Pages

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

What does an unschooling "school" day look like?

For my family that question has many answers. Yesterday my 4 and 2 year olds started the day with playing Reader Rabbit Kindergarten where they worked on letter sounds and basic words. Then my 7 year old got on the computer and played a game for her age where she was working on phonograms and sentence structure with my 9 year old watching over her shoulder. Later all the girls went outside to jump on the trampoline and play "house." In their imaginary world one is "Mom" and the others are "Sister" or they are friends or other characters just living through a normal day - when my boys do this kind of play there are always explosions, secret agents and shooting in one form or another, just one of those differences between boys and girls.
While the girls were off in their own world, my 11 year old played Oblivion (an open world medieval game similar to World of Warcraft, but played as a single player and not online). He has been struggling with the patience required in this game. In order to accomplish missions, he has to talk to people to find the clues he needs to advance in the story. Once Damien figures out what he needs to do, he wants to do it immediately not ask around for the clues needed to figure out how to break into the castle or defeat the monster. He gets a double dose of delayed gratification skills with this game because he has to first do his chores to be able to play, then take time to figure out what to do in the game - a skill he definitely needs work on too. Then came the sharing skills as my 9 year old got a turn to play Lego Batman. For Zachery playing the game helps his hand-eye coordination (something his optometrist recommends, though I can't handle the video games every day), puzzle solving skills, money skills (collecting and spending 'studs' on characters and equipment), cooperation skills as he asks siblings to step in for a short time to help so that he doesn't have to wait for the computer to help or switch characters and delayed gratification as he saves to buy certain items. Both of the games have these kinds of lessons as well as many more (in Oblivion the thing you choose to say or do to a character will determine how much or little they will help you - if you are mean, you get less help).
Then, since it was Daddy's night out with friends, the kids finished an animated Batman movie. It was based upon a comic series, so when Daddy got home we talked about the choices that were made by the writers as well as the characters. The fans didn't like a certain character, so the writers killed him off, which shocked the fans so then the writers made this story arc to try and satisfy the fans. From what I understand it worked. The characters were not 2-dimensional, they had a past and you could see where their future was headed. Also, Batman had to face the consequences of his choices and rise above the temptation to kill a really bad guy. He ended up looking back and recognizing that while he made mistakes, he could still appreciate the good times before things fell apart and hope for a future where a certain friend would make better choices. All great discussion starters.


Since I had work to do that I had procrastinated for months, I let the kids have free reign over the tv and computer once their chores were done. Typically I don't have the tv on during the day because it distracts and bothers me and I don't think it is healthy to be in front of all day. However, there are times when the tv/computer are useful.

Well...Maybe the Federal Government Should Protect Life

I said I might change my mind after more thought...well I have. As much as I feel the federal government has no business interfering in the daily lives of its citizens, there is a line that must be set. Boundaries are what make civilization possible and therefore must exist. Our Declaration of Independence is a great place to go to find where that line should be. We have the unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Our unalienable right to Life is what struck me most. In order for that right to mean anything the Federal government must protect the Life of its citizens - all Life especially the vulnerable, disabled and dying because the strong and healthy do not need such protection. The law must remain very basic to work or else our right to Liberty is at risk. Here the Vatican has it right:

"6. The approach to the gravely ill and the dying must therefore be inspired by the respect for the life and the dignity of the person. It should pursue the aim of making proportionate treatment available but without engaging in any form of "overzealous treatment" (cf. CCC, n. 2278). One should accept the patient's wishes when it is a matter of extraordinary or risky therapy which he is not morally obliged to accept. One must always provide ordinary care (including artificial nutrition and hydration), palliative treatment, especially the proper therapy for pain, in a dialogue with the patient which keeps him informed.

At the approach of death, which appears inevitable, "it is permitted in conscience to take the decision to refuse forms of treatment that would only secure a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life" (cf. Declaration on Euthanasia, part IV) because there is a major ethical difference between "procuring death" and "permitting death": the former attitude rejects and denies life, while the latter accepts its natural conclusion." RESPECT FOR THE DIGNITY OF THE DYING
- PONTIFICAL ACADEMY FOR LIFE

Basically no one may be denied nutrition, hydration or palliative treatment. Also, all end of life treatment must come from the angle of "permitting death" instead of "procuring death". This protects the unborn as well as the disabled and elderly because an abortion or euthanasia would be "procuring death." Creating a law that reflects these boundaries also protects our Liberty because if you, for example, have a Christian Scientist who decides to refuse extraordinary medical care for themselves or even their children their rights are protected. It is critical that people be allowed to make their own decisions within basic fundamental boundaries even when their choices are not what you would choose. Death is not an enemy that must be avoided no matter how much it costs monetarily, physically, emotionally and spiritually. Death is a natural part of life and therefore should be approached as such.

These limits would be as far as the Federal Government could go. States get to make their own laws for their citizens as long as it doesn't contradict the Federal laws. I know this is not a perfect idea and I may change my mind as time goes on, but that is where I am right now.