Twinkle Little Star

Why Do I Feel Like I've Been Punished By Alfie Kohn?

I mentioned before that I was reading the book, Unconditional Parenting by Alfie Kohn. Kohn (of Punished by Rewards fame) is sort of a big parenting movement in some circles like attachment parenting or other parenting strategies that some people really get involved in. I actually finished it a few weeks ago, but thought I'd wait to tell you about it until I tried a little experiment and tried to apply the principles to my own kids. I wanted to read it because I know that it was very anti-behaviorism and I have a lot of training in behaviorism. I thought it might challenge me. It did and it didn't. I sort of liked it and hated it.

Behaviorism, as you probably know, is the process of applying positive and negative reinforcement to manipulate behavior. Think Pavlov's dogs and Nanny 911. "Time Out," "Catch 'em being good," "Ignore tantrums" are all the new wave of behaviorism. The older wave being corporal punishment and, I suppose, severe judgmental mother-guilt syndrome. The supposed formula for behaviorism is ABC: Antecedent, Behavior, Consequence. You tell your kid to go clean his room. (Antecedent). He either cleans his room or doesn't. (Behavior) and you either reward or punish him for his behavior (Consequence). The goal being that soon when you tell him to clean his room, he will do it in anticipation of the reward or to avoid the punishment. Behaviorism is the cornerstone of how most Americans discipline their children. We have shifted from harsh punishments (such as spanking) to more of a focus on rewards (such as star charts), but it is all still behaviorism.

Kohn is strongly against behaviorism. He is a proponent of what he calls "love and logic" parenting, which is free of the judgments required in behaviorism. When I started reading the book, I realized that I had studied his methods before. Although my undergraduate training (basic classroom management) was all about behaviorism, my graduate training went into behavior issues at an extensively deeper level. One of my jobs was actually training other trainers (who would then go and train teachers and parents) in a system we called "Positive Behavioral Supports." There in Kohn's book, was all the old authors I remember reading in professional journals in grad school, Glasser, Ginott, Norman Kunc, and others.

I wondered if I hadn't had all that background, whether I really would have got the whole love and logic thing he proposes. He spends the majority of the book trying to convince you that behaviorism is bad, bad, bad; but doesn't do a good job in really illustrating a replacement. He says the book is not a cookbook for handling kid behavior problems because he is proposing more of a mental paradigm or philosophy than a behavior management plan. I get that. But I don't know how much it will help you in the real world.

The difference between my studies in grad school and Alfie Kohn is that he is a purist and we were more apt to take several approaches to behavior problems. We might start out with logic and reasoning and choice-making and natural consequences and functional assessment, but if all that failed and there was still a problem, well then behaviorism it was. Kohn sees all other behavior strategies as just different places on the behaviorism  continuum--someplace between punishment and reward. His method, he sees as a totally different alternative. A star that shines above and is totally separated from behaviorism. In my studies (and what many parents apply in real life) is more of a mixed bag of whatever works approach.

I agree with the skeptical research on behaviorism. That it is not the most effective strategy in the long term and can be abused and overused. That punishments don't work to effectively change behavior (or only effect short-term changes). And I get that rewards are just the ineffective flip side of the same coin. A lot of research is coming out now about gifted children and how rewards and positive judgments that they have received all their lives (You're so smart! and multiple A+'s and other rewards based on their giftedness) are really having a negative impact on these kids. They lose their internal motivation and crave the reward to the exclusion of learning for learning's sake. When they think their entire self-worth is tied up in how smart they are, and that's why people love them, they don't try as hard. They go for the guaranteed A+ rather than trying a more difficult task that may result in a B or C. They fear mistakes and failure to an extent that they sometimes develop anxiety problems. They result in the term "Gifted Underachiever." Kids who are punished a lot sometimes start to define themselves as being a bad kid. They create a self-fulfilling prophecy. They may become either rebellious or withdrawn if only their behavior is judged by punishment and reward. Who they are (and why they actually may be doing the behavior) gets lost in the outcome of the behavior. And artificial consequences, like punishment and reward, mask the natural consequences of their actions and they have trouble adjusting to life without supervision and someone else controlling them. (Well, until they enter most areas of the workforce, and then they are back in the behaviorism system again.)

What Kohn suggests as a replacement makes good sense. And most parents do these things to some extent in addition to behaviorism. He just wants us to drop behaviorism altogether and use "unconditional parenting" using love and logic. Its all good stuff that we all strive to do. Listen to our kids more, try to figure out the function or reason behind their behavior. Don't pass judgment and try to help your child problem solve instead. If we have to tell them, "NO," we need to explain the reasoning behind it instead of saying, "Because I said SO!!" Be interested in kid's art work or writing or whatever without saying it is good or bad. De-emphasize grades and other artificial evaluation systems. Learning should be its own reward. Let kids have a say in everything that affects them. Family life should be about a democratic process and/or building consensus. Treat them with respect you would give adults. Look at what you're asking your kid not to do and see if it is really that important. Change the environment instead of changing the kids behavior (a la baby proofing instead of the constant NO!). Never rush a kid, let her take the lead. Am I missing anything?

That's wonderful, right? We all want to be that kind of parent. We all strive to do these things as much as we can. But, is it possible to do these things exclusively? In Kohn's world there are no time outs, no "Good Job!!", no star charts, no "I like the way you...", no psuedochoices (You are going to eat your vegetables. Do you want spinach or broccoli?), no ignoring tantrums, no threatening the kid that if he doesn't get up off the grocery store floor he will not get to play video games, no taking away of privileges such as TV or social activities, no grounding, no rewards and punishments. He doesn't even approve of using natural consequences such as making the kid go back and get his coat that he forgot at school (unless the kid and you build consensus and decide that is the course of action you will take.) No behaviorism.

Could you do it? As I read the book, after each sentence, I was like, yeah. This sounds wonderful. But how do I apply this to twin two-year-olds? With limited language and reasoning skills, limited experiences with the natural consequences of life, and limited moral development when it comes to things like empathy? Here is the short list of things my kids may try to refuse to do on any given day--very hopefully not both kids on the same day--but it does happen:

Get up
Go to bed
Get dressed/change diapers
Stay dressed
Eat
Stop eating (as in they would exist on a diet entirely made up of Earth's Best Sesame Street crackers if I'd let them)
Get in the stroller and stay there.
Continue walking if I let them out of the stroller.
Go to daycare
Leave daycare
Share
Take turns
Treat their toys with respect (as in don't throw them across the room or rip books)
Stop hitting, kicking, biting, etc.
Throw food on the ground
Hurry up
Slow down
Brush their teeth.
Stop brushing their teeth (as a bedtime stall tactic)
Be picked up
Be put down
Cease and desist in such things as stabbing their brother in the eye with a spoon, opening the refrigerator over and over again, getting their hand stuck in the child proofed cupboards, unlocking and opening the dishwasher while its running, and a million other wacky things
I could go on.

Now, I don't expect them to do all these things correctly yet. They are two. I expect these behaviors. I understand that they are finding their independence right now and spreading their wings in their environment. And maybe in a perfect (heh. privileged) household I could deal with them daily without using behaviorism. I could sit with them in daycare as long as they wanted me there and I could let them stay as long as they wanted when I come to pick them up. I would never have to rush them, because I would never have to be on time or catch a train/bus anywhere. I could sit with them endlessly while they play together and constantly run interference (using logic and reason) every 20 seconds when they fight over a toy. I could be tolerant enough (and have a wide enough lap) that they could both sit on me together instead of climbing all over me as they jockey for position with each other. I could let them pick their own bedtimes and mealtimes and play times because I would never have to keep a work schedule or meet my own sleeping and eating needs. Maybe I could conduct an instantaneous experiment with hot and cold to show them why they can't touch the gas flame on the stove instead of reminding them, yanking them away, or telling them they are doing a good job listening to directions while I cook (you know, because I would have my cook there to rescue the over-boiling pot while we went into time consuming detail about the stove being hot.) I could throw out the dinner they don't like and fix them a new one instead of encouraging them to eat what I've served because I don't have the money to waste food or the time to cook individual meals for everyone. Maybe I would have loads of patience to talk it through with them instead of telling them "no!" because I would have another parent or a nanny to relieve me when I get frustrated.

And maybe they would understand when I did take the time. Maybe they would understand why I needed to take away dad's bottle of pills that they thought was just a nice rattle. (I know Kohn would say that they shouldn't have had access to the pills in the first place, but life happens quickly sometimes, you know?) And maybe they would understand, if I explained it to them with reason, that if we don't hurry up and get their shoes on RIGHT. NOW. we will miss our train to their doctors appointment where they will get shots and then mom will have to wait 2 months for a new one. Yeah, maybe they will understand that if I just took the time to explain it to them. And maybe they would understand, if I just explained it to them, that if mama has to spend one more second cleaning the yogurt that they are continuously spilling (just for fun!) over the side of their high chairs that she will literally go insane? Maybe I should just let them experiment with the yogurt as long as they are curious. And maybe that one time, when Aaron decided to have a screaming, hitting tantrum when I wouldn't let him take all of Naim's crayons away so he hit us both continually, I should have just calmly focused all my attention to Naim and try to garner some empathy out of Aaron. "Oh, now see when you hit him you make him sad!" Believe me, Aaron was in no mood for empathy. So I removed him from the situation and put him on a chair in the same room. In five or so minutes, he calmed down and started playing nicely with us again. But Kohn would say that was a forced time out and that makes Aaron feel like I don't love him. (At that moment...I kinda didn't. I admit it. It happens.)

So, the whole book made me wonder if Kohn has ever been around small children, by himself, for an extended period, without nannies or his wife for backup, and with other commitments and responsibilities and financial pressures that had to be taken care of. He gave an example of his three year old having a tantrum in front of the store on the way to the car. He said he just talked with her about how he understood that she was angry and frustrated and basically just waited it out until she was done and she chose to go to the car on her own. Okay, that is fine. But what if the tantrum was in the street? And what if it was 30 degrees out? And what if you were carrying groceries and had to go catch a bus in 5 minutes or you would be there for another hour?

So, I did a little experiment with my kids by trying to utilize his methods more (I already utilized them, just not as a total replacement for behaviorism). I tried to also eliminate nearly all behaviorist tactics. (I never completely got over my habit of saying "Good job!" I say that a lot.) I tried this for two weeks.

I will tell you for baseline purposes that I usually have a couple of good kids. They have their days, but most of the time we do not have any serious behavior problem. The biggest one we have is the sharing taking turns thing, which goes with the territory for twins. We do have little crying jags throughout the day sometimes, but mostly they pass quickly and the kids are happy.  My main tools are setting routines to help the kids anticipate what is coming and behaviorism. The routines are set up with them in mind. So indirectly they do have input. I try to have them sleeping when they are tired, eating when they are hungry, etc., but they do have a bedtime and a wake up time most days. We are working on choice-making now. But it is inconsequential things like which color shirt, which book, which drink, etc. I do a lot of catch 'em being good and I do some "I'll know you're ready to eat when you are sitting down" and withholding the plate of food until they are sat down. I have used time out. Aaron has been in time out maybe three or four times in his whole life. I'm trying to think if I've ever put Naim in time out. Maybe once. Time out is usually just being set off to the side of the room I'm in. I don't have a specific time limit, I just sit them there until they've chilled off a bit. I will try to figure out if I can help if the kid is upset, but if I can't do anything about it (like if the kid wants to play with my knives) and a tantrum ensues, I will ignore it. Basically, this has worked pretty well for us. They get lots of hugs, kisses and affection throughout the day, and if they do get into trouble, after the 'crisis' is over, I just pretend it never happened and we go on about our day. I have lost my temper with them before and needed to take my own time out. I have talked to them harshly at times. I think I have screamed at them maybe once or twice. I've never hit them, spanked them, or in any way physically abused them. But I'm not perfect and I've lost my cool a few times. Mostly, though, I think I am very patient with them and take their needs into account.

So, in the two weeks I tried to eliminate behaviorism...It was God Awful. Someone may argue that I didn't do it right and need more practice or they needed more time to adjust and maybe that is true. But my god, Naim, who is normally a fun, good natured, independent child, became whiny, clingy, unsure of himself, and started having violent tantrums. Aaron did not change his entire personality on me, but his tantruming did increase. As a mom, I became a miserable, anxiety ridden mess who had trouble controlling my temper. It did not work for us.

Here is possibly why: Two-year-olds (Naim in particular) need structure and consistency and help with control. They don't have the experience or practice to do it themselves, so they rely on me to set up some controls for them. The world is so big and so foreign to them, that to have a great deal of responsibility for making their own decisions becomes overwhelming. And it is a responsibility. Naim was just starting to be happy with making little decisions like what to wear. But bedtimes? When to eat? Whether to go outside or not and when? That was too much for him to handle. Not that I just handed over the day to them. What I did was, if it was time for naps I would talk to them about being tired and suggest a nap. If they protested, I let them stay up for a while, then talked again about how they are tired. Ordinarily, I would just go, Nap time! and do our little prenap rituals and go to bed. If they protested, which they sometimes did, I would just ignore or say, I'm sorry, I know you don't want to take a nap right now, but you have to or you won't feel well later. But, they went to bed no matter what. When I discussed it with them and did not use behaviorism, we ended up having hours of whiny crankyness, they would nod off at dinner time and then want to eat right when I needed to go to bed. When we got ready to get in the stroller and leave (and I had a time issue here) Naim protested and cried and said some word that sounded to me like "Monkey". He was pointing to inside the house. Normally I would maybe spend a second trying to see if I could figure out the problem. If I couldn't, I would say, "Sorry, I can't help you, but when you get to daycare you'll have a lot of fun and you'll be okay." This time, I let him out of the stroller, followed him in the house, and tried to figure out what he wanted. When he got in the house, he just kind of stood there like he didn't know what he wanted. Finally, I just had to take him and put him back in the stroller, which caused a bigger fit than if I just would have said, Sorry, we have to go. I didn't withhold food until they sat. I did explain to them that if they didn't sit, they would make a big mess and we would have to change clothes. Guess what? They didn't care. They ate standing up and spilled food all over their pants and then got upset with me when I changed their clothes. Now did they remember the changing clothes (natural) consequence the next day? Of course not. Same thing. It would have been much easier for all of us to just make them sit down. They usually do it in seconds and it is no big deal to them when I remind them that food will come when they are sitting down, ready to eat.

If you think about times when you've maybe traveled to a foreign country, or worked at a new job, it was probably a bit overwhelming and you did not understand all the reasons, choices, and consequences of the unfamiliar environment. So, maybe you were more comfortable diverting your decision making to another more experienced person. It was more comfortable to put your trust in their decisions even if you didn't understand all your options. If your more experienced traveling companion suggested a food you didn't like every once in a while, you dealt with it as a learning experience, but still wanted her to take over some of the decision making. Eventually, you gradually became able to make decisions on your own and not have to rely on someone elses guidance. Well, that's parenting. I guide when they are too overwhelmed or inexperienced or uncomfortable to do it themselves. At 15, that may be a lot of talking, listening and using love and reason. At two, that means using a lot of behaviorism.

Behaviorism is also about shaping behavior. It is like a game of hot/cold. "You're doing good!" means you're getting hot. You are nearing the goal. Do more of that. If you get ignored, you must be cold. Do less of that. This is a learning strategy that we all do. Yes, technically telling my kid that they are doing well when they eat with their spoon is a judgment and a reward for behavior, but I think they are looking for hints on how to behave and fit in to the family and eventually society. You can't completely abandon "Good job!" And I don't think your kids want you to. If you think of a time someone tried to help you learn how to do something that you were a little unsure of, like, I don't know--changing a tire--you depended on them for these little checks and approvals. You might ask at each step, "Is this alright? How am I doing at this?" You corrected yourself when they suggested it, and you were comforted and pleased when they said you were doing a good job. This is natural and has nothing to do with conditional or unconditional love. I can be nonjudgmental and say, "Aaron, I see that you are shoving your entire hand in a cup of yogurt and then squishing it around in your vegetables. Hmmm. Tell me about that." But your kid might be thinking, I see that they eat with their spoons and I'm not sure how to do that. Am I supposed to do that? I wish she would give me a sign on whether I'm supposed to be picking up my spoon instead of giving me nothing. I wish she would reassure me when I'm doing this whole eating thing right. I see how parents can take "good job" and judgment of behaviors too far, but I think Alfie Kohn is expanding the definition of conditional parenting too far.

When I switched back to a more behavioral approach with the kids, things improved immediately. I'm not saying that I got nothing out of the experiment. It did help me listen to the kids a bit better. One time, Naim was whining about being put in his highchair to eat, and at first I thought he was just being stubborn. But I decided to sit with him and try to figure it out. After a few minutes of trying to communicate, I figured out that he wanted to sit in the chair Aaron usually sits in. That was a big deal to him. And he has been sitting there happily ever since. He also wanted to wear Aaron's coat and sit in Aaron's car seat. All well and good. I don't care. Until Aaron objected to the car seat thing. Then what do you do? We could trade off each time, but I don't ride in a car enough for them to get that pattern yet and be satisfied with that. So its shitfits from one or the other every time we mess with car seat assignments. So, what would Alfie say? Should I honor Naim's choice, Aaron's choice or just ignore it all and decide for them? At some point, they just have to realize that we are all members of the family and have to work together. Part of that at this stage is just getting in the damned car without having a fit. That is the skill I want to teach them. I'll honor requests when I can, but when I can't...we've just gotta go, and I would like to go minus the fit.

So bottom line in all this, is that Kohn has some great ways to make you think and some good ideas to strive for. I think as kids get older and their language, reasoning, and moral development matures, love and logic will be more and more effective and useful. I see it more as a journey to get to that point. At two, we have to rely on behaviorism a lot to get through the day, but by the time they are 17, behaviorism should be all but phased out and it should be all about building consensus, talking it out, not judging, problem solving. I see a continuum of behaviorism on one end and reasoning on the other. Parents are going to have to use a combination of both quite often, but with the goal of a stronger and stronger emphasis on reason and problem solving. Parents may just have to be sure they find a variety of different ways to assure our kids that they are unconditionally loved.

I think Kohn is mostly sound and on to something, though. One of the best things he stresses is Don't Assume Your Kid is Bad. And also to think about how you would respect another person your same age that you admire and try to respect your kid in like manner. it is worth a read, especially if you felt like your parents used a lot of judgment and conditional parenting on you. HIs ideas will help you evaluate your parenting so perhaps you won't make some of the same mistakes with your kid. It may be a good example of a "finish line" you want to get to and work towards with your kids. It may help you to learn to listen to your kids and help get their ideas incorporated into the fabric of your family rather than you just falling into ruler of the roost mode. And if you have to use behaviorist techniques, it will help you to really analyze why your are doing it and if it is the best way. So, I'm pro Alfie, as long as I can keep my behaviorism in my bag of tricks just a little longer. Because-god help me-I HAVE TWO TWO-YEAR OLDS!!!

Pandora's Box (Part 2, Where I suffer from chronic fade outs, tangents and digressions.)

As promised, I said I would write more about homeschooling; specifically about the myths and misconceptions. I have been kind of stalling because it seems like in order to do it right, I need to go the research route and find and link all of my sources in order for it to be legit. Obviously, it would be a better post this way, but it probably would never get done as it would take me forever and a day. I figure any post is better than no post, right? It all swims around in my mind now and I can't even remember the sources of some of the things that stick out. All of the stuff I have found out about homeschooling is completely google-able. (Sometimes I think encouraging people to go out and google themselves proves a bigger point. I'm not cherry-picking my facts here, I'm confident that your own googling will lead you easily to these conclusions.) If there is something I say that you are just burning to find out where it came from, let me know and I will do my best to track it down. Otherwise, these are just my thoughts about what I've learned in attempting to address my own concerns. For whatever its worth.

I'll will throw in that I just the other day found out that they are building a new elementary school just INCHES from the school right down the street that will be open in 2008. (I think this is because when the transportation authority bought up land for the light rail, a certain amount had to be given to the city for public use. Both schools are directly across from each other on the light rail line.) So, I don't know where the kids in my neighborhood will go, but I assume it will be one of those two schools, rather than the one that is miles away that I can't get to.  So that is interesting and I look forward to checking those options out later on. But, I digress.

Here are the misconceptions/concerns I had before researching homeschooling and what I found out.

Aren't homeschooling families religious freaks or societal dropouts?

I talked about this a lot in Part 1, so I'm not going to go into great detail about it again. As someone commented, this may have been more true 20 years ago than it is now. Homeschooling makes up around 3-4% of the school age population now. It is a lot more mainstream, and there are a lot more mainstream people doing it. I think this depends a lot on location. I know some of my UU homeschooling connections who live in the Midwest or deep south often complain about the lack of secular homeschoolers in their area. In Oregon, I would say the majority are secular homeschoolers who are on the liberal side, but not societal dropouts in the least. I would say that the largest growth in homeschooling comes from families with kids who are either labeled as having an academic or behavioral disability or  as gifted. Many times, the families with the LD/BD kids find that the "disability" all but goes away and that the gifted kids thrive. This doesn't surprise me one bit. I'll note here that legally, (in most or all states??) kids with IEPs are still entitled to special education services even if they are homeschooled, although they might have to go to the school to get these services. This sometimes takes a huge amount of advocacy on the parent's part, though, but what else is new in special ed. So often times they find other resources to get the kids the services they need. Schools may also be required to allow homeschooled students to participate in some classes (Music/Art/whatever) and extracurricular activities. They may also give the parents textbooks, scope and sequence curriculum guides, access to the school library, and other resources. I have heard that some districts are better than others about doing this and some districts make a big stink about it. But...digressing again. I have found most homeschooling families to be pretty average and mainstream by most accounts.

With compulsory attendance laws, isn't it illegal?

You can legally homeschool in all 50 states. Each state has different rules about accountability to the compulsory attendance laws. Some families are required to register themselves as a private school or to somehow affiliate themselves with a private school. There are schools out there that serve just this purpose. Some schools provide classes and lots of support, whereas others are really just a legal front. For example, Calvert School provides what is called a "School in a Box" with an entire curriculum and materials for each grade. Parents teach it, but students are registered as Calvert students and parents can receive support from Calvert teachers. I am very interested in a local Homeschooling co-op that provides classes, field trips, clubs, and if desired--private school enrollment with ongoing educational support. This is probably where my kids will attend preschool. There is a main teacher for the preschool, but parents must volunteer as helpers, snack and craft activity providers. Fees are extremely reasonable and the classes are held in a church educational building (although the co-op is not affiliated with it or any other religion, they just rent.)

Some states require simply notification that you will be homeschooling. Other states require an attendance record and an overview of what you will be teaching each year. Some require once a year portfolio assessments with a district teacher. In Oregon, you are required to notify the district in writing just once by the time the kid is 7. Then you are required to have your kid sit for a professionally administered standardized test at your expense in years 5, 8, and 10. My co-op provides this administration in a group once a year for a small fee, which really cuts the costs of having to hire someone yourself. My understanding is that if your kid does poorly on the test, you have to meet with the district and set up a plan for improvement. Then you have a year to improve and retest. If problems remain, the district may petition to have your kid attend public school.

How can homeschool kids get into college?

I think this was more of a problem years ago than it is now. Many universities (and I'm talking the big guys...Harvard, Yale, Brown) are actively recruiting homeschoolers now due to their successful track record. You do have to give them something in regards to test scores, transcripts and resume/portfolio work. There are many books and classes that help homeschooling families of high school students accurately develop a transcript. Many times, high school homeschoolers have already taken classes in community colleges and thus have a proven track record of being able to handle college level work. Also, many homeschoolers have a larger amount of impressive volunteer, internships, travel or paid work experiences that make them desirable candidates for universities. Universities are developing real flexibility as far as what the transcript looks like, and are even allowing portfolio reviews/interviews for homeschoolers because they are now sought after students in a lot of university environments.

How do homeschoolers do compared to PS kids and private school kids?

There have been a lot of studies, and the best way for me to tell you about them is just to have you google homeschool vs. public school. Here is a quick one minute search excerpt:

... "According to a report published by the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) and funded by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, homeschool student achievement test scores were exceptionally high. The median scores for every subtest at every grade were well above those of public and Catholic/private-school students. On average, homeschool students in grades one to four performed one grade level above their age-level public/private school peers on achievement tests. Students who had been homeschooled their entire academic life had higher scholastic achievement test scores than students who had also attended other educational programs."

One interesting facet of the study noted that academic achievement was equally high regardless of whether the student was enrolled in a full-service curriculum, or whether the parent had a state-issued teaching certificate.

The study states, "Even with a conservative analysis of the data, the achievement levels of the homeschool students in the study were exceptional. Within each grade level and each skill area, the median scores for homeschool students fell between the 70th and 80th percentile of students nationwide and between the 60th and 70th percentile of Catholic/Private school students. For younger students, this is a one year lead. By the time homeschool students are in 8th grade, they are four years ahead of their public/private school counterparts."

But what about socialization?

This was/is a huge issue for me. Both because my public school social experience was horrid and for some years was abusive, but also because I had been around blind or otherwise disabled kids who were segregated in special schools and their social skills were often horrid. Furthermore, I knew one girl who was homeschooled in college and although she was very nice, she had a lot of trouble assimilating to the whole college lecture environment. She actually thought that professors were interested in having a discussion with her and answering all her questions on the spot! She did eventually catch on and learn to shut up in class and just sit there and take notes like the rest of us, but I think it was hard for her and put her in a bad light with the other students. Also, there is a bit of a zeitgeist to the public school experience...lunch trays, dodge ball, lining up, gym humiliation, recess, hanging out with the same kids for years...good and bad things, but did I want my kids to miss out on that?

What the homeschooling proponents will tell you is that the socialization experienced in public schools is an aberration, not normal, healthy development. Spending time, largely unsupervised and unmentored with the same 30 kids who do exactly as you do and are exactly your age is not necessarily a natural course to the way humans develop social skills. Kids are often pitted against each other by a competitive spirit in schools and realize that in order for them to succeed, someone else must fail. The teachers do not have time to model and mentor appropriate social skills, nor are they aware of what is going on a lot of the time.

When I think back on my own social experience in school, this rings true to me in a big way. Here is a perfect example of an unnatural social environment, I'm sorry, this story is so pathetic I just have to tell it. I moved to a new school in sixth grade. I wore very thick, very unusual looking glasses. I was also used to being in an environment where people were of a lower socioeconomic level and thus had no clue about brand name clothing, competing for grades, whatever. No one talked to me on the first day except a very nice girl that I would find out later was The Girl That Nobody Liked. I'm not even sure why except that she was a mousy, smart, and poor girl that lived with her divorced father. We became friends, and I became The Other Girl That Nobody Liked. The entire year, kids either flat out ignored me in the rudest way possible or constantly made fun of me...mostly in reference to my glasses. Okay, I took it and my friend and I hung out and we mostly ignored everyone else and we minded our own business. Then, at my spring parent/teacher conferences, my teacher told my mom that I was snobby, aloof, antisocial and didn't make any effort to be friends with the other kids. (There is truth in that, but it was kind of about survival.) Then, the school counselor took my humiliation to a whole nother level. She started a "Friendship Group" that I was required to attend. When I got there, it was me, the fat kid, the kid with spina bifida, the only mixed race frizzy haired kid at school, the skinny nerdy boy, and who ever else was misfit enough to be tortured on a daily basis. At first, I thought that it was going to be kind of like a support group for people who got bullied and teased. Like we would learn ways to stand up for ourselves and deal with them. But, Oh, no no no. This was  a group meant to teach us how to be nicer, friendlier and more social with our tormentors. Here is the thing, all of these kids in this group WERE nice kids already. They were the only kids who talked to me and none of them had even said or done anything mean that I had ever witnessed. This counselor showed us filmstrips on how to give "warm fuzzies." And then passed out to us these little fuzzy colored cotton ball thingies that were supposed to be our warm fuzzies. We watched filmstrips on how NOT to give "cold pricklies." So, we were required, I kid you not, to give out so many of these warm fuzzies a week to our classmates. I mean figuratively and literally. Do you know what is going to happen to the kid with the funny glasses if she starts passing out little cotton balls with googly eyes on them??? You understand I had no quality of life whatsoever at that point, right? And to really rub our noses in it, she had a girl, a POPULAR GIRL, in the group as a "peer model." This girl was assigned the task of monitoring our dissemination of the warm fuzzies. So, in case you didn't guess, that meant that she was put in charge of the taunting and teasing we had to endure when we had to hand out the warm fuzzies. Know when I first figured out what oppression was? Sixth Grade, Cather Elementary School, Goddamned Mrs. Grabowski and her faux friendship group and her fucking warm fuzzies. I hate her to this day.

Not that I'm bitter.

Ahem. Cough...Cough...

(And this is yet another reason why Oprah gets on my nerves. After Columbine, she had a show called "freaks and geeks" where she got the geekiest kids from highschools on as guests and talked to them about why they were bullied/teased and what they could do about it. Where, exactly, were the tormentors in this discussion? They were nowhere to be found either physically or in the discussion. It was all, if people are beating you up, it must be your fault for wearing a goth jacket instead of conforming to the market rules of Abercrombie and Finch fashion. And people wonder why some of these kids go off the deep end. Anyway, another digression.)

Okay, I'm recovered now. I think.

Now, not all of my school experiences were like that. High school was decidedly better. And I know that all kids aren't going to have that kind of experience. But I think that damage is done even if my kids turn out to be the 'popular kids.' I don't see a benefit to either side of that dynamic. In my adult experiences as a teacher in the public schools, I have found that it all comes down to the tone and amount of respect the teacher sets in the classroom. I have seen teachers make all out efforts to make sure my disabled students were included, respected and treated with kindness. The whole class is a club. There is a sense of belonging. Bullying is simply not tolerated. And the teacher actively reduces competition and increases opportunities for cooperation. These are great. Then I see my kids go into the next years classroom with a oblivious teacher who is maybe uncomfortable and bitter about taking my disabled students and it all breaks down into an ugly mess of disrespect and cruelty. With larger class sizes, less days to teach and testing pressure, I know that teachers sometimes just can't monitor the social atmosphere in the classroom to any affect. Teachers  efforts in regards to socialization are almost entirely spent trying to enforce its extinction. I think that many times, public school is the absolute worst place to even consider cultivating healthy socialization skills. I think the number one skill I learned in public school was to be as invisible and inconspicuous as possible. I learned it was safer to purposefully not matter to anyone and success was when it really didn't matter to anyone whether I was there or not. These skills have not served me well in my career.

I can hear my father saying, "Well, kids don't need to be sheltered from the social problems they have with other kids! It is a part of life! They need to learn to be tough and take it!" To which I call bullshit. I have known a ton of adults with disabilities that grew up in the public schools and were physically and emotionally abused on a daily basis for years. This is not, like some would have you believe, due to the nature of disability itself or that kids will be kids. In the proper, supported environment, able-bodies kids do fine with kids who are disabled or different in some other way. They need guidance and role models in order to do it sometimes, though. Some teachers pull this off beautifully, but most don't or cannot. I don't like the idea of leaving it up to chance for my kids. No child should have to put up with 13 years of systematic child abuse, which is what happens to some kids in the public schools. And even if my kids are not victims of this, I don't like the idea of them being in an environment where it is ignored or even encouraged. Kids are going to have enough conflicts in their lives that they aren't going to be sheltered unless you literally lock them up. It isn't the conflict that teaches socialization, it is the response to conflict. Public schools do not have a good track record with appropriately handling social conflicts. Homeschoolers are doing quite well with socialization skills. ( A Google of "Homeschool Socialization")

The advantage that homeschool kids have is in the variety of mentored social opportunities they encounter. They meet kids from all walks of life in more natural settings where it is more likely that common interests are shared. They work with more adults and see more adults working together. There socialization is supervised and because socialization opportunities are usually voluntary and cooperative, they are motivated to work conflicts to a successful resolution rather than being forced to endure days, weeks, and years of bullying and torment. (Or be unsupervised and unmentored while they bully and torment.) I think this socialization misconception comes from the myth that homeschooled kids are isolated with their textbooks and their mom at the kitchen table and never leave the house or see another kid. In my city there are homeschooling classes, clubs, park days, skating days, swimming days, laser tag days, drama clubs, sports teams, proms and dances, music performance recitals, field trips, specialized group lessons and tutoring, volunteer opportunities, social and civic opportunities, pen pal programs, career discovery opportunities, tween and teen clubs, science and other specialty camps, community gardening and farming, really anything you could find in a public school and more is available for homeschoolers. There is more of a problem trying not to over-schedule kids than having them sit home all day with no chance to interact with others. Which is a good transition for...

So what do homeschoolers do all day?

Well, this is not a simple, one paragraph answer. It varies widely on educational philosophy, learning styles, geographic locations, resources, etc. Statistic have shown (and I'd honestly have to go hunting for this but I do distinctly remember it) that homeschooling students are doing better than PS kids across the board no matter what educational style, income level, parent education level, or geographic location. The connecting element is the one on one or small group individualized instruction that they get. This seems to be the key to the success of homeschooling. The student's understanding is constantly being assessed, they can go as quickly or as slowly as they need to, they have a lot more input, investment and power in their own education, they don't waste time on busywork and are able to accomplish much more in less time. I know I keep saying it, but the number one way to improve public education would be to drastically cut class size and individualize education for each student as much as possible. Homeschooling parents (or whoever teaches the child) do not have to be board certified teachers and don't even have to have a college degree. Many parents learn right along with their kids. They know their students and are personally invested in their success. That a big chunk of all it takes. It's the individualization, stupid!

That said, there is also a huge plethora of homeschooling resources out there to help families out. It is overwhelming. There is support for every philosophy or combination of philosophy out there. I can't tell you about all the different ways people homeschool, but I thought I'd give you a little review of the ones I have spent the most time looking at, at some point...because this post is already long enough and that is a lot of information. So, maybe I'll save that for a part 3 sometime.

In quashing the misconceptions, I don't mean to sound like homeschooling is all rosy and Utopian and wonderful with sunflowers and butterflies. Obviously it takes a lot of dedication, motivation, time, energy, resources and some level of money. People can get sick of their kids, kids can get sick of their people, work and finances come into play, their are organization issues to deal with, scheduling conflicts, etc. It is a particular lifestyle that not everyone would want. This is why again, I think it is so important that we do have public schools. But wouldn't it be great for everyone to get this level of individual attention and creativity spent on their education, even if their parents couldn't provide it themselves? At a societal level, this is what I hope to see will be one of the most compelling things to come out of homeschooling--that it will give rise to better, more realistic reforms and funding for schools rather than the farce that is No Child Left Behind.

Okay, I kind of drifted out at the end there until another time. Is there any blantantly obvious homeschooling concern that I missed?

For Battlestar Galactica Nerds (Such as myself)

Apropos to my previous post, I was having a little conversation with another self-proclaimed BSG dorkface regarding Helo and Athena's domestic scene in the last episode. To which she says:

"Also, how come Helo wasn't helping with the laundry? Jayzus, She freakin' betrays her own people, has his baby and sits in a cell for 2 seasons, almost gets raped and tortured by his colleagues, gets her baby stoled by his CO, goes through a cloud of radiation, dies, gets downloaded, rescues their child alone and STILL has to fold the fucking clothes?"

I about fell off my chair laughing at that. Apparently domestic gender equity issues categorically suck ass throughout the universe.

And Now You'll Understand Why The In-laws Think I'm a Bitchy, Man-Hating, Feminazi

A couple of hours ago I read the always wise Meredith's comment on my post below about homeschooling. I've been thinking about it and the whole issue she brings up since reading it and it's driving me crazy and now I have to blog it out. (Thanks, Meredith...I was just going to veg in front of the TV tonight : ). I'm not sure I have a whole coherent plan to write about my thoughts here, so bear with me. She says in part:

After I read this I really tried to think through what it is that bothers me about homeschooling, since I've never put my finger on it, and it's this: the larger social implications. Why is it exactly that homeschooling has become much more common and more mainstream in recent years? And what will that mean for our society, and especially gender equality, as time passes? Because let's face it, women are the ones doing the lion's share of this work, just as with stay-at-home parenting, and both take them out of the work world for years. I see so many of my friends doing or considering homeschooling or staying at home with young children (god knows I'm tempted too), women who are committed feminists and liberal-minded thinkers, and I wonder what it means for their voices to be absent from the work world.

So many people talk about this issue of the struggle that women have to choose between or somehow balance their careers and their families, and how the women who choose to stay out of the workforce for  a period or forever, are (unintentionally) creating a bigger gap for women in workforce equality. Homeschooling, then, stretches and expands this gap as it potentially takes more women out of the workforce for longer periods of time. And even a possible hint about how maybe some men are seeing this to their advantage and pushing for more women to get back in the home where they belong via homeschooling. (Have I got that right, Meredith? Don't want to misrepresent your point.)

Obviously this is an interesting observation to me because, I, like every other mother in the US it seems, have struggled with the whole parenting vs. career thing. I worked long and hard on my career--and if you put aside the disability/health insurance complication I've got going on--yes, I essentially gave it up to become a mother. And yes, if I homeschooled, I would be deciding to give it up for a longer period, maybe indefinitely. At least to the extent of giving it my full-throttle effort and attention. Yes, I worry about what this means for not only women in society as a whole, but the implications it may have on my own kids. Two boys that will see their mother not working outside the home and pretty much spend my days "doing for" them. (Although I hope they will see it as "doing with" them.)

My own mother--and I'm sure I've told this story before--with only a background of poverty, abuse, and a high school diploma, worked her way up from mailroom clerk to highly paid executive in a large corporation. It was a lot to live up to, but also she was a powerful role model for my sister and I. She also perhaps paved the way for other women executives that followed her. One of the things I regret now that she is gone is that I don't have an opportunity--from a parent's perspective--to talk to her about the choices, sacrifices and balances she had to create in order to do that. My mother was not very involved in my sister's and my schooling on a day-to-day basis. She went to our conferences, expected good work and good grades and that was that. I don't feel neglected in any way because my mom was never room mother, but I don't know anything different either. I do remember that she was tired a lot after she came home. She came in, changed her clothes, we had dinner, and she sat in front of the TV until around 10, and she went to bed. (I don't mean to imply that we were ignored during this time, she talked to us and stuff, but I'm just trying to recreate how she might have done it with the only evidence I have: My own memories from my own perspective.) So, my point is that I struggle with the work/mom guilt thing as well. And it is certainly a core issue when it comes to homeschooling.

Sometimes I think, though, that women are thinking about it all wrong. (I'm sure I'm going to get slammed for this by someone who is much more knowledgeable about woman's issues than I am.) It's like we are accepting the oppression that the patriarchy feeds us by falling into the oppression trap. (Not like when you are oppressed you actually have so much of a choice to NOT fall into this.) It's like our only two choices are a) we stay at home and give up the workforce to men and take 99% of the responsibilities of raising children like we were expected to prior to the 60's; or b) we must go to work and try to do it exactly how men have worked in order to be competitive. We do a 40+ hour week. We keep our kid-related absenteeism to an absolute minimum. We come back to work before we are even done bleeding from giving birth and our kids are 3 weeks old as if it all will not affect our jobs one bit. We assure our employers that the fact that we have children will in no way impact our job performance and almost pretend not to have them except in idle small talk with other female co-workers. We follow all of men's rules so we can struggle for that equality in the workplace while most of us still are responsible for 99% of the child and house work at home. Two choices. Framed for us entirely by the patriarchy. Either go home and do your womanly duties, or work by our rules- and then go home and do your womanly duties.

It is the classic whole "Birdcage" model of oppression (by Madelyn Frye, I want to say??). When men occasionally see a bar(rier) in front of them, they just walk around it. When women see a barrier they try to walk around it but are hit by another barrier. Often a catch-22. There is an equal and opposite barrier on the other side. We either work like men, or we stay home like the little housewife should. Those are the choices. We are trapped in a birdcage. We try one way and it is blocked, and we turn around and try another way and there is the other side of the cage.

In order for true equality to happen in the workforce, we need to shed these options and create our own. We have to remember that men have only been able to do the full-time job where children and family is expected to be a weekend hobby at most because women throughout the history of time have enabled them to do this. We took care of the house and all their needs and raised their children and handled all of their other business for them. This is the ONLY WAY they could have set up the standard 9-5, heavy-overtime, always available, lots of travel, competitive workforce as it is today. Similar to how the U.S. could only have become the richest country in the world so fast by profiting off of the backs of slaves.

I read a lot of mom blogs now. More than I ever did previously. And although there are notable exceptions (and many people who just don't blog about the equity of their own marriage), I have been shocked at the prevalence of a running theme that I seem to read all the time. Mothers, both working and SAHM, are doing ALL. THE. WORK. They have a baby and they are doing all the getting up in the night while their husbands need "a break" and need "a night out with the guys." They all get ready to leave the house and the man just gets his coat and goes to the car while the woman is herding shoes, coats, kids, snacks, books, or whatever is needed for the trip. The woman has worked all day (either in the home or out) and the man comes home from work and sits on his ass all night because he's tired from working all day while the woman makes dinner, doesn't even sit down to eat it, cleans up, gives the kid a bath, handles the 23 little kid catastrophe's and puts the kid to bed. (Oh, yeah, and the father reads a bedtime story.) And when a woman goes out, she has to book well in advance with her husband so he can "babysit" his own goddamned children. Sometimes I'm so glad I live alone and am not married because I TOTALLY COULDN'T HANDLE THIS.  (That's probably a good indication right there as to WHY I'm not married.) I love D and he has some good qualities but he is the exact same way and I struggle with how to deal with his lack of taking responsibility for anything much outside himself. It is disguised and muted due to his disability and the fact that I get paid to assist him, but he doesn't have a friggin' clue about how much work, day-to-day, goes into taking care of his kids. He doesn't know when they need to go to the doctor or what vaccines they need. He doesn't know what programs are available for them to socialize with other kids. He doesn't know how much I pay for their food, insurance, clothing, fees for activities, etc. He doesn't know whose got the chronic mushy poop problem and who has occasional constipation. When I ask him to step in and take care of a discipline problem because I've got my hands full making him dinner, and he whines in a useless tone, "Aaaaaron, Naaaaim, Stoooop,' while just waiting for me to come handle it. I mean we talk about it and he's interested and concerned and he knows some of these things ah...temporarily. But he doesn't know in a way that makes him RESPONSIBLE for any of it. My friend Nik is the same way. I love him to pieces and he has many wonderful qualities, but when he went through a divorce, there was an obvious lack of understanding of how exactly it was going to be, day-to-day, for his ex-wife to have to raise his two children on her own. My dad doesn't get it either. It's all over the Internet, this attitude. It's everywhere. Its so common that we don't even think about it -its just the way it is. Yes, they care. Yes, they help out. Yes, they are concerned and involved. But they are largely not taking responsibility for the nitty-gritty, day to day, hour upon hour, mundane maintenance and work that it takes to manage a household and raise kids. That falls on women. And even when men are providing financially for women, I hear all the time the guilt and fear women have that they have left themselves vulnerable if the marraige should disolve and would have to try and resurrect dead or nonexistent careers to get by. Even when paying child support, most men (unless they remarry and start new families) gain financially and career wise in divorce while women lose financially and watch their careers suffer. Why? Because women keep near total responsibility for the kids.

Okay, so all this ranting is about this. The only way women (read: mothers) are going to ever get a chance at equal footing in the workforce is if the workforce changes and if marriage equity changes. Work needs to become significantly more flexible so highly talented women have a chance in hell to show their stuff. Things like FMLA need to be expanded, flexible hours and part-time work need to be made available, telecommuting needs to be accepted, exiting and re-entering the workforce needs to be made easier. Child care and health care need to be provided.  Families need to be respected and the work and issues that involve families need to be integrated into the workforce instead of playing like they can't exist in order to get ahead. This is probably only going to ever come about if men see an advantage for themselves as well, and can't out-compete their female counterparts who are doing part-time or flex work. They can't be allowed to continue to have the freedom to cast off all family responsibility and pull these obnoxious 80 hour weeks that mothers can't possibly pull-off. (Sometimes  I think some women don't choose to stay at home because they are all about the kids; they do it because they can't stand the thought of being at such a disadvantage in the workforce by not being able to "pull their weight" as well as men. The stress is just too much so they give up on their careers and instead concentrate on something they have a shot at success at--parenting.)

So how do we make working conditions more equitable? I think it really needs to start at home in marriages/partnerships. I hate the implication that women who stay at home are wasting their lives away doing nothing and not supporting the feminist fight. One of the main problems here is the hours of hard unpaid slave labor women are doing in the home (and I'm counting the "second-shift" work that the majority of working mothers do as well) is completely devalued by society. No it isn't necessarily intellectually challenging and no it isn't glamorous, but it is this valuable non-paid work that women have done that have allowed men to go off and do the glamorous, high-paying, stimulating stuff. This is why it is so easy for men to cast it off to the woman in a partnership. They think it is nothing and it is drudge work. Fathers need to do their fucking share, OK? End of story. Maybe this is easy for me to say since I'm not married, but I just want to say to some women, "Don't marry the bastards and have their children if they aren't willing to pull the weight." (I think that but not seriously. I don't really blame women for this as I am in my own weird version of it as well. I mean, really...What I'm talking about is demanding that men voluntarily give up their power and advantage. That is going to take all of women pulling together, not just one housewife demanding that her husband do the laundry.) If we could somehow demand that they pull their own weight at home, women would have more hours freed up to work and men would need more flexible working conditions to do their part at home.

Now, I'm not saying that married couples need to always work outside the home X number of equal hours and work inside the home Y number of equal hours. (Although if it comes to that, yeah, wives. Get out a sheet of paper and take some data on who's doing what and when. How equal is it? And how fulfilled are each of you doing it? No one person should be stuck with all the drudge work all the time.) Sometimes it may be that one person really enjoys staying home and the other person likes their job and it works out for them. But, this is what I'm saying: Women should not be pulling a second shift at home while men are just going to work. Especially if she wants to work on her career and even if she wouldn't make as much money doing it as her husband. Women have the right to be happy in work outside of the family, and men have a responsibility to clean the damned toilets if a women has worked all day long already. And if they do, they shouldn't be all self-congratulatory about it like it is something special that they shouldn't be doing in the first place so now they are all pro-feminist.

Since we can't easily change the shape of the workforce to give more flexibility and thus an equal playing field to women since, like, all the men are in charge now. I get what Meredith is saying. We need these women like my mom and others who have either opted out of motherhood for their careers or just busted ass trying to do it all and find a balance somehow. They are the only ones we've got right now if we have decided to forgo career and put motherhood first. God bless 'em. But, I really think that the revolution needs to start at home. Both working moms and stay at home moms need to stop enabling fathers to opt out of large chunks of the daily grind of housework and parenting. Fathers need to feel the pull and live with what we've been living with for generations. They need to pull their weight at home instead of getting a free pass to out-compete us in the workforce.

So, this is what I think needs to be done, but I'm not saying I'm so great at it myself. D and I have so many disability related complications in this regard. And sometimes you just don't have the energy to nag and stand up for yourself and demand that the guy take a shift with the screaming newborn at night. You just need to get it done and get through the day so you just do it. Especially with the added pressure that if he doesn't get a good night's sleep, he may put HIS job in jeopardy. (It all comes down to the damned corporacracy and our acceptance of the religion of the All Mighty Profit, so I'm not saying there aren't several layers to this problem.) But I guess what I am saying is that I think woman who have chosen to sacrifice career for motherhood have not (or don't have to) check out of the fight for equality. They actually have as crucial of a role as women in the workforce. They just need to feel empowered enough to take it on.

And as far as homeschooling goes...might I dream that part  of my job is to teach my boys about their possible future responsibilities as partners and fathers? (I've currently got a two year old that happily helps out with more laundry, vacuuming and dishes than many full-grown men probably do. Hee hee). And too help them understand the oppression that women face? To possibly guide them to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem? I don't know if I can pull that off. But sometimes methinks I might be able to do it better than the public schools can.

(Despite my ranting, I really do appreciate your comment, Meredith. Thank you.)

FMLA up for review, Take Action before we lose it, folks.

Emmie has alerted me to the fact that the Family Medical Leave Act is up for review and is in danger of getting reduced. Which is scary and stupid on the part of corporations and the government.

I have used the FMLA twice for my own kidney surgeries and my father was able to also take it twice to help me out when I was recovering from said surgeries. Many disabled people are able to stay employed because of this leave--albeit unpaid. Many parents are able to stay employed while supporting their children or parents when they are seriously ill. It is completely inhumane that the government want to support corporations in weakening this act. It is also not in anyone's best interest. If folks are not able to stay employed when serious illness strikes, they may find themselves in a freefall that devestates their lives and wreaks havoc on the rest of us as well. More people become impoverished and are not able to pay taxes or pay for medical care, in addition to losing their employer sponsored health insurance. This puts a bigger burden on all the rest of us while giving corporations a break. We need to decide who should have the power here and where our priorities lie.

One of the main ways people use the FMLA is for maternity leave. Emmie talks more about this, but sometimes, especially when a pregnancy doesn't go as smoothly as planned, it is the only thing women have to safeguard their jobs. I don't know if most American women realize that in almost every other country in the world, women get up to several months of paid maternity leave. And then usually after that, many get reduced hours and a child care stipend. This is just what is done by most of the world to ensure that their workers are treated at least somewhat humanely. American women don't realize that many families in other countries look at the ways we are treated here and just think it is savage in its cruelty.

I lost my job before I was pregnant and then did some part-time contractual work up until after I was pregnant for the same employer and then lost that as well. Sometimes, I think that losing my job was the absolute best thing that ever happened to me in regards to my desire to be a parent. If I had been working while pregnant, I would have had to go on leave five weeks before my children were born because I was put on bedrest and had a surgery. Then after a C-section and two newborn preemies, I would have had to return to work when they were just six weeks old. At six weeks my kids were a bit over 5 pounds and were struggling to eat 20mg feedings every two and a half hours round the clock. Not to mention that I had just lost a chunk of sight and had another impending surgery. The stress, instability, and threat to mine and my kids' health insurance and income makes it sad, but true that we are much safer now having lost my job and gone on disability and part time work. I know most people in my situation don't even have disability to count on. But many times, disabled people do not qualify for their company's short or long term disability benefit due to pre-existing conditions (I didn't qualify with the disabling conditions that forced me out of a job). FMLA is all we have. It is all most U.S. mothers have.

Jessica commented on Emmie's site:

It's really time the US starts to invest some of the vast amounts of money they are spending on security on its own people, and not killing others.

I'd really like to repeatedly tattoo that sentence all over G.W. (et al)'s face.

You can comment in support of strengthening the FMLA here. But hurry, you have until Feb. 16th.

I pounded this out in an angry late-night hurry, hope it all makes sense.

Pandora's Box (Part 1)

When I found out I was having twins, I found that working/daycare had gone from a tough but surmountable problem to a seemingly impossible problem. I came upon a dream solution (I dreamed). There was a Montessori school that took kids from 18 months to 12th grade. And if you think Montessori preschool is cool, elementary through high school is pretty darn innovative as well. Also if you are familiar with Montessori, you know that schools often don't like to take "newbie" older kids. They like their students to be Montessori-ized from the womb. So, if I could get my kids in at 18 months, I could practically guarantee that they could attend this school as long as they wanted.

The only way this would be possible would be through scholarship. This school offered four tuition scholarships per classroom. It was not based on student performance, rather it was based on getting some unrepresented minority kids in the kinda white-y, rich-y school. You had to meet certain income and minority status guides. So, I applied when the kids were born. I met the income requirements and did some fancy essaying to convince them that we also met the minority requirement via class, single momhood, and disability. They went for it.

Well, they half-went for it. They said they would only accept one of my kids on scholarship. They didn't care which, but they didn't like the idea of two of their four minority slots belonging to two little white boys. I understood this to an extent, but who was I going to pick for the cool educational opportunity and who would go to regular daycare and where would he go? How would I get the kids to two different daycares anyway? The other issue was, I could put the other kid on the waiting list, but he (actually both kids) had to be between 18-21 months at the time there was an opening. What were the chances of that? They told me that there was not much chance. Sometimes having twins is problematic like this. After looking at several other daycare options, as we all know I ended up becoming a reluctant SAHM. But I ended up thinking that was a really good choice for us.

But I really liked this school. It wasn't so much the Toddler/Preschool programs, which were really good, it was the elementary and secondary programs I was lusting after. It started making public school look kind of like a big waste of time. And also, I found out that my kids were going to go to a public elementary school that I couldn't even get to. Not by bus, anyway. It was way out of the way from anything, even though we have a school right down the street that we can't go to because we live two inches on the other side of the boundary. The kids would be bussed to the far away school, but if they were ever sick or if they just had a school play or something, It would be really hard for me to hustle up a ride or call a cab to get there. I just thought this was ridiculous.

So, all of this was far off and distant to think about when my kids were still infants and not sleeping through the night. It wasn't a big concern or anything, but it was something I thought about in the back of my mind. The preschool racket seemed pricey, inconvenient, impossible to get into some with long waiting lists, ridiculously competitive, and perhaps unnecessary. I mean, I never went to preschool. (I'm not saying it is bad for any and all kids to go, Okay? I'm just explaining some of my thought processes, here.) And then they would have to go to a school that I couldn't get to, and I wasn't too excited about anyway after being spoiled by the beautiful, wonderful innovative Montessori school.

So at some point when the kids were just babies, my dad and the kids and I were at the library, and without even looking for it, I came across a book on homeschooling and was flipping through it. My dad saw it and pitched a shit fit. "Kids need to go to school!" He thundered with authority. "I worry about these kids with you!" He declared. I really had no opinion of homeschooling myself at the time. It wasn't (and still isn't) something I've necessarily decided to do, I just was curious and wanted more information. But lots of people seemed to go berserk about the mere mention of it.  Most of whom had so many misconceptions about it and had never studied it that it is almost useless to discuss it with them. So since then, I have not mentioned homeschooling to anyone except D and a few of you people who live in the computer.

But in private, I have spent a large part of the last two years studying the topic. I've read tons of books. Everything from The Well Trained Mind to John Holt's Unschooling stuff to Alfie Kohn's stuff about being Punished by Rewards and lots of books about homeschooling on a shoestring to different methods of educational philosophy. I've read Gatto's Dumbing Us Down and Jonathan Kozol's work on the Savage Inequalities of compulsory education. I've read some of the old classics like the Benjamin Franklin autobiography and works about Thomas Jefferson's and Abe Lincoln's education. (For almost everyone in the world was homeschooled before the late 1800s.) I've researched how homeschoolers do on achievement tests and SAT tests and how they get into college. I've researched how well they do socially and on adaptive behavior scales. I've looked extensively at tons of different curriculum such as Calvert, Oak Meadow, Charlotte Mason, K12, Nebel's Elementary Education, and Connections Academy. I've even looked at some of the Christian curriculum like Rod and Staff or Bob Jones. I've read a ton of homeschooling blogs and message boards. I've talked to homeschoolers in my community. I joined our local homeschooling mailing list and also the national group of Unitarian Universalist Homeschoolers. I've also read a lot of the criticisms from the NEA and other sources. I've spent a ton of time investigating this topic and have learned an incredible amount. So much that if you'd let me, I'd write a book right here and now about it.

I've also experienced the wackjobs on all sides of this issue. I will say that most homeschoolers and public schoolers are just normal people making the best decisions they can for their kids. But there are the extremists. There are the ones who think homeschooling is child abuse. The ones who think that in order to be a true American one must support public schools at all costs, and the only way to do that is to enroll your kids in them and follow them blindly. On the other side are the public school haters. They think their kid will crumble and die uneducated, impoverished and morally bankrupt should they ever set their pinky toe on public school grounds. There are the religious zealots who think that public school undermines God by teaching evolution. Those who are radical unschoolers that think if you ever even suggest a structured educational activity for your kid then you are controlling them. Etc. Like everything in life, there are purists and extremists. But homeschoolers, I've found, are not made up of these people, the extremists are on the fringes of just normal, nice, common sense everyday people that make up the majority of homeschooling families.

Most people are middle ground. Most homeschoolers utilize public school methods and activities from time to time. And most public school families homeschool to some extent as well. I don't think that supporting homeschool and supporting public education are mutually exclusive. I think it is possible to do both. Having been in the trenches of public schools (or at least visited often) in my career for over 15 years has lead me to (some of) the following conclusions:

1. All children have the right to a free, appropriate (for each child) public education.
2. Public schools have some major, major problems that are foundational and cannot be fixed by band-aid programs like No Child Left Behind, Title 1, etc.
3. Money is needed but will not fix the problems in and of itself. But taking away money will cause bigger problems.
4. The quality of public school programs is very patchy. It varies tremendously by district and even by classroom. Segregation and inequalities by gender, race, class, and disability is alive and flourishing in the public schools. It is pretty much a reflection of real life. Getting a public education does not put a minority on an equal playing field as the majority culture, for they still have to deal with prejudices both in and beyond school. My point? Public education is a necessary ingredient  needed to acheive equality, but it is not the "Great Equilizer."
5. A great deal of special education is not as much about the students limitations but about public schools' failure to find ways of educating a diverse body of students. The larger class size gets and the less funding available for regular ed, the more kids will be labeled as disabled. Most of these labels will be learning disabilities and behavior disorders.
6. Many kids do fine in public schools, many kids do not. Many times, the kids that do well are doing well most significantly because of the supplemental (home)schooling and support they are getting at home and/or they just happen to fit into the mastery learning mode that public school caters too. Many times, the kids who are doing poorly are not working up to their potential because the school is not meeting their individual needs and there is no support at home.
7. There are great teachers out there who cannot work at their potential due to the conditions they work in. There are great teachers out there who do great things despite the conditions they work in. There are also a few lousy teachers.
8. Standardized testing is almost entirely a political scam. It is a ridiculous waste of money and does nothing to improve accountability. In many cases, it makes things worse.
9. Essentially, to varying degrees depending on districts and classrooms, schools are set up as mass production assembly lines to get as many kids work-ready as possible. The idea is not really to get every kid to meet his or her potential. It is to get as many kids to the middle of the bell curve as possible so that one size fits all and costs and effort can be cut.
10. The one thing that I see that would have a tremendous impact would be to lower the class sized to no more than a 10:1 ratio. All kids (not just special ed kids) need an individualized education.

So, I support public education. I have spent years of my life devoted to it. I don't necessarily think that homeschooling kids means that we don't need public schools and don't need to worry about making them better. Not all people can homeschool or private school and all kids have a right to an education. I want my kids to have access to a public school. However, I don't think that my kids need to go to one in order to show my support for them in the same way that I don't need to be a prisoner to support prison reform. Nor do I need to be gay to support gay marriage. In addition, the innovative stuff that is coming out of homeschools and private schools can only add to the research data we have about what is best for kids and some of those methods will pour over into public schools. Homeschoolers may be able to do more for public education in the long run than they could had they just sat in a few PTA meetings.  There is currently a really interesting discussion going on on my UU homeschoolers mailing list about public school improvement. Many folks have some really interesting ideas. Such as having public schools be wrapped in with libraries and parks and rec and other community centers. And/or having them be somewhat like college campuses where kids and their parents can pick and choose different classes suitable for each child based on ability, interest and talent. These would be multi-age groupings so kids could better get the right level of instruction for them instead of being moved through with all the other 8 year-olds regardless of talent, skill or need. Interesting stuff.

One of the main criticisms of homeschooling is that it is unregulated and thus the quality cannot be controlled. The knee-jerk is to say that the quality is obviously not controlled in public school either. We all know there are good schools and not so good schools. Good teachers and not so good ones. Homeschooling is obviously not for everyone. Some parents would rather gouge their eyes out than be in charge of whether little Jack learns his multiplication tables. This is why the natural occurring phenomenon where humans like to actually like and be good at what they do works so well. People who homeschool tend to be motivated to do it and are good at it. People often don't pursue what they aren't succeeding at for very long. So I think there is a built in safety there. But the fear is that somewhere, someone is going to use homeschooling as a guise to lock their children up in an attic and beat them senseless, whereas mandatory school attendance could account for some of that. This is remotely possible, I suppose, which is why I do not mind the public schools having some sort of accountability requirement for homeschoolers. Some libertarian types are opposed to this, but if it can save one kid from being abused in an attic, then I can drag my kids to the school district once a year or whatever the requirement may be. In most states, the requirements for homeschoolers are not terribly hard to deal with.

In all my research, I have concluded that homeschooling is a completely legitimate and effective way to get an education. It has the creative capacity to take a child far beyond what a public school can provide. Many of the lay-criticisms are based on myths. (I'll do a part two on misconceptions about homeschooling). Many of the true criticisms are in regards to things that don't directly affect my family. (i.e. kid in attic.) Deciding to homeschool is a completely individual decision that affects each family differently. Factors such as income, support, geographic location, parental and kid motivation all come into play.

So is homeschooling right for my family? I don't know yet. I will be looking at several factors in the coming years before I make a decision about Kindergarten. And then even after whatever decision I make about Kindergarten, I will keep evaluating as we go along to see what is the best option for each of my kids and myself. This toddler/preschool time is a trial period to sort of try on the lifestyle. Things such as income, D's ability to contribute his time and energy to homeschooling, my desire for a more substantial career, whether my kids and I can stand to put up with each other enough, transportation, community opportunities and the like will all come into play. They will most likely be attending a homeschool co-op based preschool at least one or two days a week starting next year, and they will also probably start some of the preschool Montessori curriculum next year with possibly a bit of Calvert's pre-K thrown in. And of course, as much "unschooling" or organic learning experiences as we can find.  When they are closer to Kindergarten age, I will probably assess the public school situation more closely. I will visit the schools, see if the district is willing to send them to the school down the street, get a feel for classrooms and teachers, etc. I really have nothing against my school district. It is not the best in the metro area, but it is not the worst, either. It has received national attention for cutting school days under the federal minimum guidelines, which is unfortunate for a lot of families who have to use public schools as daycare (as would I if I went back to a full-time job.) So, I have mixed feelings about it, but also know a lot of kids who attend and they are doing well and I'll try to have an open mind about it when the time comes.

Since all studies of academics show that homeschoolers blow public school kids out of the water, there is the "yeah, but..." about homeschooling kids being from affluent families skew the results. (But they've also compared homeschoolers to affluent public schoolers, and although not as dramatic, they still achieve higher on test scores--for whatever that's worth.) In my case, although I have an "affluent" education, I am working class and a disabled minority and single mom. I am forced to make a choices between not so great daycare, not so great schools, and not so great stability all the time. I cannot afford a lot of fancy tutors or private school. I will probably not be able to afford to send my kids anywhere but in-state universities unless they find scholarships or other opportunities. Homeschooling, if we decide it is right for us, may be one really special and unique thing I can give my kids that will last them a lifetime. 

Mushy McMushferbrains

My brain has been a bit mushy for about a week now. Things are OK, but I haven't been motivated to write anything of any decent substance. I'm having another minor medication problem.

I recently started taking Levothyroxine, a drug for hypothyroidism. I love this drug. I want to marry this drug and have little Levothyroxine babies. It has changed a lot of things. For example: Last spring, I was bound and determined to lose the 40 or so pounds of extra weight I have been carrying around far too long. I followed Weight Watchers religiously for a month. I also exercised five days a week. On MWF, I either swam for 30-40 minutes or did weights and 45 minutes of cardio. And I had to walk the 20 minute walk to the gym and back. For WW purposes, I was earning about 7 activity points a day. Then on most Tues. and Thurs. I did a half hour cardio video from WW that was worth 2 points. This was in addition to carrying two non-walking toddlers everywhere and up and down stairs etc. And walking quite a few places as well. The second month, I added pre-packaged food from the Zone Gourmet. I ate nothing except this frozen diet food for two months. It was really monotonous. After all this work, I lost a total of..........

0 pounds. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. Sure, the scale would fluctuate a pound or two week after week. But in total? Nothing. It was so depressing, I just gave up. I could eat a lot of crap and not really gain much, but nothing I did as far as dieting helped with weight loss.

So, then this December I got on Levo. And after some tinkering with the dosage, I started back on WW. And I will say that I follow it pretty closely, but not perfectly. And I don't let any of those flex points get by without me using them up each week. I still work out at the gym 2-3 days a week. I dropped weights and upped my cardio, but also have not gotten back to doing my Tues./Thurs. videos, either. In January, I lost a total of.........

9 pounds!!! All from a reasonable but not crazy strict effort and that drug. The only bad thing about that drug was that it was making my sleep patterns crazy. I would fall asleep and then wake up every half hour. But I didn't care because I had SO MUCH ENERGY. And even that had settled a bit. I was getting to where I could at least sleep for 5-6 hour stretches.

Until.

Last weekend, I started to itch. And itch and itch and itch. All over my body. Mostly my hands, but in my hair, my legs, my places you don't want to know about. Crazy, insanity causing itchiness. After several days of ruling out different causes, I decided to stop taking the drug. Within 48 hours of my last dose, the itching completely stopped. Aaahh it was so wonderful.

And then the sleep came. Oh, glorious sleep, how I've missed ye. I drop dead at 11:30 and sleep straight through the night until sometimes 9 or 10 the next day. And I have even been taking an afternoon nap. It's been all about sleep for about 4 days now. Lovely lovely sleep.

But, I don't want to sleep forever and I don't want to be fat forever. So, I am kind of between a rock and a hard place now. In January, I switched prescription drug coverage and they required that I get the generic brand of Levo. I had been using the name brand. My doctor thinks it is possible I may be allergic to a filler in the generic that may not be in the brand, and also there is a chance that I could get through the itching side effect and it would eventually subside. So, I'm taking a few more days off until I start with the brand Levo again to see what happens. My marriage with it may not be over yet. Or there are maybe a few other different drugs I could try that also treat hypothyroidism.

So, all this is to say that I haven't been writing because I've either been itching or sleeping. Aside from that, things are fine. D is fine. Kids are good. Life is going as well as can be expected. I have blog entries on the brain but when I compose them in my head, the sentences trail off into strange and weird dreams about my internal love affair with Jim Halpert from The Office. (I don't really think I'm crushing on him during my waking hours, really, he's just been showing up in my dreams lately.)

I'm trying to read some stuff by Alfie Kohn as well, that I want to write about. I'm reading him so that I can knock some of my strict behaviorist training out of my head. So that has been interesting, yet even that has trailed of into sleep. So, sorry for the long delay...and more to come soon. Hope you are doing well out there, all you nice people who live in my computer.

ETA: Help a space case out here: I just found out 5 seconds ago that I have to bring a main dish to a potluck with a "mexican/latin" theme in a few days. (I hate mandated theme-y crap, but whatever.) Got ideas/recipes? Something easy to make, carry and serve to about ten people and a handful of small children?