Politics

There, for as far back as I can see, exists a separating line between republicans and democrats.  Sure there are a few other parties, but I’m just going to stick with the major two.  And why wouldn’t I?  Everyone else does.

So many people sit on the dividing line and point fingers in the other direction.  But from where I am standing no one party is absolutely wrong about anything.  But many of our elected officials sit back and blame “the other side” for anything that might go wrong.  It seems that a meeting of ideas and respect for another’s thoughts and beliefs is in order.  You might say that Libertarians do just that!  And in many ways they do, but just belonging to any one party has inherent flaws.

In school, the culture is a rat race.  We use grades and other systems of measurement to place value on ideals.  Students who socially, economically, physically, and academically meet those ideals become competitive with students who do not, and vice versa.  It’s an unspoken game that exists within the social structure of school.  The worst part about it, is that students who do not want to enter the race have no choice.  Observation and theory no longer become tools of science; they become tools for survival in the institution.  When we use these tools and apply them to the real world, we recall it from the only place we know, an institution, causing a competitive and judgmental social culture.  It’s not the way the world works, yet when we release students after 18 years it’s the only way they know how to make it work, especially when given power over others.

Earlier I had a conversation on Facebook with a 16 year old girl about evolution.  Her knowledge of the subject was not quite correct.  Throughout the conversation she continued to be extremely defensive and even change the definitions of what she said.  She wanted to be right and I can’t say I blame her.  Modern child rearing and formal education do not value a child’s ideas, thoughts, and opinions.  When someone is never right, and never valued for their opinion they are shut off from learning about the subject and often feel inclined to defend their stance, when there is no battle and even if it’s factually wrong.

That’s what I see in our leaders.  I see many politicians, men and women, people who were probably never valued for their thoughts and dreams, and so they adopt an ideology and defend from behind the line.  Few politicians ever come out and say, “you know, I think xyz, just might work” if it doesn’t follow their party lines.  And that’s a shame, because I see many good ideas and good values on both sides of the line.  But like I mentioned, it’s not how we are raised.  We are raised to be right, to have the right answer all of the time.  We are also raised to expect greatness and perfection from our leaders when they too, are only human.  There is extreme value placed on right answers and loads of negativity, like public humiliation for example, being directed at being wrong.

My God Heather.  What on earth are you getting at?

I know, unequivocally, that unschooling can change the world, that is if the whole world unschooled.  Raising children in freedom will allow them a fresh, unobstructed view of what happens in the world today.  They don’t need to head to school to learn the ins and outs of government.  They don’t need someone else to tell them how government works.  It doesn’t take a rocket scientist or an elementary civics student to know that there are big, huge problems in government today.  However as parents, it’s important to allow our children an unobstructed view of modern politics.  I think discussions must come from a neutral place, allowing a child freedom of thought.  There is a place for sharing your opinions and beliefs but, I would tend to be careful in rights and wrongs, careful in the condemning the thoughts and values of others.  If you give a child your inner voice, that child will be stunted in the development of their own.  Quite possibly, the trust and freedom to learn will translate into the trust and freedom of all children, and even further the trust and freedom of the people.  No dream is too big right?

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next. -Abraham Lincoln

A long time ago my blog subtitle identified me as a “conservative hippie”.  I am sort of a middle of the road kind of gal, who leans a little more right, than she does left and enjoys referring to herself in the third person.  However, one day it was very strongly pointed out in a discussion and it caused me to think long and hard about how I felt about the self-proclaimed label.  So I took it down.  Many people may have thought I took it down because of someone else, but I didn’t.  I took it down because it was too pointed and may have been giving off the wrong idea.  I decided that even though unschooling and politics intertwine in my world, I didn’t want people to be turned off from unschooling or me, because of my perceived political ideology.

Unschoolers everywhere have a very different take on politics.  I know who I feel is the loudest group, the quietest group, and I know many don’t say anything at all (out of fear).  I know who I identify with politically, socially, and (new word I just made up) unschoolingly.  I do nothing that seeks to divide anyone any further and I do my best to have discussions of a political nature in an intelligent and friendly manner.  If I feel I can’t do it, for any particular reason, I politely bow out.  It’s not that I’m backing down, it’s that I am not looking to divide a community that is so tightly knit because of something so important as raising our children.

Yesterday, an article was posted on Facebook.  Then it got reposted, and reposted, and reposted.  The article from Satoshi Kanazawa’s blog on Psychology Today is called, Why Liberals are More Intelligent than Conservatives.  Just the title alone makes me want to vomit.  It’s inflammatory and from what I can tell a gross misconstruing of data in order to get a certain result.  Then again, maybe it’s true.  Maybe all you liberals have a statistically insignificant larger IQ than your conservative counterparts.  Both averages, still fall within the average IQ range.  Still, so much data seems to be missing, even from his article.  Kanazawa’s results were about liberals, atheists, and sexually exclusive males, but he left that out of his post.  What about the fact that children in school, usually identify themselves as liberal?  Kanazawa himself said that liberals run all institutions.  What about religious liberals or conservative atheists?  I’m really feeling like he was looking for a certain result and made certain he got it.  First of all, he has been shown to be biased in past studies and second of all, the timing of his blog post article tells me there was more in it for him then producing some silly results.

From an unschooling point of view, I can’t imagine myself putting any weight on this article, even if the tables were turned the other way.  It’s inflammatory, misleading, and divisive.  There is no good reason in unschooling that an IQ score matters.  It’s important to me to question everything, studies, history, religion, the list goes on.  I check my sources and I put it up against my values.  IQ is of no value to me since I feel no need to prove my intelligence and I would never want my children to feel like they have to prove theirs.  That is what school is for.  I am surrounded by people who no doubt have varying IQ’s, some with very low IQ’s and some very high (a right leaning person very dear to me qualifies for Mensa).  I can’t figure out why some people think someone who has a high IQ is somehow better than another.  It’s the American way though isn’t it?  Bigger is better and the proof is in the measurement.

Alfred Binet developed the Binet-Simon test in order to identify children who were possibly mentally challenged in school so that they could be helped to improve their intelligence.  He invented the test, but he didn’t invent the term Intelligence Quotient.  He said, “The scale, properly speaking, does not permit the measure of intelligence, because intellectual qualities are not superposable, and therefore cannot be measured as linear surfaces are measured”.  I find this very interesting, especially since it is primarily the government who has had an interest in the IQ of its population over the last 100 years.  Many researchers believe that IQ is fixed and only goes down as brain matter changes as we grow older.  That goes against everything I believe.

I wrote in a facebook comment that the article was inflammatory, misleading and divisive.  That the language only serves to keep our nation divided right down the middle, just as it always has been.  I am not insinuating that we all must agree, but maybe that we learn from each other and stop and think about the values of those who do not agree with us instead of just believing we are more intelligent.  Stephen Jay Gould, in The Mismeasure of Man, writes that these tests are based on faulty assumptions and are a basis for scientific racism.  I agree 100% and I’ve not even read the book…  yet.

Related Links:

Time Magazine

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

General Social Survey

Wikipedia: Stanford-Binet

Wikipedia: Religiosity and Intelligence

Wikipedia: Intelligence Quotient

Note to readers:  I only wish history were simple.  Then I wouldn’t feel like I’m missing so many pieces of history in this post.  If I included everything I know, and everything I learned while writing this then I’d have to write a book.   I originally wanted to write a time line, but quickly realized that there was a message I wanted to give you.  Hopefully, I’ve captured that message for you and inspire you to research more. Enjoy!

The idea of compulsory schooling actually came from Plato’s, The Republic.  The earliest example of authoritative compulsory schooling is traced back to Sparta.  Even though Sparta isn’t usually referred to as a totalitarian state, it may be the first example of European totalitarianism in recorded history.

Skip forward from about 195BC to the 18th century Prussia.

From what I could gather, the Prussian Education System was specifically for the raising up of obedient people and to indoctrinate the youth with militant state ideology, nation building.  The most obedient graduates were awarded the best jobs and positions in military and government to make sure that the dictatorial style of government remained in tact.  For if you do not have an obedient people, then you cannot be “King of Prussia”, as Frederick the II named himself.

Although schooling was generally considered compulsory for years prior, in 1763 Frederick William II made school compulsory by law for all children between the ages of 5 and 13.  By 1794 all schools and universities were made institutions of the state and were funded by taxes.  Children were divided by age, a teacher stood in the front administering curriculum decided upon by the elites.  The elite decided what was to be learned and how the children would learn it.  In addition the math, reading, and writing children were also taught obedience and duty to country.  In the summer, children were released.  I had seen in a short film,  that the kids were released specifically to help their parents with the harvest, but I could not find a valid source saying so.  I’m unsure of the validity of that statement, but it does make some sense.

Doesn’t any of this sound eerily familiar?

In 1843, Horace Mann, while the secretary of the state board of education, visited Germany and became fond of the Prussian educational system.  Because of his convincing writing and passionate lectures, he created an interest in education that had not previously existed.  Shortly after his visit, the state of Massachussets adopted the Prussian educational system and following their lead, the governor of New York set up its 12 state schools under the same system.  Eventually, all states adopted this method of compulsory instruction; a method with origins that originally came from a country with a militant monarchy.  It might be important to mention here, that it is quite interesting to me that Horace Mann was such a champion of compulsory schooling.  Mann himself, never attended school for more than 6 weeks a year and was largely self-educated.

Early America did not have compulsory schools.  Instead it had private schools which relied on tuition, not government money. The change from voluntary schooling to compulsory education marks a significant change in the rights of families.  It marks a time when the state assumed responsibility over its children and their education.  Laws made it possible for states to take children away from their families if they felt the children were not being properly educated or if they were held from school.  Compulsory schooling in many different countries seems to have roots in many different places.  Prussia began compulsory schooling for nation building, many believe that American compulsory schooling was to continue the workforce and protect the economy, England enacted compulsory education well after industrialization.  The common theme, at the time, was the government; specifically the government’s control of children and families.  Not anywhere in my research about educational systems did I read anything about children being anything but  but a group that must be “fashioned”.  No individual rights, nothing.  I only read about training, obedience, and matters of the state.

So, if we supposedly live in a “free country” (yeah…  I know) and we at the very least reject totalitarianism and a dictatorship and we are free to think and learn what we would like, then WHY is school compulsory?  I guess children didn’t and still don’t have rights.  Our educational system is modeled after a system created in the 18^th century under the dictatorial regime (yes, technically a monarchy) of Prussia.  Thought provoking isn’t it?

There is your little bit of history for the day.  If you think I’ve gotten anything wrong, aside from my opinions, please feel free to comment or email me (link in sidebar) and I’m happy to fact check.  I’d hate to write something here that isn’t true.

Anyway, I’m sure most of you know that gay marriage has recently become legal in Vermont. I distance myself from the issue. As political as I am, I don’t get involved with gay rights or abortion rights and very few social issues. So this has nothing to do with how I personally feel.

Many of us recently came across this site. The owner seems to have stirred up some controversy by choosing to use the words summer and unschooling in the title. As if it were something you could just apply when the mood struck. Some veteran usnchoolers, became a little offended, and rightly so. Eren Hayes San Pedro choices of words, “dissenters” for example gives less reasons to believe her intent in true. To explore unschooling. Here is my comment to her:

Dissenters? Interesting choice of words.

Unschooling is unschooling. No one can change that. Some people may or may not fully understand it and call themselves unschoolers when they are not fully embracing the philosophy. It would be like trying to calling yourself a vegetarian because you eat chicken only sometimes.

If you are only partially embracing unschooling, then you are eclectic homeschooling. You are embracing and applying a few different styles to you home.

I wonder if you’ve not so much offended the radical unschooling community, but done something contrary to what we’ve been trying to do for so long.

Many of us spend a great deal of time helping others learn about unschooling and guiding and supporting those who wish to embrace the philosophy. We’d be happy to share places where you can find information. Most of recognize that unschooling, or radical unschooling, whatever you want to call it, is a whole life philosophy. It cannot be done just in the summer. It is a life’s journey that slowly unfolds.

Embracing unschooling only in the summer, it’s contrary to the type of living that comes with usnchooling. Each time a child is removed from school and/or curriculum it takes a lot of time, from months to years, to decompress from the previous lifestyle. Only after that period can an unschooled life begin to unfold. Sending a child back to school begins the process all over again. It reminds me of a rubber band being snapped over and over again.

I (and others) worry that your chosen title of summer unschooling will give many people the wrong idea about unschooling. That it can be done over a summer vacation, when it simply cannot.

Unschooling “looks” different in every household, but it is not different by basic principles. Some think unschooling to be an “anything goes” situation. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth.

I fear that you and a group of people that have signed up will set to “redefine” unschooling for yourselves, giving a multitude of people the wrong idea.

I do hope you reconsider your title, or make it clearer to the passerby who may not read everything on your site, that even you are unsure of what unschooling truly is.

I did receive a nice email from her, stating that she would like to interview me for her blog, and that I was the only one “concerned with this project to offer or even consider helping to educate us all instead of using strong words”. I have to question that fact. I am not known for my “tact”. I just have to imagine that we speak a similar language. What I do know about us unschooling parents, is that we tend to be clear, and to the point, and in writing that can be construed as harsh even when it isn’t. That said, I’m sure there were a FEW icky comments, but when you put yourself out there, it’s to be expected.

Anyway… back to my point. It is important to us, that we protect the word unschooling. We work so very hard to live our lives in this manner and to help others understand this way of life that when a group of people take the word and apply there own meaning it can be harmful to our movement as a whole. Some people might argue, “it’s just semantics”. That’s another thing, as unschoolers, we have come to realize that every word we choose has meaning. We are very careful in our choices of words, especially on the internet.

This is where the gay marriage bill in Vermont comes in. Here, we had a group of people, actually, I can safely say the majority of Vermonters, trying to protect the word marriage. To them, marriage is between a man and a woman and it’s how they’ve come to know it for their whole lives. Why shouldn’t they be offended, when a group of people seeks to change that for them? It doesn’t make them homophobic, it just makes them sentimental or traditional. I’ll tell you I felt for some of the people trying to defend the word marriage, they were labeled awful things that they were not. They just wanted to protect their word. Just like some of unschoolers sought to protect our word. It’s not about what it means to “us” or “them”. It’s about the actual definitions.

In Vermont, we had civil unions, which by law gives all of the exact same rights that a traditional marriage did. The gay marriage proponents sought to hijack the word marriage, and well they did a good job. It worked. It never went to referendum, it would have surely lost. 85% of Vermonters were against civil unions. What scares me is that this particular group of people thought it was ok for our legislators to vote without hearing the people. How are they going to feel when the tables are turned and they don’t get a chance to vote on something they feel passionately about? Anyway, that’s another blog post entirely. The government doesn’t listen? Weird.

We must be careful that which we seek to loosely define. I personally don’t wish to stop anyone from applying a few unschoolish principles to their daily lives. Eclectic homeschooling pulls different principles from many sources. However, if you set out to call eclectic homechooling, “unschooling” then you have very quickly distorted its meaning to others who might not understand the philosophy. The words are not interchangeable. I personally don’t believe this is any different then the gay marriage activists who seek to take a word that is so important to so many people and use it for their own purposes. It’s not cool to step on the toes of so many people.

That’s my twenty-two cents.