Our kids began OWL classes.
No, much to their disappointment, this was not Hogwarts's Ordinary Wizarding Levels. Instead, it was the Unitarian Universalist Association's Our Whole Lives curriculum on sexuality, identity, and health for elementary school kids, including tools on coping with the expression of these in popular culture. (It's not the mysterious film we watched in segregated groups in 5th grade that was nothing more than a Kotex ad.) Mama and I were thrilled this was a topic that the UUA addressed and knew the kids would be taking it before they were even born. Our first congregation hadn't offered it in years, just one of the reasons we switched.
And so Sunday morning, before church, found them sitting in the OWL class.
No, I don't know how it went. "What happens in OWL, stays in OWL." They can tell me what they learned but not what other kids asked. The two teachers--especially trained by the UUA, a man and a woman--had given us parents a detailed handout about the different sessions (on such topics as puberty, sexual orientation, "lovemaking," health and safety, decision-making), complete with vocabulary list so we all used the proper terms.
Of course, hearing that many of their peers and classmates hadn't discussed sex or the like with their folks (and these are UUs! I expected it of my Catholic friends, who have begged me to tell my kids not to say a word to theirs, to preserve their "innocence."), we wondered if we had said too much too soon. Being a non-traditional family that created their children in a less-than-natural way, however, the topic arose pretty early. They asked; we told. In fact, they both read the main book of the course, It's Perfectly Normal, last year. (I highly recommend it; that, and the American Girl one, The Care and Keeping of You 1 & 2.) Now, as fully informed as any fourth graders, they just roll their eyes at me when the topic arises.
Most of the time.
"Mom," Sis asked on Friday, "why do all the songs on the radio talk about sex?"
Um . . . because it's geared to (and often performed by) hormonal teenagers who are exploring their bodies, identities, and relationships and/or adults nostalgic for (or stuck in) that phase?? Sis thought the song "Animals" must be about fluffy bunnies or something--not people smelling and preying upon and "eating" (I kid you not) each other--because she couldn't understand the lyrics.*
OWL came just in time.
-=-=-=-=-=-
*excerpt from "Animals" by Maroon V
Baby, I'm preying on you tonight
Hunt you down eat you alive
Just like animals, animals, like animals-mals
Maybe you think that you can hide
I can smell your scent from miles
Just like animals, animals, like animals-mals
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label education. Show all posts
Monday, January 5, 2015
Monday, October 21, 2013
Peace and Quiet
I'm learning a lot of new ways to quieten a class as part of my work as a docent at the historic house. There is the standard raised-hand-in-the-air (one GS leader said once, "Imagine a string running from your toes through your mouth--you pull it closed when you raise your hand." Ick.) When they raise a hand with two fingers up (peace sign) and put the index finger of their other hand to their lips, it's "Peace and Quiet." In Brownies, we use the Girl Scout three-finger sign in the air. Some teachers have a clapping pattern that they start and the kids complete. Last week, the teacher counted down from 5. On Friday, they completed a few different sing songs: "Stop, look and listen!" - "Okay!"; "123, eyes on me!" - "1, 2, eyes on you!"; and finally, "Hocus, Pocus. Everybody focus!" And I even suggested, on the spot, that when I said something really interesting they could, instead of shouting out (of which they were doing a lot), wave their fingers as you do for ASL applause.
And most of the time it works, for a bit, until the teacher has to trot out a new one.
And most of the time it works, for a bit, until the teacher has to trot out a new one.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Lacunae
No, not Barbara Kingsolver's new book.
Silk Road Snack
1/4 cup butter
2 cups pitted chopped dates
1/2 cup toasted flour or crushed cookie (like graham crackers)
1/2 teaspoon ground cardamom
1/2 teaspoon ground fennel seeds
1/2 teaspoon coriander seeds
1/2 cup nuts
In a heavy frying pan, melt butter on medium heat.
Mash in dates with the back of a wooden spoon. If dates are dry and hard to mash, add a little hot water to soften them.
While mashing, gradually sprinkle in crushed cookies, cardamom, fennel, and coriander seeds (total time 7-10 minutes).
Spread the mixture on a flat tray or plate about 1/2 inch thick. Press nuts well onto the surface. When cool, cut into small squares and serve.
AMNH recipe card from the exhibition
A hole in my education.
I have realized how completely uninformed about the history of Eastern Europe and Central Asia I am. It is a definite black hole in my education, which seems fitting since I have gathered from recent readings that the area is often bypassed in favor of its Chinese, Indian, or Middle Eastern neighbors. But in reading recently about the Silk Road, having become so intrigued by the teaser of an exhibition at the AMNH (in these sense that it was light on artifacts and history and heavy on ambiance and the experience of it), I have started to put pieces together. Like why are the Uighurs in China Muslims? Well, because they were originally their own people and embraced Islam when it reached them via, you guessed it, the Silk Road. The uneasy relationship of Tibet and China? Well, there used to be a huge Tibetan Empire, that often fought with China over trade (and then they learned how to make silk!). The so-called Gypsies coming out of India to Europe? Yep, on the Silk Road. How about the difficult-to-follow history and various ethnic groups of the former Yugoslavia? And then there's Marco Polo, who traveled to China in the 13th century, on the Silk Road. Not to mention The Merchant of Venice and Othello . . . . And what of the Jewish communities of India and Christians in China? Silk Road proselytizing. And the blonde people in the Himalayas? And the way the Ottomans got all the way to almost the walls of Vienna but were stopped by the Hapsburgs? And then there's the whole Crusade thing (okay, I'm conflating the Holy Land and Turkey with Central Asia--this lacuna is big!), which was just as much about wealth (i.e. trade) and power as religion. And I'm not even going to get into the trade routes--spice route, I think it's called, whereby China and various empires sailed all over, trading, even as far as the coast of Africa (ignoring that controversial book about the (questionable) Chinese maritime accomplishments, 1421 The Year China Discovered America). Why did the Byzantine Empire succeed after the Roman one failed? Why did Alexander the Great (okay, I'm skipping around chronologically. And geographically.) go East instead of north? And why all the way to India? You guessed it, there were huge, wealthy, powerful empires in the east (of course, as a good classicist, I knew of the Scythians and Parthians and Bactrians, but only barely and as fringe groups to the histories of Greece and Rome). And not just the Persians. Except you can't ever see them on maps that split Europe from Asia right around Turkey. And so the area gets ignored. It's as if a blindfold has been lifted off my mind and I can see all these connections that I never realized before, even though they were just there hiding in plain sight. And I can't get enough. Which is why there are now 4 books on my nightstand having to do with various aspects of the region's history (including a vegetarian cookbook of the Silk Road!!).
And I have discovered another hole in my cultural literacy. A few weeks ago, there was something read at church about "to be understood, understand; to be loved, love." And I'd never heard it before and tried my best to Google it but never came up with anything. And so I let it lie. But tonight, Mama is sitting next to me doing some MP3 downloads and was talking about Sarah McLachlan and played a song, reciting the lyrics for me (because she knows I can't listen to songs and lyrics at the same time!). And, lo and behold, it was the reading from church. Can you guess it? Anyone with a Catholic education will. But of course, that's not me . . . .
The Prayer of St. Francis
Lord, make me an instrument of your peace;
where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon:
where there is doubt, faith ;
where there is despair, hope
where there is darkness, light
where there is sadness, joy
O divine Master,
grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood, as to understand;
to be loved, as to love;
for it is in giving that we receive,
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
and it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.
Amen.
Or, as it is sung, "Make Me a Channel of Your Peace"
Make me a channel of your peace,
Where there is hatred let me bring your love,
Where there is injury your pardon Lord,
And where there's doubt true faith in you.
Make me a channel of your peace,
Where there's despair in life, let me bring hope,
Where there is darkness, only light,
And where there's sadness, ever joy.
O Master grant that I may never seek,
So much to be consoled as to console,
To be understood as to understand,
To be loved as to love with all my soul.
Make me a channel of your peace,
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned,
In giving to all men that we receive
And in dying that we are born to eternal life.
-=-=-=-=-=
Date Sweets
A Recipe from "Traveling the Silk Road"
1/4 cup butter
2 cups pitted chopped dates
1/2 cup toasted flour or crushed cookie (graham crackers may be used)
1/2 teaspoon ground cardamom
1/2 teaspoon ground fennel seeds
1/2 teaspoon coriander seeds
1/2 cup nuts (chef's choice)
In a heavy frying pan, melt butter on medium heat.
Mash in dates with the back of a wooden spoon. If dates are dry and hard to mash, add a little hot water to soften them.
While mashing, gradually sprinkle in crushed cookies, cardamom, fennel, and coriander (total time: 7-10 minutes).
Spread the mixture on a flat tray or plate, about 1/2" thick. Press nuts well onto the surface. Whhen cool, cut into small squares and serve.
AMNH recipe card from the exhibition
Silk Road Snack
1/4 cup butter
2 cups pitted chopped dates
1/2 cup toasted flour or crushed cookie (like graham crackers)
1/2 teaspoon ground cardamom
1/2 teaspoon ground fennel seeds
1/2 teaspoon coriander seeds
1/2 cup nuts
In a heavy frying pan, melt butter on medium heat.
Mash in dates with the back of a wooden spoon. If dates are dry and hard to mash, add a little hot water to soften them.
While mashing, gradually sprinkle in crushed cookies, cardamom, fennel, and coriander seeds (total time 7-10 minutes).
Spread the mixture on a flat tray or plate about 1/2 inch thick. Press nuts well onto the surface. When cool, cut into small squares and serve.
AMNH recipe card from the exhibition
Monday, November 24, 2008
My New Professional Blog
I was going to wait to premiere my new art history and museum education blog until there was more content, but NPR ran a feature about museums in the 21st century this evening and I wanted to comment on it.
So, check out another me at Look to Learn, Learn to Look.
So, check out another me at Look to Learn, Learn to Look.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Learning the "Little" Things
Learning the Alphabet
Eating his alphabet pasta, Bud says, "Mom, look. If I bite off the Q's tail, it's an O."
He is also learning his sign language letters: "If you make a '2' and put them [your fingers] down, it's an "n." If you make a '1' and put it down, it's a 't." If you make a '3' and put them down, it's an 'm.'" Sis is only interested in the "t" right now. This morning, his interest in sign language letters led to a request for things that begin with "n" and I realized that, after the first several obvious ones, I was coming up with things like "novice" and "nocturnal." I think I need to find some more alphabet books!
Counting
We love to count. And to add, if adding is moving one M&M or Skittle from one pile to another and saying, "1 and 1 is two M&Ms!" but they've gotten up towards 6+1=7, as long as there is enough candy. Sis likes to count on her fingers, insisting on counting off her nightly happy thoughts on her hands; luckily when one happy thought includes more than one item, such as when she lists Gommie and Pop together, she doesn't need to add two fingers--we would be there all night. Bud likes to count his Chinese numbers on his fingers, which progress differently than English numbers because of the way Chinese characters look (hard to explain, but you hold your hand sideways, and 3 looks like a sidways gesture for "okay" because the character for "san" is three dashes.).
Telling Time
Bud is obsessed with telling time. Always, when he sees a clock, but only clock faces, not digital ones, he asks me what time it is. And he likes to wait for the "ticker," or second hand, to reach the top--when he knows it changes--and ask me again.
There still isn't much concept of the length of time, it being such an abstract concept. From minutes to years, the kids can barely keep them straight. "Is it tomorrow?" Sis just asked me. We try to describe it concretely: tomorrow is after we sleep tonight, Christmas comes when it is winter which is after fall; dinner will be ready in the amount of time it takes to watch "Caillou." That actually doesn't help much--not because we don't watch tv around dinner, but because they always confuse breakfast, lunch, and dinner. But they are starting to understand the difference between a snack and a meal.
Tying Shoes
I had a dickens (or should that be capitalized out of respect?) learning to tie shoes (and, also to tell time and tell left from right). But the kids, who both have velcro shoes, love to tie knots in strings and try to tie bows. But since neither one of them can, which is fine, I spend a lot of time unknotting my shoes, apron strings, my yarn, and the like.
Right or Left
Sis is intrigued with right and left. As a confirmed left-hander (she has always shown a preference; Bud switches back and forth, mainly because he watches her, but is right-handed), this no doubt will be a lifetime obsession--scissors, places at restaurant tables, whatever else. But, oddly, she likes doing things for her right side--shoes, jacket arms--first, and already seems to know which is her right and which is her left.
Eating his alphabet pasta, Bud says, "Mom, look. If I bite off the Q's tail, it's an O."
He is also learning his sign language letters: "If you make a '2' and put them [your fingers] down, it's an "n." If you make a '1' and put it down, it's a 't." If you make a '3' and put them down, it's an 'm.'" Sis is only interested in the "t" right now. This morning, his interest in sign language letters led to a request for things that begin with "n" and I realized that, after the first several obvious ones, I was coming up with things like "novice" and "nocturnal." I think I need to find some more alphabet books!
Counting
We love to count. And to add, if adding is moving one M&M or Skittle from one pile to another and saying, "1 and 1 is two M&Ms!" but they've gotten up towards 6+1=7, as long as there is enough candy. Sis likes to count on her fingers, insisting on counting off her nightly happy thoughts on her hands; luckily when one happy thought includes more than one item, such as when she lists Gommie and Pop together, she doesn't need to add two fingers--we would be there all night. Bud likes to count his Chinese numbers on his fingers, which progress differently than English numbers because of the way Chinese characters look (hard to explain, but you hold your hand sideways, and 3 looks like a sidways gesture for "okay" because the character for "san" is three dashes.).
Telling Time
Bud is obsessed with telling time. Always, when he sees a clock, but only clock faces, not digital ones, he asks me what time it is. And he likes to wait for the "ticker," or second hand, to reach the top--when he knows it changes--and ask me again.
There still isn't much concept of the length of time, it being such an abstract concept. From minutes to years, the kids can barely keep them straight. "Is it tomorrow?" Sis just asked me. We try to describe it concretely: tomorrow is after we sleep tonight, Christmas comes when it is winter which is after fall; dinner will be ready in the amount of time it takes to watch "Caillou." That actually doesn't help much--not because we don't watch tv around dinner, but because they always confuse breakfast, lunch, and dinner. But they are starting to understand the difference between a snack and a meal.
Tying Shoes
I had a dickens (or should that be capitalized out of respect?) learning to tie shoes (and, also to tell time and tell left from right). But the kids, who both have velcro shoes, love to tie knots in strings and try to tie bows. But since neither one of them can, which is fine, I spend a lot of time unknotting my shoes, apron strings, my yarn, and the like.
Right or Left
Sis is intrigued with right and left. As a confirmed left-hander (she has always shown a preference; Bud switches back and forth, mainly because he watches her, but is right-handed), this no doubt will be a lifetime obsession--scissors, places at restaurant tables, whatever else. But, oddly, she likes doing things for her right side--shoes, jacket arms--first, and already seems to know which is her right and which is her left.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Unschooling? Private School? Public School?
A recent article in the NYTimes on a Manhattan "unschooling" family--that being, families who opt out of the educational system and try to foster a life-long love of learning more informally, think of it as do-it-yourself Montessori or Waldorf or Reggio-Emilia--has brought back all of our discussions on education and the kiddos. I've been meaning to blog about this for about a year, since the discussion goes back at least 1 1/2 years, but haven't gotten my mind around it all. I'm still working on it. And we're still, as you might say, "in process." This, my friends, is a long one, and I'm already long in a normal post.
Some background: Mama and I are both academically oriented, having gotten where we are through different yet similar educational paths. She attended 12 years of Catholic girls' school; I went through a suburban public school system. She went to an Ivy League for undergraduate; I went to a small liberal arts university. We both have advanced degrees. She hated school until college. I loved school all the way through (with some exceptions for subject and teacher). Her parents both have advanced degrees and her mom is a professor. My parents have bachelor's degrees and have pursued a course of lifelong learning through reading and travel. Mama and I value education and want the best one for our kids.
But what is "best"? First, I should say, and not just because one of their teachers occasionally reads my blog, that we are extremely happy with the preschool they are attending. It is child-centered, play-based, with a relatively diverse student body, caring teachers, and no commute. But they didn't have to attend preschool at all, though we never actually considered homeschooling them for preschool. We wanted them both to enter formal education, if only to see how they reacted and what their needs were. And we considered several ways to do that--this being Connecticut, there are lots of private schools to consider (and no public preschool--don't get me started on that!). Believe it or not, at three, they were almost too old for Montessori, which, in this area, won't take children once they are three (which also means they can't go on in Montessori here because they must have been in an accredited Montessori preschool). We liked the quiet structure of the approach, the independence, though not quite the discipline, but weren't yet ready to swallow the cost (two preschoolers at once changes your perspective--the cost for both where they are now would only be the cost for one at most of these private schools). And having witnessed the disastrous experience of a little friend, we're glad we didn't go that route.
Waldorf has always intrigued me and many of my parenting choices have been Waldorf-inspired, from little television to my initial hope to avoid plastic toys (this is next to impossible on a normal budget). I love the ritual and tradition, the natural materials, the fairy tales and stories. I'm not crazy about it's almost anti-academic stance (Steiner, Waldorf's main theorist, didn't believe children should read until they were 7+). And I'm not keen on its predominantly white, Christian, upper-middle class, Eurocentric approach. Or it's righteous granola hipster superior vibe. Besides, the closest Waldorf is quite a commute, plus an outrageous price.
We try not to make the educational decision based on price, but in truth the expensive schools would require a major change in our family structure because we couldn't afford tuition on one income. I would have to go back to work. And my little non-profit salary would just cover tuition for two at these private schools. But we decided that it would be more valuable to the family and the children to have a stay-at-home mom there for daytime parental involvement at school and after-school activities then to have a private school education and another working mom, most likely with afternoon into evening childcare, yet another expense. I could pursue my alternative teacher certification to work hours similar to school, but the irony of teaching public school to send my kids to private school doesn't set well.
See, I'm actually a public school Democrat. Like one of the NYTimes bloggers, I believe in the social, civic contract of quality public education for all of our children and despair at the white and/or middle/upper class flight from public schools. Besides, I loved public school and did well by it and think it is an important social bonding experience. But then, the only homeschoolers or even private schoolers in my part of Texas were rabid fundamentalist Christians; everyone else went to public school. Not so Mama, who only heard horror stories, and probably true, well-founded ones, about the public schools in her part of Queens in the 1980s. But she sat in class, had homework, had lunch, had recess, and music and art and reading and math, just all with catechism on top, and values the experience (if not the dogma).
But do I want my kids to be sacrifices to a political ideal? We have heard, from our pediatrician and even from public school teachers in town, that schools here, especially after elementary school, are mediocre at best. Real mediocre. The average SAT scores at the high school are, well, fairly dismal (I think my score, which was not meteoric, beats the average by more than 400 points; Mama's more than that! Have they so significantly changed the ways those are scored?). We want our children to have an educational grounding that gives them options later in life. They don't need to be brilliant, but we want them to have a love of learning, a solid knowledge base, and a future. Can they have that, if they are unchallenged and bored for 12 years? I'm not saying that is what would necessarily happen, but I want to avoid it and spare them the frustration, disappointment, depression of a negative school experience (I'm not talking about one or two episodes, but a widespread problem from grade to grade, teacher to teacher, subject to subject).
And I'm not saying my kids are too bright for public schools. But as someone with a little background in education, I recognize the truths behind Howard Gardner's learning styles, that every person has different strengths with regards to receiving and processing information. I'm a visual learner. My mom is auditory. I think my dad may be visual. Mama is kinesthetic (no wonder she didn't like K-12). Bud is probably auditory. Sis is probably visual and kinesthetic. Schools can't be expected to teach to each child's strengths; there just aren't enough hours or teachers or funds, though awareness of styles and processes is increasing (Mama Teacher could tell me the word for teaching to each child--individuation? differentiation?). Some children adapt better or have multiple learning strengths. But other children can't or don't, for various reasons.
So, with our pediatrician's encouragment, we have considered other alternatives, with some trepidation. Academic private schools: expensive in our area, with no doubt extreme social competition and a long commute, but with intense academics and options. Alternative private schools: like Waldorf, again expensive and far away, without intense academics, instead with lots of creativity (one of the commenters on the anti-schoolers article said these kinds of approaches are best for "artsy-fartsy" kids; I know we might have one of those, but not two), but still lots of social competition (our kids would be the poor ones, but at least our family is diverse enough to match the most granola ones!). Would one or the other of these work best for our kids? And how does the being bi-racial twins of lesbian moms play into the whole thing?
And then there is homeschooling. Teaching our kids oursevles at home, either following curricula or as less-informal "unschoolers." Or, specifically, my teaching the kids at home. Everything I read--often in extremely sympathetic publications like Mothering makes it sound idyllic and ideal, but then they are preaching to the choir. I can picture us travelling to Boston to study the Revolution, or to Niagara to study geology, or to Mama's family in Thailand to study art. And being so close to New York, New Haven, even Boston, Phillie, and DC, we could do amazing things.
I know I would be an interesting, challenging, creative, resourceful educator, as it is after all, what I did in the museums . . . but for my own children? I feel like they need interactions with other adults, other kids, other ways of doing things. Not just other well-off, liberal, granola homeschoolers and their parents, but people with different backgrounds, experiences, opinions, and approaches. The true democratic education. With a childhood educational experience that they can take with them and share with almost anyone else--swapping lunches, the dreaded pop quiz, picture day, frog dissections, homecoming dance, science fair, book reports, "the" talk in 5th grade (do they even do that anymore??). I learned a lot more in school than the three Rs.
There is a lot of discussion of the socialization of homeschoolers, how they only relate to adults, how they are viewed as weird by their peers (and even my parents think we're weird for considering it and would be doing the kids a grave disservice), how they are self-centered, egotistical, precocious. Now, the homeschoolers I've met don't seem to be, and, really, is junior high and high school really a positive socialization? Getting along well with all types of "other" is really a key component to adulthood, from holding a job to building a career, even to checking out at the grocery or talking to the person in the elevator. What kind of schooling helps with that? I also don't want to be a so-called "helicopter" parent hovering over my children so that they never experience independence, even failure, probably one of the hardest lessons of public school for me, both academic and social. The kids are the center of our world, but they aren't the center of the world. I'm afraid homeschooling would convince them otherwise, leaving them unprepared for life beyond school.
In the end, that's what it's all about: life after school. What you are equipped to do, what you want to do, and having those two paths align. Schooling is just a part of it, and just the first part. There are other factors in happiness and success after school--some of the people I know with the least formal education are the smartest, funniest, kindest, best people, irregardless of their schooling. And, with all due respect to the Ivy League, some of the worst people I've ever met were in its hallowed halls, Mama exluded. So, clearly, book learning isn't everything. And if the kids didn't even finish school, or never go formally and are the aforementioned unschooled, but are still kind, generous, reflective, engaged, independent, contributing, active people--all those wonderful adjectives that have little to do with the three Rs--I will be proud.
And so, for now, preschool is an experiment. To see if Bud and Sis work well in a school setting. To find out who they are as students. To see where their strengths and challenges are. It's "progress report" time, so we get to discuss them with their teachers to make sure they are thriving, not just surviving. And we'll continue to reevaluate it along the way, through elementary school, which will be public until proven otherewise. Because, in the end, the local public school system is our first, preferred choice. But, the other schools, the other approaches, will always be an option if things somehow don't work out well in public school. In the end, we really believe school experience is very individual (here come those learning styles again) and much of the success and difficulty is child-based, regardless of all else, that whole lily-in-mud-pond metaphor. What did my dad's friend say about college, "any college can teach you more than you can learn"? Most schools will provide an adequate or even good learning environment; all, as I've mentioned, have negatives and positives, even the expensive private ones. We just want to give them the environment that will most likely foster success and happiness, in their present and future. We just don't know what that will be for them yet.
Some background: Mama and I are both academically oriented, having gotten where we are through different yet similar educational paths. She attended 12 years of Catholic girls' school; I went through a suburban public school system. She went to an Ivy League for undergraduate; I went to a small liberal arts university. We both have advanced degrees. She hated school until college. I loved school all the way through (with some exceptions for subject and teacher). Her parents both have advanced degrees and her mom is a professor. My parents have bachelor's degrees and have pursued a course of lifelong learning through reading and travel. Mama and I value education and want the best one for our kids.
But what is "best"? First, I should say, and not just because one of their teachers occasionally reads my blog, that we are extremely happy with the preschool they are attending. It is child-centered, play-based, with a relatively diverse student body, caring teachers, and no commute. But they didn't have to attend preschool at all, though we never actually considered homeschooling them for preschool. We wanted them both to enter formal education, if only to see how they reacted and what their needs were. And we considered several ways to do that--this being Connecticut, there are lots of private schools to consider (and no public preschool--don't get me started on that!). Believe it or not, at three, they were almost too old for Montessori, which, in this area, won't take children once they are three (which also means they can't go on in Montessori here because they must have been in an accredited Montessori preschool). We liked the quiet structure of the approach, the independence, though not quite the discipline, but weren't yet ready to swallow the cost (two preschoolers at once changes your perspective--the cost for both where they are now would only be the cost for one at most of these private schools). And having witnessed the disastrous experience of a little friend, we're glad we didn't go that route.
Waldorf has always intrigued me and many of my parenting choices have been Waldorf-inspired, from little television to my initial hope to avoid plastic toys (this is next to impossible on a normal budget). I love the ritual and tradition, the natural materials, the fairy tales and stories. I'm not crazy about it's almost anti-academic stance (Steiner, Waldorf's main theorist, didn't believe children should read until they were 7+). And I'm not keen on its predominantly white, Christian, upper-middle class, Eurocentric approach. Or it's righteous granola hipster superior vibe. Besides, the closest Waldorf is quite a commute, plus an outrageous price.
We try not to make the educational decision based on price, but in truth the expensive schools would require a major change in our family structure because we couldn't afford tuition on one income. I would have to go back to work. And my little non-profit salary would just cover tuition for two at these private schools. But we decided that it would be more valuable to the family and the children to have a stay-at-home mom there for daytime parental involvement at school and after-school activities then to have a private school education and another working mom, most likely with afternoon into evening childcare, yet another expense. I could pursue my alternative teacher certification to work hours similar to school, but the irony of teaching public school to send my kids to private school doesn't set well.
See, I'm actually a public school Democrat. Like one of the NYTimes bloggers, I believe in the social, civic contract of quality public education for all of our children and despair at the white and/or middle/upper class flight from public schools. Besides, I loved public school and did well by it and think it is an important social bonding experience. But then, the only homeschoolers or even private schoolers in my part of Texas were rabid fundamentalist Christians; everyone else went to public school. Not so Mama, who only heard horror stories, and probably true, well-founded ones, about the public schools in her part of Queens in the 1980s. But she sat in class, had homework, had lunch, had recess, and music and art and reading and math, just all with catechism on top, and values the experience (if not the dogma).
But do I want my kids to be sacrifices to a political ideal? We have heard, from our pediatrician and even from public school teachers in town, that schools here, especially after elementary school, are mediocre at best. Real mediocre. The average SAT scores at the high school are, well, fairly dismal (I think my score, which was not meteoric, beats the average by more than 400 points; Mama's more than that! Have they so significantly changed the ways those are scored?). We want our children to have an educational grounding that gives them options later in life. They don't need to be brilliant, but we want them to have a love of learning, a solid knowledge base, and a future. Can they have that, if they are unchallenged and bored for 12 years? I'm not saying that is what would necessarily happen, but I want to avoid it and spare them the frustration, disappointment, depression of a negative school experience (I'm not talking about one or two episodes, but a widespread problem from grade to grade, teacher to teacher, subject to subject).
And I'm not saying my kids are too bright for public schools. But as someone with a little background in education, I recognize the truths behind Howard Gardner's learning styles, that every person has different strengths with regards to receiving and processing information. I'm a visual learner. My mom is auditory. I think my dad may be visual. Mama is kinesthetic (no wonder she didn't like K-12). Bud is probably auditory. Sis is probably visual and kinesthetic. Schools can't be expected to teach to each child's strengths; there just aren't enough hours or teachers or funds, though awareness of styles and processes is increasing (Mama Teacher could tell me the word for teaching to each child--individuation? differentiation?). Some children adapt better or have multiple learning strengths. But other children can't or don't, for various reasons.
So, with our pediatrician's encouragment, we have considered other alternatives, with some trepidation. Academic private schools: expensive in our area, with no doubt extreme social competition and a long commute, but with intense academics and options. Alternative private schools: like Waldorf, again expensive and far away, without intense academics, instead with lots of creativity (one of the commenters on the anti-schoolers article said these kinds of approaches are best for "artsy-fartsy" kids; I know we might have one of those, but not two), but still lots of social competition (our kids would be the poor ones, but at least our family is diverse enough to match the most granola ones!). Would one or the other of these work best for our kids? And how does the being bi-racial twins of lesbian moms play into the whole thing?
And then there is homeschooling. Teaching our kids oursevles at home, either following curricula or as less-informal "unschoolers." Or, specifically, my teaching the kids at home. Everything I read--often in extremely sympathetic publications like Mothering makes it sound idyllic and ideal, but then they are preaching to the choir. I can picture us travelling to Boston to study the Revolution, or to Niagara to study geology, or to Mama's family in Thailand to study art. And being so close to New York, New Haven, even Boston, Phillie, and DC, we could do amazing things.
I know I would be an interesting, challenging, creative, resourceful educator, as it is after all, what I did in the museums . . . but for my own children? I feel like they need interactions with other adults, other kids, other ways of doing things. Not just other well-off, liberal, granola homeschoolers and their parents, but people with different backgrounds, experiences, opinions, and approaches. The true democratic education. With a childhood educational experience that they can take with them and share with almost anyone else--swapping lunches, the dreaded pop quiz, picture day, frog dissections, homecoming dance, science fair, book reports, "the" talk in 5th grade (do they even do that anymore??). I learned a lot more in school than the three Rs.
There is a lot of discussion of the socialization of homeschoolers, how they only relate to adults, how they are viewed as weird by their peers (and even my parents think we're weird for considering it and would be doing the kids a grave disservice), how they are self-centered, egotistical, precocious. Now, the homeschoolers I've met don't seem to be, and, really, is junior high and high school really a positive socialization? Getting along well with all types of "other" is really a key component to adulthood, from holding a job to building a career, even to checking out at the grocery or talking to the person in the elevator. What kind of schooling helps with that? I also don't want to be a so-called "helicopter" parent hovering over my children so that they never experience independence, even failure, probably one of the hardest lessons of public school for me, both academic and social. The kids are the center of our world, but they aren't the center of the world. I'm afraid homeschooling would convince them otherwise, leaving them unprepared for life beyond school.
In the end, that's what it's all about: life after school. What you are equipped to do, what you want to do, and having those two paths align. Schooling is just a part of it, and just the first part. There are other factors in happiness and success after school--some of the people I know with the least formal education are the smartest, funniest, kindest, best people, irregardless of their schooling. And, with all due respect to the Ivy League, some of the worst people I've ever met were in its hallowed halls, Mama exluded. So, clearly, book learning isn't everything. And if the kids didn't even finish school, or never go formally and are the aforementioned unschooled, but are still kind, generous, reflective, engaged, independent, contributing, active people--all those wonderful adjectives that have little to do with the three Rs--I will be proud.
And so, for now, preschool is an experiment. To see if Bud and Sis work well in a school setting. To find out who they are as students. To see where their strengths and challenges are. It's "progress report" time, so we get to discuss them with their teachers to make sure they are thriving, not just surviving. And we'll continue to reevaluate it along the way, through elementary school, which will be public until proven otherewise. Because, in the end, the local public school system is our first, preferred choice. But, the other schools, the other approaches, will always be an option if things somehow don't work out well in public school. In the end, we really believe school experience is very individual (here come those learning styles again) and much of the success and difficulty is child-based, regardless of all else, that whole lily-in-mud-pond metaphor. What did my dad's friend say about college, "any college can teach you more than you can learn"? Most schools will provide an adequate or even good learning environment; all, as I've mentioned, have negatives and positives, even the expensive private ones. We just want to give them the environment that will most likely foster success and happiness, in their present and future. We just don't know what that will be for them yet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)