Are we homeschooling preschool, homepreschooling or skipping preschool? Take your pick. An interesting article on preschool and the home appeared in the most recent issue of The Link, by a mom who sent her son to preschool but withdrew him because he was bored. [if the link to the article doesn't work, try this one, its a different article, but she mentions this about halfway through it.]
I appreciate all the resources available on the web (many are also available in print, but its so easy to websurf). I like checking the World Book scope and sequence to see if we're missing anything. By their list, we're on target except for writing -- of course, this doesn't really help me because I'm not going to push writing, her muscles aren't ready yet. I think its a natural drive to want to communicate with others and I'm certain she will write when she is able -- she's at the scribbling stage where she claims its writing (though she knows it isn't), a developmental stage on the road to writing (just as pretending to read a memorized book is a step on the road to reading). At least the list gives me something to look at to see if there are any dreaded gaps (learning gaps is a fun topic on the hs e-mail groups).
Broadly speaking, the World Book scope and sequence for preschool lists skills pertaining to: size, shapes and colors, numbers and counting, reading readiness, position and direction, time, motor skills, and social-emotional development. There's really not all that much to it and nothing that requires any specialized tools or teaching. Most of this stuff can be learned by a child on her own or with demonstration and a few pointers. I love 'strewing,' so when I read on some list that preschoolers should know their address and phone number, I simply left a lot of at-home cards (business cards with our name and address on them) lying around for her to find -- it worked.
There are plenty of other lists out there. My state has its Standards of Learning listed on its Board of Education website and I imagine many other states do as well. There are also numerous differing philosophical approaches to education and most of them have skills lists. I was going to post a link to another list, but when I was going through the various homeschool websites, I was overwhelmed -- there is a lot of information out there.
Other items I've seen on preschool skills lists include: major holidays, days of the week, months of the year and seasons. We've learned these through reading lots of books that either directly address the subject or that include the subject. For instance, Eric Carle's The Very Hungry Caterpillar is about a catepillar's diet and his eventual change into a butterfly. The book progresses through the week as the caterpillar eats different things (On Monday...., On Tuesday...). Eric Carle's A House for Hermit Crab does something similar with months of the year.
As to writing, how are we working on that? By sitting with a pencil and workbooks, of course. No, just kidding -- by playing with playdough and cutting and pasting. Peeling and sticking stickers is another great way to work on fine motor skills. Its interesting, she can zipper and button, but her drawings are definitely in the abstract phase, though I can see her progressing -- she just added arms and legs to her figures.
Finally, who can ignore the importance of socialization? I don't think any homeschoolers disagree with the importance of socialization, we disagree with the assumption that proper socialization occurs only at schools (or that proper socialization even occurs at schools). Socialization opportunities are provided through playdates and park days and library story time, dance class and visits to the grandparents and Sunday school. How will she ever learn to sit down and be quiet -- not that it takes all that long to learn this important skill -- library story time and Sunday school. What about waiting in line? Go to the bank or the grocery store or almost anywhere. Take turns? Have a sibling or play with other kids.
One deficit we suffer by not going to preschool, we don't get invited to anywhere near the number of birthday parties that our preschooled friends do.
NOTE: this post is a work in progress, I plan to add more books to the subject areas noted above. I'm just sick of saving this post as a draft. If you're looking for books, check for updates or e-mail me.
NOTE to DH: your 2 year old nudie daughter just peed on your office floor. Apparently, she's untoilet-training herself. I preferred her sister's method of training after the age of 3 but with no accidents. Sigh. But I'm sure glad I'm not in an office somewhere doing real work. Grrrr.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
An Interesting Picture Book -- energy
My Light by Molly Bang is a picture book about how the sun's energy creates electricity using water power/dams, windturbines, solar panels and also discusses how plants use the sun's energy and how this created coal. The author includes a few pages of notes about electricity at the back of the book -- good for adults and older kids, for whom the picture book might be a bit simplistic. The author states within the notes that she had more but that her publisher urged her to shorten it, however, she's posted the deleted portion on her website, www.mollybang.com.
Transcendentalism for Children
D.B. Johnson has written and illustrated several picture books based on the life and writings of Henry David Thoreau. My 4 year-old enjoys the stories about Henry, who is a bear in the books, and his various adventures. I'm not sure how much sense the books make, but many children's picture books are silly stories and these books are fun for me to read. There is a page of notes in the back of each book that tells the background of the story, including where it appears in Thoreau's works, and an inspiring quote. From the notes to Henry Builds a Cabin, an excerpt from Walden:
"Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are actually though needlessly poor all their lives because they think they must have such a one as their neighbors have."
"Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are actually though needlessly poor all their lives because they think they must have such a one as their neighbors have."
Tuesday, October 19, 2004
What Are You Doing In Your Homeschooling?
This is a question I have a hard time answering. I realize that saying "nothing" is probably socially unacceptable, but its the truth, so I'm trying to work out an answer to this question so that I don't fail in future social encounters.
First of all, there really doesn't seem like there is anything to be 'done' in preschool. Reading books about preschool, I've learned that most (non-Montessori) preschools allow the children free time to choose activities such as dress up, building with blocks, doing artwork, a library area with books, etc. There is circle time, which can involve show and tell or storytime or learning songs or games. There is snack time and maybe some outside time on the playground. All this for two or three hours, three to five days a week for at least $200 a month (and Montessorians are laughing because Montessori is twice that). I'm not really sure why people send their kids to preschool, I imagine there are lots of reasons, including getting a break from the kids, socialization with a class of the children's peers, and perhaps for learning. However, I have to question if learning is the main reason anyone sends their child to preschool because kids learn just by living -- I'd even argue that they learn more outside of a classroom than inside it. For instance, why make a child who has known the alphabet for a year sit in circle time and review what the letter A is, what sound it makes, words that begin with A, etc? Perhaps there is a hierarchy of things parents what their children to know, the child who does not know the alphabet in preschool may not be interested in it for several years but might be captivated by nature and learn all about science that way..... Opps, I'm not supposed to be telling you why I homeschool, but what we're doing.
Nothing, we're doing nothing. When the 2 year-old naps, my 4 year-old and I read books together, if she's in the mood. The other day, we played Go Fish -- a couple of good games after we got past an initial argument when she told me I could not put down a pair from the hand I was dealt at the beginning of the game. It was interesting, because we didn't really talk about winning or losing, other than I noted that I won the first game because I wanted her to know the game was over since I had no cards. The second game, she got rid of all her cards first, she won and I noted it, but I don't think she gloated over it. When Daddy came home she told him about the game, noting that I won the first game and she won the second. Its funny to hear what your kids learn -- it was definitely significant to her because she reported it, she wasn't asked the outcome.
We cook sometimes, she helps me stir or measure and looks at the recipe with me.
She plays and tells stories. Once, she wrote a book (dictated to me which I wrote down).
The other day, I got four books from the library. The 4 year-old was holding two and her 2 year-old sister was holding two. My 4 year-old told me that they each had half. I was pretty impressed with that.
What are we doing? Nothing, but I've got to come up with a better answer than that.
First of all, there really doesn't seem like there is anything to be 'done' in preschool. Reading books about preschool, I've learned that most (non-Montessori) preschools allow the children free time to choose activities such as dress up, building with blocks, doing artwork, a library area with books, etc. There is circle time, which can involve show and tell or storytime or learning songs or games. There is snack time and maybe some outside time on the playground. All this for two or three hours, three to five days a week for at least $200 a month (and Montessorians are laughing because Montessori is twice that). I'm not really sure why people send their kids to preschool, I imagine there are lots of reasons, including getting a break from the kids, socialization with a class of the children's peers, and perhaps for learning. However, I have to question if learning is the main reason anyone sends their child to preschool because kids learn just by living -- I'd even argue that they learn more outside of a classroom than inside it. For instance, why make a child who has known the alphabet for a year sit in circle time and review what the letter A is, what sound it makes, words that begin with A, etc? Perhaps there is a hierarchy of things parents what their children to know, the child who does not know the alphabet in preschool may not be interested in it for several years but might be captivated by nature and learn all about science that way..... Opps, I'm not supposed to be telling you why I homeschool, but what we're doing.
Nothing, we're doing nothing. When the 2 year-old naps, my 4 year-old and I read books together, if she's in the mood. The other day, we played Go Fish -- a couple of good games after we got past an initial argument when she told me I could not put down a pair from the hand I was dealt at the beginning of the game. It was interesting, because we didn't really talk about winning or losing, other than I noted that I won the first game because I wanted her to know the game was over since I had no cards. The second game, she got rid of all her cards first, she won and I noted it, but I don't think she gloated over it. When Daddy came home she told him about the game, noting that I won the first game and she won the second. Its funny to hear what your kids learn -- it was definitely significant to her because she reported it, she wasn't asked the outcome.
We cook sometimes, she helps me stir or measure and looks at the recipe with me.
She plays and tells stories. Once, she wrote a book (dictated to me which I wrote down).
The other day, I got four books from the library. The 4 year-old was holding two and her 2 year-old sister was holding two. My 4 year-old told me that they each had half. I was pretty impressed with that.
What are we doing? Nothing, but I've got to come up with a better answer than that.
Saturday, October 16, 2004
The unclimber
I came across some notes I must have written down a few months ago, I don't remember any of it, but thought I'd post it here.
The name unclimber came from a comment I once made to my DH that those I labelled as social climbers could network all they wanted but I was happy "hanging out at basecamp." Various forms of basecamp were already claimed on blogspot, so I blended my interest in unschooling with my disdain for social climbers and came up with unclimber.
However, now I find myself a bit embarrassed by the name I chose out of a snarky social commentary. Strangely, though, unclimber is coming to mean something else to me. It speaks of being in the here and now (meditation and awareness) and not spending too much time, energy and thought on the future (vs. fundamentalist religion/salvation).
--sitting with contradictions
--fissure of personality
--need for unity in self [I have no idea why I wrote this list.]
Intersection/dovetailing of spirituality and unschooling. I could not be liberal about education and conservative about religion -- it lead to a psychically painful fissure, highlighted by my experiences in BSF vs. DOCC -- arrogance, frustration, impatience. I had a hard time with DOCC, not because DOCC failed me, but I think I failed DOCC.
Compulsion -- we can't make anyone eat, sleep, use the potty, learn or believe.
'Believing,' it makes me think of a post on Ken's blog, where he wrote:
"Evangelism is the easy work. Most have a canned message that takes a
salesman’s attitude and the memory of a few simple verses. Evangelists don’t
have the burden of nurturing people after they’ve scared the hell out of them
and left them with a rudimentary system of faith. They drive to the next
“revival” and all but forget about the new converts they’ve left at the altar.
Fundamentalist evangelists are particularly annoying because they think that
everything revolves around their beliefs. They are usually so ignorant
to everything but the subject of salvation that they are able to spread as
much damage as they do the “gospel.”"
To me, this was aptly illustrated this summer while walking along the Mall in Washington, D.C. when I was handed a small pamphlet by a nice-looking young man. It was a tract from a Baptist church in New Hampshire. In it there is an exhortation "Believe today!" and a prayer. I just question the utility of telling someone to believe -- like you can just will belief. If this doesn't make sense (and I think it probably doesn't), all I can say is that perhaps the connection between these two things lies only in my head.
The name unclimber came from a comment I once made to my DH that those I labelled as social climbers could network all they wanted but I was happy "hanging out at basecamp." Various forms of basecamp were already claimed on blogspot, so I blended my interest in unschooling with my disdain for social climbers and came up with unclimber.
However, now I find myself a bit embarrassed by the name I chose out of a snarky social commentary. Strangely, though, unclimber is coming to mean something else to me. It speaks of being in the here and now (meditation and awareness) and not spending too much time, energy and thought on the future (vs. fundamentalist religion/salvation).
--sitting with contradictions
--fissure of personality
--need for unity in self [I have no idea why I wrote this list.]
Intersection/dovetailing of spirituality and unschooling. I could not be liberal about education and conservative about religion -- it lead to a psychically painful fissure, highlighted by my experiences in BSF vs. DOCC -- arrogance, frustration, impatience. I had a hard time with DOCC, not because DOCC failed me, but I think I failed DOCC.
Compulsion -- we can't make anyone eat, sleep, use the potty, learn or believe.
'Believing,' it makes me think of a post on Ken's blog, where he wrote:
"Evangelism is the easy work. Most have a canned message that takes a
salesman’s attitude and the memory of a few simple verses. Evangelists don’t
have the burden of nurturing people after they’ve scared the hell out of them
and left them with a rudimentary system of faith. They drive to the next
“revival” and all but forget about the new converts they’ve left at the altar.
Fundamentalist evangelists are particularly annoying because they think that
everything revolves around their beliefs. They are usually so ignorant
to everything but the subject of salvation that they are able to spread as
much damage as they do the “gospel.”"
To me, this was aptly illustrated this summer while walking along the Mall in Washington, D.C. when I was handed a small pamphlet by a nice-looking young man. It was a tract from a Baptist church in New Hampshire. In it there is an exhortation "Believe today!" and a prayer. I just question the utility of telling someone to believe -- like you can just will belief. If this doesn't make sense (and I think it probably doesn't), all I can say is that perhaps the connection between these two things lies only in my head.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Limits of the Intellect
An excerpt from Susan Howatch's novel, The Heartbreaker:
"Golden Girl tries to outline her problem. She's always relied on her intelligence, she says. It's been the only thing that's never let her down. People you trust let you down, she says.... People behave like absolute shits, she says.... People try to stab you in the back, she says.... But so long as you've got brains, she says, you can work out how to survive.
...."Then she found out that a load of the most important things in life such as truth, beauty and goodness -- and of course love -- the whole spiritual package -- aren't always accessible through intellectual reasoning and streetwise brainpower. In fact although Christianity can be very intellectually high-powered indeed, spiritual stuff can never be fully sorted out by the human intellect.... She's always equated survival with intellectual success, and she can't imagine surviving in a dimension where there are no exams to pass and you're required to function as the whole you and not just as a brain on legs.
...."'But love's the most spiritual thing there is!'"
"Golden Girl tries to outline her problem. She's always relied on her intelligence, she says. It's been the only thing that's never let her down. People you trust let you down, she says.... People behave like absolute shits, she says.... People try to stab you in the back, she says.... But so long as you've got brains, she says, you can work out how to survive.
...."Then she found out that a load of the most important things in life such as truth, beauty and goodness -- and of course love -- the whole spiritual package -- aren't always accessible through intellectual reasoning and streetwise brainpower. In fact although Christianity can be very intellectually high-powered indeed, spiritual stuff can never be fully sorted out by the human intellect.... She's always equated survival with intellectual success, and she can't imagine surviving in a dimension where there are no exams to pass and you're required to function as the whole you and not just as a brain on legs.
...."'But love's the most spiritual thing there is!'"
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Terrorism
An article in this morning's Washington Post reports on the closing of a Capitol Hill office by a Senator from Minnesota in response to an intelligence analysis report presented to senators.
This article really strikes a chord with me. I live in a close-in suburb of Washington, D.C. The threat level is adjusted now and then and occassionally we hear dire warnings of possible future terrorist activity, then we're told to go about our business being alert. If we shut down in fear, the terrorists win, right?
Mark Dayton sent his staff home and cautioned people not to visit D.C. in response to a series of briefings given to senators by the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, a joint FBI-CIA agency. The senators are beginning their preelection recess, so Dayton was headed out of town anyway; he defended his actions saying that its immoral to expose his staff to a risk he is not taking. If this is true, I think its admirable. Of course, where politics are involved, its so hard to be certain of motives, but that doesn't mean his motives aren't pure either.
What I find really interesting about this article are the various quotes within it from various sources. "This [terrorist scenario reported by the agency] is way over the top." If its over the top, why was it reported to the senators as a possibility? "Its not based on any credible information thats come in." Then why was it presented? The article says there is "[n]o new information to support the extreme scenario."
Who are the terrorists?
From the District's delegate to Congress, "[Dayton's] damaged us -- he's unnecessarily panicked people across the United States." Oh, I get it, clearly Dayton is the terrorist here. People may not want to visit the Nation's Capital because he reacted to a terror alert.
I have to say, I'm sort of glad that Dayton closed his office. Some might think its an overreaction (and I'm not saying its not), but it seems to be a logical conclusion to a scenario presented by a Federal agency that was described as "fire and brimstone raining down from the skies." I'm tired of the dire warnings then the assertion that we're all okay, just be alert. Which is it? If moving away from this area didn't involve leaving so much behind, I might consider it, but you can't run away from terror (though you might be a good deal safer from this particular threat in Minnesota).
What really has me thinking is a quote from a general laborer who has worked in the Capitol for more than 10 years. He said, "It's kind of scary to me that [Dayton] might know something others don't." My mind just flashed on that scene from the movie Titanic where the steerage passengers are gated off while the ship is sinking. They don't even get a chance to get on deck to try to get on a lifeboat.
This article really strikes a chord with me. I live in a close-in suburb of Washington, D.C. The threat level is adjusted now and then and occassionally we hear dire warnings of possible future terrorist activity, then we're told to go about our business being alert. If we shut down in fear, the terrorists win, right?
Mark Dayton sent his staff home and cautioned people not to visit D.C. in response to a series of briefings given to senators by the Terrorist Threat Integration Center, a joint FBI-CIA agency. The senators are beginning their preelection recess, so Dayton was headed out of town anyway; he defended his actions saying that its immoral to expose his staff to a risk he is not taking. If this is true, I think its admirable. Of course, where politics are involved, its so hard to be certain of motives, but that doesn't mean his motives aren't pure either.
What I find really interesting about this article are the various quotes within it from various sources. "This [terrorist scenario reported by the agency] is way over the top." If its over the top, why was it reported to the senators as a possibility? "Its not based on any credible information thats come in." Then why was it presented? The article says there is "[n]o new information to support the extreme scenario."
Who are the terrorists?
From the District's delegate to Congress, "[Dayton's] damaged us -- he's unnecessarily panicked people across the United States." Oh, I get it, clearly Dayton is the terrorist here. People may not want to visit the Nation's Capital because he reacted to a terror alert.
I have to say, I'm sort of glad that Dayton closed his office. Some might think its an overreaction (and I'm not saying its not), but it seems to be a logical conclusion to a scenario presented by a Federal agency that was described as "fire and brimstone raining down from the skies." I'm tired of the dire warnings then the assertion that we're all okay, just be alert. Which is it? If moving away from this area didn't involve leaving so much behind, I might consider it, but you can't run away from terror (though you might be a good deal safer from this particular threat in Minnesota).
What really has me thinking is a quote from a general laborer who has worked in the Capitol for more than 10 years. He said, "It's kind of scary to me that [Dayton] might know something others don't." My mind just flashed on that scene from the movie Titanic where the steerage passengers are gated off while the ship is sinking. They don't even get a chance to get on deck to try to get on a lifeboat.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)