Eye Eye

I'm not going to worry about the fact I am so behind blogging school. I am just going to try to start doing it again, because I really value the record, especially as we don't always have something "on paper" from even some of the most productive lessons.

As we are especially interested in eyes at the moment from my surgery last week (only 5 days ago and already I am back in the homeschool saddle, so that is encouraging!)... I decided we would learn about the eye and do some human anatomy.

First I asked the children to look at each other's eyes closely and draw an eye close up. That was successful and fun. I wanted them to observe before I "taught".

We then found a power point presentation about the eye and how it works. That was a bonus because originally I was simply going to teach from my textbook.

As I am officially still recovering and need Matthew to help and do most things at home, he was able to take the 2 youngest Little H's out so that I had time with the 3 boys for our lessons this morning.

We read from the text book, learned about different parts of the eye, looked at a diagram and learned how our brains work and how the image is projected into our eye, and travels along the optic nerve and becomes an image that we can see.

There were questions to ask along the way which all 3 boys enjoyed answering, and had listened well.

We then tried some activities designed to show how the eyes work together (or are supposed to, they don't in my case!) and we found out how our eyes work together to show depth, how the 2 images from each eye are put together by the brain (tube experiment where you can see a hole in your hand), found blind spots, and looked at different optical illusions - on the powerpoint display as well as in some books and the text book we were using.

The boys then had some very good attempts at drawing and labelling the parts of the eye and we have begun some anatomy note books. I am so pleased with what we achieved in about an hour and a half, what they have learned, and what we have to show for it.

The Socialisation Myth...

When we are asked about where our children go to school and we say that they are educated at home it is interesting for me to notice that 99% of responses, or concerns about that choice, relate to ‘socialisation’. I don’t like the word and it reminds me of the other word that comes to my mind with regard to school – institutionalisation. Arguably, children who go to school are not institutionalised. Arguably, they are not socialised either.




My own concerns about our decision to home educate, in those moments I feel the weighty responsibility of being in charge of the children’s learning, are never about socialisation.



What does socialisation mean?

Here are some definitions:



1. the adoption of the behavior patterns of the surrounding culture; "the socialization of children to the norms of their culture" (thefreedictionary.com)



2. The process whereby a child learns to get along with and to behave similarly to other people in the group, largely through imitation as well as group pressure. (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, 6th edition)



3. To "socialise" may also mean simply to associate or mingle with people socially. (extract from Wikipedia article)



4. 1. to behave in a friendly and sociable manner 2. to prepare for a life in society 3. to alter or create so as to be in accordance with socialist principles (Collins Concise English Dictionary)



5. socialize verb (TRAIN) (UK usually socialise) “ to train people or animals to behave in a way that others in the group think is suitable” (Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary dictionary.cambridge.org)



When most people ask, either critically or with an open mind, about the socialisation aspect of school I suspect most of them are using the term to refer to the third definition above. I doubt most people are sending their children to school for the purpose of socialisation whereby children are all reduced to the ‘norm’ of their culture and that by imitation and group pressure, they will be trained to behave and think in a way which has been decided by anonymous ‘others’?



There are many things, one would hope, our children will not come to take on themselves from society in general, therefore it is an interesting thought when we consider that they are to be socialised and reduced to the behaviour of the majority. We mostly bemoan behaviours, words and attitudes that ‘come home from school’ and lament the fact we cannot do anything about it because it is where they spend most of their time.



I am beginning to think just as there are so many views and interpretations of the word ‘socialisation’ that it is rendered virtually useless in any argument about education. We need an agreed definition of something before we can debate its existence or validity.



So first – the association or mingling with people socially. This does not say “to associate or mingle with people of exactly the same age socially”. When was the last time you were in a room with 30 or 32 people exactly the same age as you? Least of all spending all day every day with them save for weekends and a few left over hours each day. The last time most people found themselves in that situation was at school at the age of 16. Therefore ‘socialisation’ at school will not prepare for a life in Society (whatever society itself actually is – I could go on defining and redefining terms all day). Let’s just think about preparing a child for their life ahead.



So this (the idea of spending a number of years specifically grouped and educated according to age, and sometimes ability) does not appear to be a valuable lesson / experience for the rest of our lives: university, the workplace –where all of a sudden we have a rude awakening and realise that everyone is not our age, does not have the same values and ideas as us (so clearly the adoption of behaviour patterns of surrounding culture, socialising children to the norms of their culture (see above definitions) is either not what is intended by educating children all of the same age together, or it fails miserably).



I was shocked at university to find that there were mature students on my degree course. In fact most of the 18-newly-left-home-year-olds were quite snooty about their presence on the course – and not only that, the lecturers actually seemed to like them and value their opinions…



Then it came to the job hunt. All of a sudden it became apparent that these mature students who had experienced life, done other things before their degree – were more desirable than the graduates who had exactly the same vocational qualification but who had proceeded along the educational conveyor belt without hopping off and taking a tangent in the meantime. Why was this ‘life experience’ more important than having faithfully progressed through educational institutions without ‘wasting any time’ on jobs that would not necessarily further a career, some in an entirely different field? At the point of leaving full time education (and many leave it at different points) each individual student finds their own way, making different choices, having a broad depth of experiences.



So if socialisation does not mean mingling with people of the same age socially (it can be seen how this is poor preparation for later life, and won’t actually get anyone a foot in the job market) why do we hold that perceived benefit of school in such high esteem?



In the alternative – a child educated at home is likely to have parents who want to not only educate their child but who will also want to assist the child in making meaningful friendships with people of all ages, and have the ability to interact in situations with people who are different from them in many ways (by which I mean ‘interact’ - deal with, not necessarily ‘get along with’ but learn how to manage those interactions in a positive way). So experiences are found, by joining groups, making family friendships where a number of siblings will meet a number of similar or different aged siblings for play and / or educational activities – and social skills continue to develop.



One would hope that parents have not left the ‘teaching of social skills’ to schools by the time a child is 5. In reality a young baby begins social interaction at a very early age – far before what we recognise as ‘language’ emerges. Children imitate their parents socially too – so we need to appreciate that we are mirrors for them – they watch, learn, and emulate how we interact with others – in social situations, at the shops, in the car, everywhere they go with us. Home educating continues social and interpersonal development from that point on. We still meet friends, we still go shopping, and we have the freedom to introduce our children to the real world at an early age where they can watch and learn how we interact with it and the others around us.



Yes – children need to play. They need to get along with others. But those people do not need to be all the same age as them, and they do not need to be in a room full of 30 of them, where the teaching methods to a lesser or greater degree- depending on the class, and depending on the ability of the teacher – have to be aimed at the ‘norm’ within the group – the weaker ones have to keep up and the more able have to tarry. (I can remember being ‘held back’ in reading schemes and phonics work because I was not in the right ‘year group’ for the next colour or level. I can also remember helping the older child next to me do her work). Individual needs outside the norm of the group have to be met by extra teachers and helpers – and surprisingly, parents are quite often considered well educated enough despite not being teachers – to be the extra pairs of hands that teachers cannot do without.



In the olden days (and in some rare places still!) children in village schools may have been in a class made up of children of all different ages – taught in one room, all together, by one teacher. Those children were not sent there to learn to get along with a group of children all exactly their own age – they were sent there for their education. This also discounts the idea that a differently aged group of children cannot be taught by one person. Even a large family of 7 children would still have a better teacher:pupil ratio than the village school classroom. There are greater advantages for all involved for say a family of 7 children ranging in age to be taking turns teaching the younger ones, taught together for certain activities, time spent one or two on one with the parent-teacher.



So why is the main criticism of home educating, the lack of socialisation, or the perceived ‘need’ for children to be kept in a group of same age children?



I actually feel that some lessons in life are better learned at home – sibling relationships are certainly a learning environment in terms of sharing, sympathy, empathy, self-control, friendship making. Perhaps adults who have grown up with dysfunctional sibling and family relationships may not have done so if they had spent more time together learning to get along at home? At school and in society we are taught to stay away from people with whom we don’t get along. We can give up and choose someone else from the many people we have contact with. At home we find that we cannot choose our family – learning to get on with them is essential for later life but this conflicts with the message that is given to us outside the home (or advice from those within the family on how to cope with situations outside the family, difficulties at school etc). The trouble is, that advice comes home to roost in many cases. The duality is lost on many, and has only just dawned on me.



So yes, whilst children need experiences and friendships outside the family / outside home:



- it is not essential (nor desirable) that all of these friendships and experiences take place within one arbitrarily restricted age group – and need not be an environment in which the primary goal is an educational outcome – the time for making meaningful contact is limited in such a place in any event



- children need to be able to get along with their family and to persist and work at sometimes potentially difficult friendships and relationships – we need to teach them and demonstrate perseverance within safe parameters – compared with, for example, sticking at something which is potentially dangerous physically and psychologically – for example persecution and bullying in the classroom…



- if our reason for sending children to school is because they don’t have any friends their own age outside school – maybe that is something we have to look at as parents – who are our friends? –are we modelling good friendships, are we prepared to seek out and meet new people in order to give our children extra experience in this area?



- With the plethora of outside school activities and clubs available there are many opportunities for children to interact with others with a little more in common than just their age – it might be a common interest such as drama, art, music, or it might be sharing the same faith.



- It is far more likely that children not ‘in school’ will have the time and energy to engage with others in those interest groups from an earlier age and more successfully – no time restrictions based on the fact it will have a knock on effect for school the next day, activities can take place within school hours for those with a shared interest, and homework, family time and mealtimes are not compromised.



Like-minded home school families? Is that also a myth?! Yes, possibly! I have met so many homeschooled families, and have rarely come across a family with exactly the same views and ‘philosophy’ (of life, or education) as ourselves. They may be home educating for the same primary reason, but may be using completely different materials and approaches as us. Or it may be the other way around. Discipline also differs greatly.



I have met families whose children were a perfect match in playdate and friendship for ours. I have met families whose children were completely different from ours. Behaviour varies greatly. So our children are still exposed to other children in a group setting where they have to find a place within the group, and learn to deal with it. They learn self-control in situations where other children are doing something that our children know is not acceptable to us. I saw an amazing example of that recently. Matthew sees that at scouts every week. But we are in what we consider to be the privileged position of being able to witness, praise and watch over these interactions. We can use the ‘teachable moments’ that arise and we can reinforce the positives that we see.



I would say it’s virtually impossible to keep our children in an environment where everyone has the same views as us, same outlook on life, and where all the parents have the same goal for their children. Firstly – I do not want to, and secondly if I did want to I don’t think I could. What we can do is experience and learn together, and our reference point for all of our experiences is our family values and belief system. Neither the institution which is school, nor any restrictions on educating at home can prevent us from doing that – interpreting our experiences together through our own possibly unique lens – and neither should they.



The real question is education – and that is a wholly different matter. For now though, as a final thought here – whatever happens to be the outcome of our children’s education:



- we can either be ‘responsible for it’ – and be proud of their achievements and feel we have had a sizeable part to play in it

- or we can be ‘responsible for it’ and spend an unquantifiable time trying to make good the gaps / mistakes that come to light; or

- we could quite forseeably spend an inordinate amount of time making good others’ mistakes, gaps in experience, negative experiences with long lasting effects…while those others who are responsible for those mistakes and experiences will be long gone, not accountable for their mistakes and judgements, wholly likely not even aware of the ‘fruit’ of their labour (and certainly not caring about it in the same way that we do as parents – that would be impossible).



So maybe the sum total of that final thought is accountability. We are and feel constantly accountable, and that accountability will never end. We have chosen to be accountable to our children (et al) for what they learn and don’t learn – rather than being accountable to our children for experiences (learning and otherwise) about which we have very little information and over which we have even less control.



I am sure that an eloquent and reasoned argument could be made to come to the opposite point of view as this, although I have never heard one past the first mention of the word socialisation, as though that very word were a case in point. I am sure that many parents have good reasons for sending children to school. I am also of the view that it is probably not right for everyone. Hopefully, though, I have shown a little as to why I think that the mere use of the word ‘socialisation’ is neither the primary reason nor even a compelling reason to send children to school outside the home. In the same way, it is not on its own a valid (and usually not a considered) criticism of the decision not to.

Royal Wedding!!!!

Having a low key though patriotic celebration this evening at H Corner!!!! We are still just about a bit more British than Australian, so sporting Union Jack and Jill tshirts for watching the wedding build up. Unfortunately they'll be asleep most likely before the wedding is over. But they can watch it tomorrow!

I made 2 of the flag tshirts this afternoon - bottom middle and bottom right.

Children make Useful Tenants.

Maybe! Certainly I believe that they don't necessarily present a health hazard to a rental property in the way most agents and landlords would really like to be able to believe (and we so struggled getting accepted for a house this time - odds are, that was why!!!).

This house has had a terrible dirt patch problem the size of the space behind Little H#1 (above) since we moved in. The pavers were wrecked by the previous tenants (no children involved, just adults parking a car on pavers that weren't meant for it... and sinking the pavers very deeply - as we discovered after the boys, Daddy and Grandpa shovelled and moved all the potting mix stuff that was thrown over the hole after the pavers were removed).

It was an unsustainable situation for us. Had to be re-paved. We took the house "as is" I suppose, and knew it wasn't worth asking the Landlord to re-pave. Though he should have I am sure! Anyway, we got permission to put all the pavers back  - they were just piled up around the side of the backyard, so we didn't have a great deal of trouble with sourcing the bricks.

Grandpa is the experienced one among us so he knew what needed to be done, and set about with Matthew and the two eldest Little H's while I took the other 2 out for most of the day.

Little H#1 with the space to be paved behind him. Grandpa flattening the space. Matthew was involved but behind the camera for all these photos!!

Boys working with Grandpa!

Little H#1 shifted all of these himself for Grandpa and Daddy. The bricks also had to be cleaned before they could be relaid, and all old soil etc scraped off them. Another job the boys did very well.

Little H#2 laying his own pavers. He worked out the geometric pattern, and did a good deal himself. Fantastic for his age. 6!!! Well actually I think fantastic for any age!!

Little H#2 concentrating hard on laying the bricks in place.

Little H#3 was home in time to lay the final brick and hammer it in with the rubber mallet. So glad he got this job!

He looks pretty pleased with it himself! Sacrificial for the boys to let him do that too, I was proud of them for (amongst many other things) allowing him to do the last brick and finish "their" job.

Filling the gaps with sand / metal before coming in for tea. They wouldn't come in till they'd finished their work. Thankfully they worked so hard and the job was finished by 5pm!!!

A major day's work and a major achievement for our family, especially our boys. The hardest they have ever worked. Ever. No complaints, no problems, brilliant teamwork and totally dependable.

Whilst homeschooling probably can't take the credit, what I do know is that if it hadn't opened our minds to expecting more from children and what they are capable of, allowing them to do "real things" and teaching us - as well as them - that they can make a valuable contribution to Real Life, they probably wouldn't have done (or learned) half of what they did this Easter Saturday.

Just fantastic. :)

Psalms!

Today at church we had Sons of Korah lead worship. Pretty amazing, haven't a clue how we managed to arrange that. The above video is just the most beautiful song. Sons of Korah sing a musical journey through the psalms in a variety of styles - which of course the Psalms are - they represent a variety of moods and situations. There's something there for whatever we are going through.

Psalm 91 (above live clip) is Little Miss August 2009's special scripture. All of it! It was so special to us in the months before she was born, very appropriate and encouraging. Well today it was that again. If we had a day when we needed Psalm 91 - today's been the nearest for a while. And I can't think of a more beautiful way to enjoy it.

In church this morning they began leading our worship- usual songs led a little differently (!) and then went into what I imagine is a much abridged version of their live concert. They finished with Psalm 91 but earlier in the service they sang this:



Like I said - a variety of styles! Undoubtedly talented and Spirit inspired. We kept the children in the service this morning instead of sending them to Sunday School, and I am glad we did. We thought we might have fun experimenting with putting some Psalms to music with them in the coming weeks. They love the Psalms, it is often their 'book of choice' for our Bible time in the week. We have bought a few CDs so we can use them for meditation / reading the Psalms in a different  way. All of their songs are lifted straight from the text - a challenge if you've ever done that like we have - and only the occasional change to help the words fit around the setting.

I came home so grateful we can bring the Psalms alive like this in church - having "grown up" with the Oxford Psalter and plainsong chant (good for memorising scripture but I am not sure at the time we were singing them it meant a great deal to anyone certainly the 'usefulness' is limited). I feel like now I have found something that expresses far more what the original intention of the Psalms was. Some are dances, praise, joyful - others laments or balads. All expressing the heart of the writer. Will take that idea with the boys and talk about it some more. I'll also have it in mind as I try to use the Psalms more myself - something I've done far more of in the past year - praying the Psalms is amazing.

Wordy Wednesday...

W is for:

What a terrible night. Miracle if today turns out ok.

Wish I had followed my instinct and not given Little Miss August 2009 something for tea that I thought might  cause problems... and it SO did...

Words - poetry, poetry set to music (John Taverner and Greta Bradman)...

William Blake - "Tyger Tyger" & "The Lamb"

Wow. All of a sudden, a cross-curricular unit study has sprung up out of nowhere, and bringing a number of strands together

Working hard. The children have done maths (Little H#1 and LittleH#2) and Little H#3 some self-starting phonics. I am so pleased with how he is getting on. We have also done music and movement to the Carnival of the Animals by Saint-Saens, drawing to that same music (Little H#2 drew the correct animal for each movement - his idea) and then we had processions of lions, jumping kangaroos, graceful fish, and some fantastic elephants. We ate our lunch to the Aquarium on repeat. ;) We also listened to the William Blake poem Tyger Tyger set to music by Greta Bradman and sung by her and a dear friend of ours. Need to look out The Lamb from Little H#2's Baptism recording. They can hear mummy and daddy singing that one!

Washing. Actually it isn't. W is not for Washing because I can't do any. All week. Machine broke (burned out rather nicely) on Monday, and a man is coming to either mend or condemn it tomorrow (Thursday). So actually W is for "Washing free Week". If school turns out this much better because I am also not trying to do washing, maybe I need to come up with a different plan for laundry.

Welcome Home. W is for welcome home because Matthew will be very welcome home tonight to a productive and happy house, much achievement, a happy mummy (miracle) and home made soup and cheese scones.

Oh, and Welcome Back Creativity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Woilla! (sorry couldn't resist!!).

Keeping the Wrapper...

About 10 years ago Matthew and I, when we'd been married about 6 months, went to Bulgaria with Saltmine, a Christian charity who at the time did much work in Bulgaria and Eastern Europe. Our church sent a group each year, to two orphanages. The main purpose of the trip was to paint and renovate, build new dormitories, and support the work of the orphanages practically. There were also ways the charity could support the orphanages financially, and provide the children with food and clothing, that did not interfere with the income they received from the State. Matthew and I went predominantly because we wanted to take musical instruments over, that we'd raised money to buy, and we wanted to use his skills (he was still at that point training to be a music therapist) to do music with the children, to connect with them, and then leave something behind at the orphanages for them to use when we'd gone. (You just don't know with that kind of thing whether there was a difference behind the scenes when the charity weren't visiting or sending groups, but there was a good relationship with the management of the orphanages, the Directors, and also the local Baptist churches had input and mission into the institutions as well). Oh and I left my own 'blessing' behind - took some recorders, and taught a group of the children how to play them!!!

The last thing Matthew and I intended to be were "Christian tourists". One trip to an orphanage, talk about it for a while, then move on to something else. We had a real heart for the children, felt a calling to go (and put up with the painting, and put up with the fact that we were oldest in the group (at 25!) and the only married couple. It was an education itself, going with young adults still in study, late teens early twenties, totally different mindset ).

Anyway. There were certain things that the leader of the group organised for the children every year. One of them was a day at the seaside, followed (dare I say it) by buying them all tea at Mcdonalds. Matthew and I really struggled with that idea, didn't seem right, imposing Western "good times" onto the lives that they led the rest of the year, but we had no say and we were simply going along for our own reasons. What was so heartbreaking was how these kids just loved the Mcdonalds trip, like it was one of the best things that could happen to them (while we struggled with our own ethics of taking them there in the first place). The trip meant so much to them that they kept all the packaging that their fast food came in.

They ate the food and kept the wrapper.

They had to hold on to the leftovers of this treat that reminded them of us; that crumpled fast food packaging was a symbol of the hope that our visit gave them, the love we showed, the friendships we made, the good times we had together that were coming to an end.

I've seen the same thing in my own children. We went to a Colin Buchanan concert, and at the end my children (particularly Little H#1) collected the scraps of coloured paper that came out of the party poppers and streamers that Colin fired over the audience at the beginning. They had to hold on to as many scraps as they could gather up; taking a piece of Colin, a piece of the experience at home to keep as "treasure" of the moment. We still have those papers 2 years later. And we've added to them since.

The background's important (I think!) to understanding the realisation we had on the weekend. We had our own "keep the wrapper" moment. A rare trip out. Grandma babysat all the children while we escaped 2 hrs on Saturday to go and watch The King's Speech at the cinema. Matthew commented on the way in to the complex that he felt like keeping the wrapper.  The experience (cinema, being away from the children in the daytime - or any time - to do something together) is rare if not totally unprecedented in living memory. So much so that we both realised just like those dear children keeping the cheeseburger wrappers and fries boxes (and even the shake cup and straw)... we needed to hold on to the tickets as a reminder of such a great blessing, and lovely time together. Not so different from the Bulgarian orphans perhaps.

Counting my blessings, and keeping the wrappers...