I originally encouraged the Unschooling forum when I was a moderator. Right when you first started, I think, Dar. This is the only place on the internet where I feel safe posting about unschooling (other than my blog) and the only forum on Mothering I really use anymore.
Thanks for doing that :) I have found such great info and ideas in this forum
I think the comments about the "dominators" on the unschooling lists apply to just about any list on any topic you can think of.
I've been posting on discussion forums since way back in the Usenet days, though the topics have varied considerably. For many years I was part of an equestrian group and there is nothing on MDC that can rival the flame wars that resulted from such topics as Classical vs Competitive Dressage, for example. These days I post on forms about raising chickens, homesteading, permaculture, etc and I can guarantee you that the Talking Heads situation applies in every single group I've been to, to a greater or less extent.
So please let's not blame unschooling and act as if it's some separate universe. My experience is as moominmama's in that mostly what I see online is unschoolers being accused of neglecting their kids, unparenting, not willing to recognize the Inherent Authority of a parent, etc etc etc...given that the notion of unschooling is so completely misunderstood and misrepresented by the majority of mainstream parents out there, I don't think we can be blamed for trying to emphasize the positive aspects of the lifestyle through blogs, articles etc. I guess that's because I place no importance or emphasis on the seedier sides of these discussions because I've seen them everywhere in so many areas of discussion that I attribute them to the nature of online communication.
I think the comments about the "dominators" on the unschooling lists apply to just about any list on any topic you can think of.
I've been posting on discussion forums since way back in the Usenet days, though the topics have varied considerably. For many years I was part of an equestrian group and there is nothing on MDC that can rival the flame wars that resulted from such topics as Classical vs Competitive Dressage, for example. These days I post on forms about raising chickens, homesteading, permaculture, etc and I can guarantee you that the Talking Heads situation applies in every single group I've been to, to a greater or less extent.
So please let's not blame unschooling and act as if it's some separate universe. My experience is as moominmama's in that mostly what I see online is unschoolers being accused of neglecting their kids, unparenting, not willing to recognize the Inherent Authority of a parent, etc etc etc...given that the notion of unschooling is so completely misunderstood and misrepresented by the majority of mainstream parents out there, I don't think we can be blamed for trying to emphasize the positive aspects of the lifestyle through blogs, articles etc. I guess that's because I place no importance or emphasis on the seedier sides of these discussions because I've seen them everywhere in so many areas of discussion that I attribute them to the nature of online communication.
I came back here to say pretty much what this says. Some people just want to be the authority, and they often times end up minimizing their own imperfections in an effort avoid loosing face and seeming like they're not living their own philosophy. And it is just like that no matter which forum you go to. I'm always very refreshed when someone honestly comes out with their own mistakes and shortcomings, but honestly, not everyone is going to do that.
This is probably a bit off topic, so excuse me. I want to say that we don't limit video games, but some would probably argue that I do by refusing to buy anything but CD-Roms. Some unschoolers act as if you should buy your child anything s/he asks for as it is "an interest". We are on a budget, and even if we weren't I wouldn't go that far. Gaming systems become obsolete so fast and they are very expensive. They simply will have to live with not owning certain things. Like video game consoles, $100 dolls, ipods, or iphones. Cheaper alternatives do the job and there is money left for family activities or other things they wanted.
This is probably a bit off topic, so excuse me. I want to say that we don't limit video games, but some would probably argue that I do by refusing to buy anything but CD-Roms.
As the parent of a passionate PC gamer, I can attest to the fact that not having video game consoles and systems in the home does not limit gaming! My ds now funds his own game purchases, as well as hardware upgrades and rebuilds and expansions ... and the sky is the limit in terms of gaming possibilities on the computer.
I will say this for PC gaming: it allows a creative tinkerer with a passion for computers to really delve deeply into how games are put together. There is a lot of "modding" possible through manipulation, augmentation and substitution of game files and file content that is possible in the PC environment that isn't possible on XBox, Playstation or wii. My ds is very handy with C++ and javascript as a result of tinkering with the code from many of the PC games he plays.
Miranda
I'm chiming in late with my 2 cents... FWIW we have found a system that works very well for us. The kids have one day a week (it's always the same day so they can rely on consistency) that they are allowed to play video games and they can go all out and do it for hours. Most of those days we will manage to get out for at least an errand, sometimes something 'bigger' but even then they have all morning and late afternoon/evening hours. They look forward to this day all week and really see it as a 'treat' - which personally I think is a good thing (I tend to believe that there's nothing like taking the fun out of TV/candy/etc than making it available all the time and I have such wonderful memories as a kid of getting so excited when our parents would give us our allowance and we would run to the store to buy candy - or the odd time I got to play at my friend's house and her brother would let us play video games - it was fun because it was regulated). My kids rarely whine or ask to play video games during the week because we've been firm about this rule and so it's just not an issue.
I think many of us (myself included... I'm working on it) get a bit carried away with how we interpret Attachment Parenting approaches (I'm all for APing by the way) - we want so much to respect our children, treat them like we would treat anybody - but they aren't 'anybody' they are our children. By definition children are dependent beings and they depend on us to take care of them and that means placing limits that they might not like but deep down it makes them feel secure because we are their compass. And I often hear (or read!) parents who express that intuitively they feel a bit iffy about letting their kids run the show.
BTW - Hold On To Your Kids by Gordon Neufeld and Gabor Mate is a great read!
I tend to believe that there's nothing like taking the fun out of TV/candy/etc than making it available all the time and I have such wonderful memories as a kid of getting so excited when our parents would give us our allowance and we would run to the store to buy candy - or the odd time I got to play at my friend's house and her brother would let us play video games - it was fun because it was regulated.
And our poor kids will never get the fun of a snow day home from school, either. Somehow I don't find that a compelling reason to enroll ds. 
I feel a lot of discussion of this sort of go an extremist route: either severely limit the amount of time kids spend on screen or allow screens to become all encompassing thing.
First off I am not sure what is wrong with screens, per se, that they are worried about so heavily.
My youngest draws - a lot. All the time. She probably spends hours drawing a day and yet no one thinks that is a bad thing.
My son spends hours gaming and I am a "bad parent". Well, not literally, but you get the point. Society ascribes a certain judgement to game playing that we do not ascribe to music, art, science, etc.
I like balance and I talk about balance with my children a fair bit. I talk about priorities, responsabilities/committtments, etc. These are important conversations that have come about precisely because their lives are sometimes out of balance - but isn't that a good thing so they can learn from it?
I also believe it is my job to provide a resource/relationship rich environment. I want to give them something to do beside their passion/obsession so they learn what a lovely world exists outside their passions. Sometimes they do not want to do the idea, or the ideas/resources are not readily availible...that is OK. Life comes in waves.
This is my way of saying my family has chosen a moderate route - we do not ban or limit screens (although I do not allow my youngest to see/play some things...not that she wants to). We talk (and role model) regularly about how to live a balanced life. We actively seek fun learning opportunities to do in addition to our passions. I try to broaden horizons rather than limit passions. It mostly works. I accept life isn't perfect and sometimes we are out of balance. I do not demonise screens.
This isn't going to be true for all kids, but for my kid video games are his Passion with a capital P.
I can't imagine the message it sends to a child that their passion must be limited because it's somehow not good for them, or holds no value as a pursuit.
Especially if their sibling has a passion that is considered "acceptable" (like drawing all day, which my DD loves to do as well).
.
I can't imagine the message it sends to a child that their passion must be limited because it's somehow not good for them, or holds no value as a pursuit.
Me neither.
Okay, I'm going to stick my neck out here, so please be gentle!
What if your kid's passion happens to be something like eating gummy worms, or guzzling Mountain Dew? What if they want to do those things all day long? What about all the evidence that suggests that video games can be just as bad for a child's brain as those two things? And I'm not talking about the bad effects of wasting time and not taking advantage of life's other opportunities. What I'm talking about is the actual physical changes that occur in a child's brain while they are playing video (or computer) games. Spect scans taken of the brains of children while they are watching TV or playing electronic games have actually shown a worsening of the pattern seen in people with autism spectrum disorders. Why ignore such evidence? It may not be conclusive, but it is certainly worth considering. I for one believe there is something to the theory that electronic media can be physically harmful mainly because I've seen over and over again in my own kids a tendency to be more agitated and even combative after too much screen time. And it's not becuase they are watching violence. It doesn't seem to matter what it is that they play or watch, the effect is the same. And my kids certainly don't understand that it may be the screen time that may have made them feel agitated. Heck, lots of adults can't seem to connect their physical symptoms with their own bad habits.
I don't want to be disrespectful or argumentative. But this is just what I've seen in my own family, and what I've learned from my research into the subject. I think it's a perspective that deserves consideration in a discussion like this.
Okay, I'm going to stick my neck out here, so please be gentle!
What if your kid's passion happens to be something like eating gummy worms, or guzzling Mountain Dew? What if they want to do those things all day long? What about all the evidence that suggests that video games can be just as bad for a child's brain as those two things? And I'm not talking about the bad effects of wasting time and not taking advantage of life's other opportunities. What I'm talking about is the actual physical changes that occur in a child's brain while they are playing video (or computer) games. Spect scans taken of the brains of children while they are watching TV or playing electronic games have actually shown a worsening of the pattern seen in people with autism spectrum disorders. Why ignore such evidence? It may not be conclusive, but it is certainly worth considering. I for one believe there is something to the theory that electronic media can be physically harmful mainly because I've seen over and over again in my own kids a tendency to be more agitated and even combative after too much screen time. And it's not becuase they are watching violence. It doesn't seem to matter what it is that they play or watch, the effect is the same. And my kids certainly don't understand that it may be the screen time that may have made them feel agitated. Heck, lots of adults can't seem to connect their physical symptoms with their own bad habits.
I think that for something to really be a passion, at least in the sense that I think of a passion, it has to have multiple levels of complexity such that you can get drawn into a deeper and richer appreciation, developing more sophisticated skills and understanding ... so that the object of the passion continues to provide novel rewards and continues to challenge you, whether physically, intellectually, spiritually, aesthetically, or all of the above. So I can't really envision gummy worms or Mountain Dew becoming a passion.
On the issue of "the bad things video games do to the brain" I personally think that's a lot of fearmongering based on extremely limited correlative analysis of some video-arcade-style now-outdated games. Sure, there's some no-brainer evidence that passive viewing of hours a day of TV is not a good thing for very young children. And some extrapolations from brain studies done while playing simple video games. But the sophistication of games has increased exponentially in the past five to ten years, and I highly doubt that studies done with Tetris or Donkey Kong have any relevance when compared to the multi-faceted role-playing, real-time strategy, collaborative, virtual physics, problem-solving, map-generating, first-person adventure type games kids can play these days. In fact there is mounting evidence that certain types of computer game play are beneficial: test scores increased when people spent ten minutes before the test playing games that they were good at, computer games have been used quite effectively to help students to remediate learning disabilities by building new pathways in the brain, social behaviour, happiness and leadership skills seem to improve with up to 3 hours a day of game play. After that there may be a deterioration; but ....
There's some evidence that higher levels of screen time in school children interfere with physical fitness, happiness, social functioning, creativity and the like. But my kids have an extra 30-50 hours a week at their disposal by virtue of not going to school. Twenty-six hours a week of screen time squeezed out of precious after school hours and weekends might indeed have all sorts of adverse effects on school kids that it wouldn't necessarily have on homeschoolers. And while school children likely tend to use their screen time to unwind and veg out after long days of other-structured programming, my kids tend to use it to engage themselves creatively, collaboratively, intellectually.
I find my kids to be more argumentative and difficult when things are out of balance in their lives: when they're not getting physical exercise, or regular meals, or social intercourse, or reliable sleep-wake cyles, or chill time with family. If those things are kept in balance I don't see a correlation between computer game use and negative behaviour.
Miranda
I provide what is being requested. Some of the passion phases we've been through: salt and vinegar chips, cucumber, ice cream, broccoli, cheez-its, soymilk drink boxes, cherries...I'm sure there were others.
The ice cream phase was most memorable. We had about 2-3 days of eating 5-6 servings of ice cream in a day. It was the bulk of food consumed on those days. And then a couple of weeks of ice cream 2-4 times a day. And then for about a month, ice cream once or twice a day. And now, ice cream occasionally. The ice cream passion phase happened about three years ago when my son was three.
So far, no interest in video games, but great interest in YouTube. Screen time is unlimited.
Julie
When I say "Passion", think Sir Ken Robinson's "The Element". THAT is what I mean by passion.
For my son, his passion for video games has led him to explore various concepts of role-playing, story-telling, building, drawing, etc using a variety of media and in many creative ways that don't involve electronics at all. My daughter does the same thing with her passions: explores them in different ways using different media, digs deeper, gets more sophisticated in her explorations.
Suffice it to say, this is nowhere close to wanting to eat gummy bears all day long.
With respect to the "damage" of screens, I agree with moominmama. I am a former research scientist quite fluent and familiar with reading and evaluating the literature (in fact, I do that for a part-time living now). I fully explored the issue of video games and came to the same conclusion she did: the evidence is limited, largely correlative, and also based on children who spend most of their waking hours in a classroom or doing homework. I saw nothing to convince me that video games change the brain any more than reading for hours a day does. On the contrary, my son learned to read by playing video games, and thanks to chatting he is now learning how to spell and type out phrases and sentences.
I would like to point out that my son does not spend the majority of his time playing video games. Total screen time is probably less than half his waking hours on any given day (and that includes YouTube and DVDs), and we're quite active outside the home, too. So I'm not trying to suggest that a kid who locks himself in his room 12 hours a day playing WoW is simply following his "passion". Just that for some kids video games are a passion, and in that case having it treated as something potentially harmful can be harmful itself.
When I say "Passion", think Sir Ken Robinson's "The Element". THAT is what I mean by passion.
For my son, his passion for video games has led him to explore various concepts of role-playing, story-telling, building, drawing, etc using a variety of media and in many creative ways that don't involve electronics at all. My daughter does the same thing with her passions: explores them in different ways using different media, digs deeper, gets more sophisticated in her explorations.
Suffice it to say, this is nowhere close to wanting to eat gummy bears all day long.
I agree with you on passion, and that is a HUGE part of our choice to keep our kids out of school and unschool. To have endless time to find and explore your passion(s). But for my children, thus far, their video gaming has never led to the exploration you listed above. I'm not making comparisons, nor whining, or wishing my child were like yours. Not at all. I'm simply chiming in as another mama of gamers, saying my kids video gaming stays at video gaming. It does not cross over, inspire, connect, anything. It is simply hours each day gaming online, period. I am not critical of this or wishing they were not gaming. I've apologised and worked on my freak outs about it. But I honestly still feel that, in our case, they are not exploring, being stimulated, etc . . . they are playing a game. A game SO well-designed to keep them hooked, to make them try harder to get better avatars to compare themselves to others online, to feel like if they just tried one more time they'd get it this time around. I feel the same way when I play with them, and I have to make myself walk away, I know I get easily sucked in and I have other stuff to do, there is more I want to do with my time. I get how they're feeling, why they do it, etc. and my uncertainty/fear is that, because their life experience is less than mine, simply as a factor of age and all the things I've tried/failed/learned/loved/hated, that their perception of how they wish to spend their time is potentially smaller or limited. I mean, they are happy, healthy, well-fed, loved, etc and so the life they are living is pretty lovely. Having been forced into loads of experiences I hated or loved as a child/teen I have developed a sense of what I like and don't, how I can hinder or help my own success, etc. And that compels me forward to make my life happier, fuller. And so I wonder sometimes if, since most of their exposure and daily habit is for this one experience, gaming, does it limit their awareness of what else is out there, what is available for them in their lives, how much fuller it could get if they tried other things, and thus keep their goals in the gaming world? It's like that TED talk by the pro-gaming woman, forget her name, designs games, who said we have this huge populaton out there now who have played the requisite 10,000 hours of games and thus are experts in their skills . . now if only she knew what those skills were. How that would impact and benefit their lives outside gaming. Not saying it doesn't, just saying there they are, having spent a huge amount of time on that pursuit. For some maybe it fostered other connectons and passions etc, maybe for others it didn't..
I just needed to point out that not every kid gets all of that expansion through video games. Some kids *just* like to play, and can sometimes do so to the total exclusion of everything else, including eating and sleeping, and that has really challenged my parenting ideologies. Some days it just feels like gummy worms for me. Just for me.
Jane McGonigle? I heard her on Science Friday and was interested that she did discriminate a fair bit between different types of gaming. She much prefers creative and collaborative games. She suggests just a handful of hours a week of competitive or arcade style gaming, and the majority of time spent in co-op, creative and collaborative games. That's where she feels the money is in personal and intellectual development.
I just needed to point out that not every kid gets all of that expansion through video games. Some kids *just* like to play, and can sometimes do so to the total exclusion of everything else, including eating and sleeping, and that has really challenged my parenting ideologies. Some days it just feels like gummy worms for me. Just for me.
Four or five years ago I went through a phase of despair over my ds's seemingly excessive computer time. Those were the days of endless Runescape. I could hardly stand to watch his hours drain away on ridiculous repetitive points-gathering. As a last-ditch effort to further deschool myself before totally freaking out on him I made a conscious effort to increase the sensitivity of my observations concerning what he was learning through all his computer time. I began taking an interest in precisely what he was doing on the computer and with the various games he played, and expressing appreciation when I saw him engaged in creativity, analytical problem-solving, code-breaking, gaming that involved connections to other areas of learning or that provoked him to extend his interest when away from the computer. Honestly I had to look long and hard for this kind of stuff at first, but within a few short weeks I was seeing a lot more of it. And it wasn't simply that I was becoming a better observer, it was more that he was feeling that some of his computer use was being implicitly valued by me. The focus was no longer a subtle "oh gosh, you spend SO much time on the computer" but "SOME of what you do on the computer is pretty awesome." And quite naturally he began to see more value in the portion of his computer use that interested and pleased me. Over a month or two his use shifted a lot, away from straight gaming (Runescape dropped off his radar pretty quickly) and much more into modding, scripting, authoring levels, web-publishing, blogging, participating in user communities to offer tips, reviews and tech support, researching and so on.
I think McGonigle is onto something: all gaming is not the same. I think that informed, observant parents can learn to discriminate between the good and the not-so-good, and can maybe help their kids learn to discriminate as well. And as a result I think that the kids will tend to find more depth, sophistication, social awareness, complexity and intellectual challenge in their gaming.
I'm not saying some of them still won't end up doing the gummy worm sort of gaming. But I think that it's worth trying a bit of parental influence to possibly steer them in the direction of the tuscan salad sort.
Miranda
I just needed to point out that not every kid gets all of that expansion through video games. Some kids *just* like to play, and can sometimes do so to the total exclusion of everything else, including eating and sleeping, and that has really challenged my parenting ideologies. Some days it just feels like gummy worms for me. Just for me.
But so what if it is gummy worm type gaming?
When I was 12-16 I read Harlequins by the box full. In Summer and on weekends I would read a book in a day. For those of you not in the know, Harlequins are formulaic romantic drivel....I still read them occasionally
I did well at school, ate, socialised when the opportunities presented themselves, bathed, etc. I did loose some sleep over books, but I still do to this day. In short I was a pretty good kid. I would have been absolutely livid if someone had tried to stop me from reading my trashy novels - or decidied they were not a good way for me to spend my time. It would have felt controlling and patronising.
Perhaps age does come into this a bit - I was a teen, after all. My gamer (who is no longer as hard core as he used to be) is a teen. Even in younger kids, though, I would have trouble limiting a non dangerous hobby. Their time is their time. Speaking only for myself, I do not feel I have the right to tell anyone, even a child, how to spend their time. When I think of why I have chosen this education/life path for my family I realise empowerment is at the root of things. I want my children to realise their choices are their own - so I need to honour that, even when my 15 year old has gone to bed at 3:30 am because he was playing WoW. If their choices impact family matters that is another thing - but that is a different post.
I do hear you that you are older and know more about the complexity and richness of life. I occasionally feel this way too. However, it is not like the outside world with all it richness will go away. I have done more rich things as an adult than I ever did as a child. They can experience stuff later. I do not buy that childhood is a magical time and the only time we do certain stuff.
Thanks for the perspective and suggestions Miranda. Kathy, I'm not in disagreement with you, but ask this: you were a schooled kid right? And so you were *forced* (or it was necessary) for you to put those books down at some point right? I was exactly like you, loved reading, stayed up late, as an adult I have been late to work because I'm sitting in my car in my driveway still reading to try to finish said novel (which was a frivolous sort). But there were times, school for example, where I had to stop. I didn't love it, I didn't learn much of anything at school but I was forced to be exposed to new ideas that were not things I might've organically pursued on my own. I use the word force here in the non-aggro way, just meaning I had no options, school was were I spent my days. And I'm not at all arguing for any permission to force anything on my kids. I'm just trying to flesh out my thoughts as they pertain to this discussion. I too have found that other discussions can sometimes feel top-down and thus I shut up.
And the point made in another post about 'what if they were knitting/reading/playing basketball all day?' I hear that. I myself have managed to make many 'healthy' hobbies (knitting and running) VERY self-destructive. What can I say, it's a gift. 
I guess I'm saying/asking that anything, done to an extreme, cuts out time to discover other things, find balance, self-care, follow new/old/different pursuits, augment an interest, what have you.That Tuscan salad is a balance, a blend, vs gummy worms. And that many of us, as children, were forced to have some balance simply because our time was not our own to pursue. that there are schooled and unschooled kids who are lax in their hygiene, for example, to the point of social difficulties, yet they will not necessitate the changes needed on their own. That they just don't see it, or know how to fix it, or seee how it's harming them (so then *is* it harming them?). That they may need a parent to gently force the issue, help to give them balance. That to simply 'trust' in the child to such a degree that you are perhaps not stepping in where they might need you to, can be a system worthy of reconsidering. See what I'm saying? That it can be at times like putting them in a car without helping them see how it works?
Mostly musing here....
I did go to school. So yes, in some way circumstances did force me to put down the book. I am not sure that was a good thing, though, for me personally
It was not a good thing because I probably would have been better off at home reading sloppy romances than at school. This is not a pro USing or anti schooling statement - simply my reality. I was bored, lonely, bullied, etc at school and for the most part it was a negative experience. I did learn some stuff at school I might have had a hard time learning at home, but undoubtably I would have learned some stuff at home i did not learn at school.
Now had school been a good place for me but I was struggling with a book addiction, it might have given me a framework in which books were placed in a more normal priority.
This is where USing enters the picture. In our home I try to ensure there are enough outside the home activities (inside can work too but only if the child is quite devoted tot he idea) that we lead a rich life. For the most part I make them optional and fun. I am usually taken up on the offer. My older children have started to take on things they are either highly committed to or the team is counting on them. They are learning how to get their butts off the chair and out the door - but they are doing it with things they have chosen.
Lastly, I have been trying to think of what my goals are in relationship to my children. For the most part, they are not academic. My goal for my children is that they learn now to be happy. That does not mean that every moment if life is filled with happiness - it means that in general they learn what makes them happy and see that they have the power to attain happiness. With that in mind, I do not insist they get off the computer, because:
a) it seems to make them happy in the now. That has value
b) If I want them to learn how to create happiness for themselves, then I have to let them experiment with how to make that happen. Including gaming. I really do not think anything is more important than them learning how to live their life, and how the pieces of their lives fit together.
I can see 3 routes with screens:
1. They stay a hobby.
2. they evolve into a passion of sort
3. They become an issue with the person doing too much gaming - as they realise they are somewhat addicted.
I would support my child no matter which of the above was happening for them. In general I would be more likely to intervene with a young child who was experiencing number 3 than an older one. With an older child I would talk and role model and suggest - but not necessarily ban or limit screens. At some point their lives are their own - even their addictions.
I have more (and I also feel this is badly worded!) but I have to run.....
I hear you one hundred percent Kathy, and agree. Did we read so much because our time was otherwise used up by tasks we loathed, as I too found school boring and uninteresting, was bullied, etc. I think for me, though, on my unschooling journey, I feel a natural inclination to guide more when they are younger, and then taper that off as they age and help them find balance. That my 10 year old is potentially more capable of finding balance, of recognising if their actions are not bringing them happiness, than my 4 year old. With my older kids I feel all the negativity in a NO, and aim to never use it, yet with my younger one I am more comfortable to redirect and control, a bit, her actions, because I am trying to set a 'habit' of balance. I understand the philosophy not to, but that doesn't sit well with me in practice, and I am still a person learning and developing too. And in my life experience, there are things that should be avoided, and I am still controlling our environment to avoid them. Anyway I think that's where as an unschooler I tend to veer off from the standard philosophy, as I hold development (not exact age, but that's part of it) into account.
Again, doubt that came out right. :)
Follow Mothering