different events. And that goes for children. It seems odd to me that many adults I know take it for granted that they will dress up when they go to a restaurant but do not require that their children do so. Or even Church!! When my family goes to Church we dress for Church - but this is not universal. And I must be honest - it pains me to see children at Church in their jeans, in their playclothes.

 

Why? Because they then have not been required to make that inner gesture of pulling themselves into a different mood, a different consciousness for playtime and then for something special like Church (or Temple or the Mosque) or, yet again, for going out to a restaurant or a museum or similar. They are not helped to realize "this is something special - we act differently here."

 

And again, we adults know this and do this!! We don't expect our friends or relations to lounge about in a restaurant and put their feet up and scratch and whatever in a restaurant as they might do at home - and so we do our hair, put on nice clothes etc etc. But yet often parents don't help their children to have this same experience - instead they let them wear whatever they happen to be wearing. And then are surprised perhaps that it can be hard to help the children behave properly during the special outing.

 

Back to Daena Ross - she has really interesting things to say about this on her recording. She talks about what it means for a child to have playclothes, nice clothes and best clothes and what it means for them as a soul gesture to have to be awake to the differences that these different sets of clothes require. Children should have clothes that can get ripped and filthy - but they should also have nice clothes for going out in - and then have that cue that this is not the time to be swinging from the trees or racing about. And then when it is time to do something really special, to attend a House of Worship, best clothes are put on and the child learns - not because he is being chastised or told off  but because the clothes require it - to adjust himself and his behavior accordingly.

Museum Baby

A few weeks ago my husband Paul and I went to New York for a family visit. I am a native New Yorker but my mother now lives across the bridge in New Jersey. Whilst in NYC Paul and I did the New Yorker thing - Sunday brunch, hanging out in Central Park, walking up and down Broadway eating Haagen Dazs ice cream, checking out the Village.... and we visited the Met, one of my all-time favorite museums.

 

Being child-conscious, I was interested to observe parents and children as we strolled around New York. A few things caught my eye.

 

The first thing was the interesting phenomena of parents having quality time with their tiny children in the Museum. Now for those of you who haven't been to the Met (could there be...?!!) it is HUGE!. Vast - enormous, gargantuan. And it is PACKED. Slowly flowing hordes of tourists speaking a dozen different languages meander aimlessly through the rooms whilst packs of teen agers on field trips from enrichment camps squirm and push and take up more space than human beings are meant to (whilst also speaking a multitude of languages and accompanied by the thrum and buzz of their ipods). It is a vastly overstimulating place where, if one isn't on the ball, one could get knocked over, stepped on or tripped. And that's just adults!

 

Now I can sort of see why parents might want to take young children to a museum - it's a safe and somewhat contained space (though losing a child in the Met could be as unnerving as losing one in Central Park) and it's Something To Do. And there were a few parents who really seemed to be doing just that - finding Something To Do and perhaps hoping that they could get something out of the trip despite their child's complete lack of interest in the exhibits. There was one brave mother who seemed to fit in this category - I was astonished when I saw her. Four little children, with the eldest no more than 6, the youngest strapped to her chest, she was field marshaling her tiny troops through the collection of Greek statues when I spotted her. Briskly she walked, most of the time backwards, shepherding her little ones from one case of Greek vases to the next. She took obvious pleasure in their beauty - her children seemed less enthralled. Indeed, her 5 year old was more  impressed by the rasps and crackles coming from the walkie-talkie at a security guard's belt than Mom's exclamations of "look - you can see a story on this vase." Mom was trying hard but a 5 year old is going to be more interested in a real life flesh and blood security guard and her fascinating accoutrements any day of the week than a 2,5oo year old vase with obscure pictures on it!

 

What really got me though were the two women and their 4 or 5 year olds in the Modern art exhibit. Now OK - some Greek art might interest a child - and maybe Mom took the children to see the life size medieval knights on life size horses next (a sight I certainly loved as a much older child!!). But here were two adults not just passing past the art with the children and looking at what was on offer ("what pretty colors, aren't they darling") but actually trying to engage the children in conversation about the Modigliani they were looking at!

 

This is strange to me. This was really strange to observe (whilst trying to look like I was merely captivated by the paintings instead of the scene unfolding in front of them!) and right now as I type this, really strange to think about. What could those women have been thinking? One can only assume that they honestly thought that the way to help their children appreciate art (though what that means for 5 year olds, don't ask me!!) was to expose them to art and to engage them in conversation about art.

 

But of course, what's missing here is an understanding of the difference between the modern adult's 2oth century consciousness which creates and can discuss modern art and the consciousness of a 5 year old child. A 5 year simply does not see the world as we adults do and hasn't developed the powers of empathy, intellect and selfhood to  be able to stand out of herself to appreciate that most abstract of concepts, a piece of modern art. And - she shouldn't be prematurely put into the position of trying to achieve that consciousness. Once again, with the best intention in the world, we have an example of adults unwittingly bringing children out of their stage of development and into the next stage of development before those children are ready. And I don't care how precociously interested a child might be in modern or any other kind of art - I ask the question, where does that interest come from? If a child has miraculously come to earth with an insatiable interest in modern art that seemingly comes out of nowhere, that is one thing. But if she has developed an interest because adults have exposed her to things - whether consciously or not - then that is quite a different kettle of fish.

 

It's like parents who complain that their 8 year old is reading Anna Karenina. Well who gave him the book? Who said "yes, you may read this" and did not say "no, that is not for you right now." And I know what this is like - I had a 11 year old with a precocious interest in advanced science. My husband and I decided to let him go with it - but there was definitely a cost. I still think we made the right decision - but my now (summer 2007) 16 year old has some imbalances in him. Maybe we should have said no. But we were cautious and decided to go with what seemed not just a whim but a deep soul need. And  he is who he is.

 

But....11 is very different than 5. And the longer I am in this field of work and the more I observe what is around me and consult with parents and read reports and the news..... the more strong I am in declaring the absolute sacredness of those first 7 years of childhood and how they MUST be preserved for later health and balance in each human being. Let children be children and let them be at the stage of  life they are at. A 5 year old does not need to go to museums - not even science or folk museums. She does not need to see - she needs to do. And she needs to do what is real and meaningful - so even so-called "hands-on" or "interactive" museums are out. Just because something has been cleverly broken down by an adult so that a child can get their hands on things (such as touch and feel exhibits) does not mean that this satisfies the young child's need for wholes - for things to be natural and real and to have relevance. If a child has never seen a turtle or a chinchilla, feeling a turtle shell and then a chinchilla pelt is abstract and not connected to life. It is not real. The child cannot internalize the abstract concepts of "turtle" and "chinchilla" because she does not know what those animals are. The concepts are not grounded. On the other hand, if in a zoo or pet shop she gets to see and handle those animals, then it starts to make sense.

 

Back to the museum, let me hasten to say that I sympathize with parents in cities desperate for Something To Do with young children. In such cases, go to a museum. But just enjoy being together and wandering around and don't use the time as a Learning Experience. Just enjoy yourselves and don't be surprised if what makes the strongest impression on your child is the man in the electric wheelchair or the ride you had on the escalator.

Passive Learning

A concern that many people express is about children who do not seem to want to engage in play or who prefer to stand aside and to watch. As our society values a "get ahead" and assertive attitude toward life above all, parents with a child who does not embody these characteristics often worry. Is there something wrong? Why won't he join in?

 

As so often in the various things I write, I put the blame for this confusion squarely on our modern Western cultural norms which have inappropriately invaded childhood and which cause so many people to have  a poor understanding of the nature of childhood. And of course, as so many people become parents without actually having the chance to really observe and be with young children, the confusion is perpetuated by the myriad of "experts" who create milestones and expectation charts which basically say that if your child ain't a leader, he ain't gonna succeed.

 

(Of course we could digress into a lengthy exploration of what the parameters of success might be to those who hold this view - but that would take us too far away from the point I'm trying to make).

 

And that point is this: that all children learn, to some extent, passively and for some children, this is the main way that they internalize the world.

 

Let me define terms: by passive I mean outwardly inactive. Indeed, in a situation where a child might seem to be doing nothing, he might actually be extremely active. But his activity is an inner activity.

 

One of the things which drew me powerfully to an appreciation of attachment parenting was the idea of the passive baby. Jean Liedloff, on whose work much of AP is based, saw clearly that the babies strapped to the backs of native peoples learned an enormous amount in that seemingly passive position. Their bodies learned invaluable amounts about balance, movement, and rhythm. The children learned about their mothers' work, their siblings play and the customs and habits of their people by witnessing what happened around them and by absorbing, via their mother's very being, everyday life.

 

From a Waldorf point of view, with the aid of knowledge of the Madonna's Cloak, an etheric link between the mother and her child, we can bring an even deeper appreciation to understanding the importance of passive learning. Because of this link, the tiny child learns primarily via his mother, via her experiences, her feelings, her thoughts. There is no barrier between a mother and a very young child.  Waldorf then teaches us about the primacy of imitation which starts sometime after 3, reaches a peak around 5 and fades after 7 or 8. By 9, as the child reaches the 9 year change and separates more fully from his parents and teachers or other adults, this faculty fades. Whether we choose to cultivate it or not, all young children learn via imitation. What we would like him to learn and experience causes us to take great care with his surroundings and who the people are around him.The child imitates all that she sees with no discernment, internalizing her environment.

 

And here is the paradox: such passive learning is in fact extremely active. We know that young children especially (and all children) need to learn actively and to involve their bodies. This can take the form of hopping, clapping and all the rhythmical games and exercises which work so powerfully on the physical being of young children. But when we give the children the right story material to work with, we also engage them actively - even if they are sitting, seemingly passive. The right stories told or read at the right time work on the child's soul - and this is a crucial part of real learning, learning that actively engages the whole human being. Children who receive such lessons work actively with them and their bodies can respond as well as if they had spent the lesson climbing a tree!

 

Indeed, Steiner often said that the most important part of learning is that which takes place during sleep. This is the time when children take the lessons they have received during the day into the spiritual worlds (or into their subconscious of you prefer!) and actively - on a soul level - work with them. What they give back to the teacher and then work with artistically the next day is that much richer.

 

I should also say that passive learning in groups of mixed age children is the natural way for children to learn. In parts of the world where children still know how to play, much of group play involves a lot of standing around talking. Negotiating, planning, brainstorming and excited what if scenarios form much of children's play. And who is doing the talking? The older children - usually those over 9 years old. The younger ones may participate to some extent - but for the most part, they stand around and listen and watch. They are learning an enormous amount about how to be a child - and how to be a human being.

 

So the next time someone says your child should "join in" or you feel worried because you see her spending more time watching play than engaging in play, think about how children learn. American "go get 'em" attitudes are not the only way to be in this world.

Computers - When?

This is a rehashed post from my old Yahoo group (which has been replaced by a discussion forum). It was part of a discussion about computers and children. The following is mainly about what we did as a family.

 

We simply did not have a computer before our eldest son was 10. Our work before was different - and Christopherus did not exist. Other families need to use their computers during the day or they could not be at home with their children. This might just be something people have to live with.

In general, I believe that one must put the topic of computers into a larger context. How much does the child get to play outside? Does s/he watch tv and videos? Is s/he in a busy frantic city or in a sleepy rural setting? How healthy are general family rhythms? And, most importantly, how does the child react to the computer?

So here are some thoughts, based on what we did as a family....

* No computer at all before 10. Not even in play, not even on Mama's lap. This is an adult tool, not for young children. Treat it as you would a power tool such as a lawn mower or electric saw.

* At 10 or 11 you could get a mild computer game for your child and/or perhaps look at web sites together. Computer time not to exceed an hour a week and no use of the internet except with an adult.

* By 12, 3 hours a week of games and some time looking up specific things on the internet with you in the same room.

* By 14, 3 - 4 hours of games per week and use of typing facilities, Wikipedia and internet as needed - but no internet access on her computer. She must use yours for internet access and ask first, so you are aware of what she is doing.

*By 16 unrestricted use of the computer. She should be able to use it sensibly by now. If she wants to use chat rooms, now is the time - not before.

These kinds of rules will prove almost impossible for some people - especially if your child's social contacts seem based on computers and such. There is no easy solution to this - but you can always have strong and clear rules in your home. One thing I would certainly prohibit is any kind of handheld or virtual reality type of games run off the computer or television. I would also not allow any access to chat room until late teen years. I also do not recommend unrestricted use of the internet without a parent present until the teen is about 16.

And running through all this is the warning - observe your child! It could be that she has a healthy take it or leave it attitude toward computer use - if this is the case you are blessed and it is unlikely that use of this machine will be any big deal. BUT - such children are rare in my experience. Most get sucked in one way or another. Serious red flags should be waving for you if your child's behavior is at all effected by being on the computer. If he is listless (and yes, I said he on purpose there - this seems to effect boys more than girls), restless, out of himself, twitchy or bad tempered after using the computer - if limiting computer use results in furious rampages and tempers or tears - then you have an addictive situation on your hands and cold turkey (ie no computer at all ) might be the only solution. I am not exaggerating. Addiction has to do, for the most part, with stimulation - and the stimulation of the computer can be as powerfully negative and unhealthy for your child as if he sat down and ate a 5 pound bag of sugar or other addictive substances. In the end, the issue is about health. And, I would say categorically, that use of computers by children in no way optimizes their health. It might not be too bad - that is how my husband and I have felt about its use by our age 10+ sons - but it certainly does nothing to enhance their health. And, our sons lived on a farm with no TV and maximum once a week video until they were 13.

Dependency - Appropriate and Inappropriate

The time has come in my family for us to start looking at Life After Home. Will my eldest (presently 15) go to college? Might he travel and work first? Or might he go back to England to live? We have had many lively and enjoyable conversations about this and we all look forward to the next phase in our family life.

 

So it was a bit of a shock to me to realize how differently some people regard this stage of life. Looking through various college guides I came to see that a whole industry has sprung up devoted to helping parents when their children go off to college - and not just in terms of money! Parents, apparently have adjustment problems and need to be weaned off their children's lives!

 

According to one book I read, some American colleges now have specific workshops and seminars for parents dealing with topics such as :"Why You Shouldn't Phone Your Child's Professor When She Gets A Bad Grade"; "Why Phoning In the Middle of Lectures is a Bad Idea"; and "Drop In Visit? Don't Do It"!! There was quote after quote from various deans of various colleges all sharing about parents who accompany their children to choose classes, who arrange pre-college meetings with the parents of roommates and who, basically, seem unable to Let Go.

 

This is so strange to me! How is it that this generation of parents who is renowned for a culture of "independence" and "autonomy" in terms of their toddlers, who think 6 week old babies should be able to go to child care and 8 year olds should be able to travel alone on planes cannot see that by 18 or 19 childhood has passed into young adulthood and that these children NOW need to be independent!

 

It's as if dependency and independence have been reversed. There is so much fear in our culture of, on the one hand,  so-called "clingy" children who don't want to go to nursery school or who want to sleep in our beds when they're little and then, on the other hand, of  young people experimenting and learning to be their own selves. How many teens are radio tagged by pagers and cell phones? Sure - they can get  up to all sorts of things. But maybe - just maybe - if we held them close and kept them tightly in our auras and in our arms when they were tiny - even when they weren't so tiny - then maybe when they're teens we will be able to trust that their needs will have been met sufficiently so that they can now know how to make good decisions.  If real needs for dependency are met when developmentally appropriate, then perhaps they won't surface inappropriately when the young person should be able to feel good enough in himself to not have a yawning vacuum of loneliness that he then seeks to fill with drugs, precocious sex or computer game addiction.

 

Many people think that by giving children "freedom" when they are little they will then be able to practise this "skill" and grow up to understand  and practise freedom. But freedom cannot be given - it is something that grows in the soul and needs to be taken hold of when the time is right (I am trying desperately to keep this apolitical and not to draw some current parallels...!). Little ones are like rose buds - the gesture for them is of enfolding and carrying. This bud only opens slowly - but when it does we need to step aside and not caste our shadow over the fruit, thus preventing its full ripening.

 

I am glad my son is excited about the future. It is, after all, his future. If he wants to go to college, that's great. If he wants to work or travel, that's great. And if he wants to study or work in England and to make that his home - well, I will miss him keenly but I know that it is not my place to stand in his way. He might screw up - he might soar. That will be his problem or his victory. He might come to me for advice. Or he might not. But it is time for him now to move toward freedom as his father and I gradually withdraw our counsel over the next years. That freedom will be true freedom - for it will be taken by a young man secure in his ability to know who he is and what he needs to do in his life. His time of dependency will be long past and his age of independence will be beginning.