About seven months ago, USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote a brief entry about his concerns regarding home education. I fear that the Ms. Kriss’ “researched” article which inspired my eulogy to homeschooling might just contain more of an actual argument against homeschooling, but at least Neuharth can write. And his introductory quote has something to do with what he wrote, unike Ms. Kriss’ bizarre reference to Shakespeare.
“There are two lasting bequests we can give our children. One is roots. The other is wings.”
— Hodding Carter II, former noted Mississippi editor
How to give a child wings is an interesting thought…and why it is so many people equate sending a child off to school with somehow allowing them to discover anything for themselves. And just how do you give a child roots if you send him off to school at the age of three?
For the moment, however, I just wanted to call to mind Neuharth’s brief thoughts and Hodding Carter’s quote while you watch this video: Animal School. (Sorry, I am unable to post video here or it messes with the formatting.) Even if you watched it before, it is worth repeating.
Who is it that gave the bumble bee his wings?
____
And for a more thorough discussion of Neuharth’s entry, Susan posted a nice analysis at Illinois Review shortly after it was first posted.
The Carnival of Homeschooling is also up.
And the brief video is from the movie “Animal School” available from raisingsmallsouls.com.
[tags]homeschool, homeschooling[/tags]
Roots – I am teaching my child Japanese. (With the help of a tutor, don’t be too impressed!)
Wings – I am allowing him to travel to Asia with relatives.
What more does the man want?
This week we studied metamorphosis. When a butterfly is coming out of the pupa stage, it’s wings are very small. It has to pump fluid into them to inflate them to their intended size. It would be unable to fly fresh out of the pupa stage. It then sits with wings open and waits while the wings dry. It still cannot fly until the appointed time.
I was actually going to blog about this today. I think I’ll go do that now
OK, I’m back already. I thought you said the guy could write? I was expecting some well-thought out arguments
He says he is concerned for children who are not in the system. He needn’t be. He’s got six kids of his own, and there are plenty of unconcerned parents who have kids in the system that he could be concerned about.
He makes the statement that our kids are tied to our apron strings. I take exception to that. I am raising adults, not children. When are these people, with their objections and concerns going to quit making generalizations? They object when we make generalizations about ps saying, “Well, that has not been MY experience…”
He then gives two NEA quotes. LOL! Of course the teacher’s union objects. we are threatening their job security. That’s what a union is all about.
And IMVHO, the first quote is an argument against public school classrooms. Conformity indeed!
Christy, you have to admit that it is grammatically better than Katie’s rambling and error-filled rant. That is all I was referring to…I was not tortured by the writing itself as I read it. But as noted, Katie did actually attempt to build an argument whereas Mr. Newspaper did not.
I like the cure for parentitis: send them off even younger.
“Every child needs free access to quality public schools so they, too, can try out ‘their own wings.’ That’s what makes public schools so vital.”
The first thing that the public school system does is to clip the wings. If the children were free range, they wouldn’t be so easy to control.
It is that same common misperception that, because the kids are away from their parents, they are learning “for themselves.”
It is impossible. You cannot educate a child in a vacuum, nor would it be desirable to do so. So then the only real question remaining is who is better qualified to protect the interests of the child: the parent or the state. There are a very few who would honestly say the state, but a great many who do not see that the two questions are really the same, formulated to make state control of a child’s development sound more appealing.
They also don’t have wings at six weeks old when some are shipped off to daycare.
In my area the stay at home mom’s often use daycare at the two year old age, not three. They don’t have wings at age two either. They allow fall birthdays so technically some are still one year old when prek-2 begins in September.
I don’t think all have strong wings at 5 or close to 5 when they begin Kindergarten in a school either.
Sad…
I love the Animal School video and have blogged it several times. Glad you are mentioning it to your blog readers too.
Have a great day.
The newspaper solicited responses of 25 words or less, so that was how we blogged this at Snook, in “Unschooling the Public in 25 Words or Less”:
JJ
Thanks for your 25 words! Well put.
Nothing like old entries to dig up old conversations. : ) But I hadn’t actually seen the animal school video before last night, and it reminded me of that so I dug it up. : )
More than 25 words, but oh well. I had a tough enough time staying within the 1600 word limit I was given on my last article.
Thanks, Dana. Logic does not abound, does it?
My question will always be….where do the little ones want to be? In most circumstances, they want to be hanging around with their family at home or elsewhere. If they’re little social bugs, then the parents can accommodate that if they find it necessary for their child(ren).
But none of that should be happening just because the government is telling us that pre-school or daycare is best for our children. (To keep them out of prison!?) That notion brings us back to the lack of logic again.
Send them to an institution to keep them out of an institution. Brilliant.
I’ve never seen that Animal School video. That’s great! I’m definitely gonna file that one away for future use!! Thanks!
Dana,
I blogged on this back in August of last year: http://marcys-musings.blogspot.com/2007/08/do-homeschooled-kids-have-wings.html, when I first came across his article. Here are a couple of thoughts I had that still resonate with me months later.
>>There are some of us who believe the first five years of a child’s life are a bit short to sink their roots deeply. Even for a tree, the process of building solid roots takes many years; it can’t be accomplished overnight. How much more true is that for a child? There’s a reason our country keeps parents accountable for their kids’ actions until they are at least 18 – because we recognize children aren’t adults until then. They need time to sink deep roots. Homeschooling facilitates that.>Just like a gardener, we gradually release the stakes that support them, one at a time, not all at once. So when they do leave home (for swim team, for camp, or for college), we don’t worry as much, because we know their roots have gone deep. These are not shallow-rooted trees that will tip over in the first big windstorm; they are solid, mature oak trees that will stand against the worst weather.>I very much want my children to fly. I just don’t believe that pushing them out of the nest before they have their flight feathers is going to do anything but land them on the sidewalk for the neighbor’s cat to feast on.
First, I would like to quote again:
“There are two lasting bequests we can give our children. One is roots. The other is wings.”
— Hodding Carter II, former noted Mississippi editor
Hi, nice site. I’ve been reciting that quote in my mind for sometime, thinking there was a third one that we could “bequest for our children”. Oh! All the while there are only two? At least, I remembered both.
For me “wings” are easier to understand, which means to empower the kids, guide them to achieve their potentials, including logic thinking, social skills etc.
However, how to definite “roots”?
I think roots is about giving them a foundation. Something to stand secure upon so that they feel safe to use their wings and explore the world.