Posts
This will sound ridiculous if you've read this, but last week I was watching some John Rosemond videos I had purchased years ago.
Why, you ask? Well, I wanted something to cross-stitch to ... plus, it's making another good blog post, isn't it?
I think this story he told is very very interesting, and I'm curious what other people have to say about this, especially former teachers. (Or people who were students in the fifties.)
An audience member who I'll call Mary came up to John Rosemond and told him this story about herself:
*****************************************************
In 1952, Mary had been teaching first grade for a few years in a parochial school.
The day before school was about to start, the other first grade teacher in Mary's school had to leave town suddenly and wouldn't be back. Mary was informed that they would have to combine the classes until they found a new first grade teacher.
So ... they combined Mary's 35 students with the absent teacher's 35 students, and Mary had a first grade classroom with exactly 70 first graders and no teacher's aide.
After six weeks, the school observed that Mary (and her students) were having "absolutely no trouble," so they decided to save money and let her keep the 70 students for the entire year.
"And," Mary told John Rosemond years later, "not only did I have no problems, but all 70 students were reading and writing well enough by the end of the year to be successfully promoted to the second grade."
*****************************************************************
Rosemond then pointed out that, even though this was an unusual story, it was not that unusual. He claims that in his own first grade class picture, there were 54 students, and one teacher with no aide. That was the norm in the fifties, he claimed.
He used this story to springboard into the idea that today's children are not disciplined enough at home, or respectful enough of teachers, for that to be possible.
Now.
Here are my thoughts and questions:
1) Does that sound even remotely possible? Let's assume all 70 children are complete angels. Could you imagine 70 kids having a bathroom break? What if even half the kids had a single question about their math assignment on a single day? How could a single teacher possibly know -- really know -- how well 70 different kids are reading.
2) Was it, in fact, true that classrooms were huge back then, that there were no aides, that there were almost no discipline or academic problems
3) If so (or if not), what do you think is going on here?
Do you think the woman is lying?
Do you think she thought the kids were all doing well, but was mistaken because she couldn't keep track of them?
Were kids smarter then? Better behaved? Was there a different attitude toward school?
Are we deluding outselves today (as Rosemond seems to insinuate) by claiming some kids aren't developmentally ready to read at age six? Or that some kids have ADD or Learning Disabilities?
Looking forward to any comments on this one ...
Showing posts with label John Rosemond. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Rosemond. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Monday, October 27, 2008
My rant against John Rosemond
I used to like "parenting expert" John Rosemond a lot, before I had children -- HA!!
I still sometimes read his stuff, for a few reasons:
1) I think he's a good writer and speaker;
2) It keeps me on my toes;
3) I do agree with him, at least partiall, about some things
I was checking into his website the other day and saw this column, which basically states that the number one problem facing today's families is that parents are too involved with their kids.
Yes, you read that write. I almost couldn't type it without laughing. Is he serious??
Here's an excerpt:
Symptomatic of this ubiquitous state of bad mental health is mother-to-mother conversation, which will almost invariably be all about their children: what they’re doing for their children, their children’s latest magnificent accomplishments, and so on. That today’s mothers cannot seem to think of anything else to talk about is rather, well, sad. My mother once told me that when mothers got together in the 1950s, they talked about everything but their children. “We talked about interesting things,” was the way she put it.
I have a few thoughts about this:
1) If a group of teachers got together and talked about their students, their classroom activities, and so on, would that also be "sad" and "not interesting"? What about a group of college professors discussing their job and their students?
2) Rosemond always talks about how women in the 50's, and earlier, always did this, or that. Really? How could he possibly know what "most women" did over fifty years ago? How could that possibly be the same for almost everybody? Anyone have clues about this one, based on conversations with your grandmothers or something? Is this really accurate?
3) Why in the world would you bother to have children if you don't want to be involved with them or spend time with them? Oh wait .... maybe these wonderful women from the 50's didn't choose to have children.
4) Is it really "sad" that I find my children and my life with my children interesting? I would think it's sad if you didn't! We have interesting conversations. They have interesting observations. We read interesting books, watch interesting TV shows, play and sing and listen to interesting music together, go to interesting plays together, hang out with other interesting people, do interesting projects, and go to interesting places together.
The more I think about it, the more this is a perfect example of the totally condescending, "What you do doesn't matter because you only stay home with kids. We, on the other hand, are intelligent and interesting people."
I guess a lot of people questioned this article, because he has a follow-up to it here.
Yes, you read my audacity correctly: I am the contrarian of parent involvement. I think it’s bad for parents, bad for children, bad for families (obviously), and for all those reasons, bad for America.
Wow. Don't even know what to say to that.
Parenting is a form of leadership. In order for a leader, in any context, to be effective, he or she must command (as opposed to demand) the respect of the people being led. This requires a boundary between the leader and the led, the permeability of which is controlled by the former. “Get involved with your children” puts relationship before leadership, the cart before the horse.
This made me think of Jesus, the Ultimate and Perfect Leader. Did he get involved with his disciples? Didn't he spend plenty of time with them on a regular basis?? Please do chime in on this if you can, because I really would like to learn something here and not just be critical.
... the child’s primary challenge was to keep his parents from getting involved.
Bwaa-ha-haa!! Well, maybe if he liked his parents more, he wouldn't desperately want them to stay the hell away from him! Give me a break!! I'm supposed to feel like a terrible parent because my kids like my company?
[I should point out here than you can never win a "Rosemond" argument, because he always says that if this ideas sound crazy, or cruel, it's just proof of how upside-down our society and current culture is. Okay.]
It's interesting that I know from other writings that Rosemond thinks that having an at-home parent -- as well as homeschooling -- are good things.
He said in one book that "a mother should be home for her children, in case they need her, but not be home with her children."
Uh-huh. In other words, she should quit her job and hang around at home all the time, just in case her kid breaks a bone or something, I guess, but stay away from all her kids. Just be home doing "interesting" things (whatever they would be) in another room while her kids basically fend for themselves -- because, apparently, they don't want to be around her either!
And how in the hell does that work with homeschooling? Yes, homeschooling is good, but you shouldn't actually be around your children, or involved in what they're doing, or talking about it with other parents?? Huh? What, is his idea of homeschooling to stick the kids in another room with "assignments" and then go in another room and do your own [interesting] thing?
I guess so.
It bothers me that this bothers me. It makes me feel like he must have hit a nerve. But, really, I find it very insulting. I am an intelligent, well-educated, yes, interesting person (even though I kid that I'm not), and the fact that I spend time with my children and do things with them, and know them well, does not make me less so.
I still sometimes read his stuff, for a few reasons:
1) I think he's a good writer and speaker;
2) It keeps me on my toes;
3) I do agree with him, at least partiall, about some things
I was checking into his website the other day and saw this column, which basically states that the number one problem facing today's families is that parents are too involved with their kids.
Yes, you read that write. I almost couldn't type it without laughing. Is he serious??
Here's an excerpt:
Symptomatic of this ubiquitous state of bad mental health is mother-to-mother conversation, which will almost invariably be all about their children: what they’re doing for their children, their children’s latest magnificent accomplishments, and so on. That today’s mothers cannot seem to think of anything else to talk about is rather, well, sad. My mother once told me that when mothers got together in the 1950s, they talked about everything but their children. “We talked about interesting things,” was the way she put it.
I have a few thoughts about this:
1) If a group of teachers got together and talked about their students, their classroom activities, and so on, would that also be "sad" and "not interesting"? What about a group of college professors discussing their job and their students?
2) Rosemond always talks about how women in the 50's, and earlier, always did this, or that. Really? How could he possibly know what "most women" did over fifty years ago? How could that possibly be the same for almost everybody? Anyone have clues about this one, based on conversations with your grandmothers or something? Is this really accurate?
3) Why in the world would you bother to have children if you don't want to be involved with them or spend time with them? Oh wait .... maybe these wonderful women from the 50's didn't choose to have children.
4) Is it really "sad" that I find my children and my life with my children interesting? I would think it's sad if you didn't! We have interesting conversations. They have interesting observations. We read interesting books, watch interesting TV shows, play and sing and listen to interesting music together, go to interesting plays together, hang out with other interesting people, do interesting projects, and go to interesting places together.
The more I think about it, the more this is a perfect example of the totally condescending, "What you do doesn't matter because you only stay home with kids. We, on the other hand, are intelligent and interesting people."
I guess a lot of people questioned this article, because he has a follow-up to it here.
Yes, you read my audacity correctly: I am the contrarian of parent involvement. I think it’s bad for parents, bad for children, bad for families (obviously), and for all those reasons, bad for America.
Wow. Don't even know what to say to that.
Parenting is a form of leadership. In order for a leader, in any context, to be effective, he or she must command (as opposed to demand) the respect of the people being led. This requires a boundary between the leader and the led, the permeability of which is controlled by the former. “Get involved with your children” puts relationship before leadership, the cart before the horse.
This made me think of Jesus, the Ultimate and Perfect Leader. Did he get involved with his disciples? Didn't he spend plenty of time with them on a regular basis?? Please do chime in on this if you can, because I really would like to learn something here and not just be critical.
... the child’s primary challenge was to keep his parents from getting involved.
Bwaa-ha-haa!! Well, maybe if he liked his parents more, he wouldn't desperately want them to stay the hell away from him! Give me a break!! I'm supposed to feel like a terrible parent because my kids like my company?
[I should point out here than you can never win a "Rosemond" argument, because he always says that if this ideas sound crazy, or cruel, it's just proof of how upside-down our society and current culture is. Okay.]
It's interesting that I know from other writings that Rosemond thinks that having an at-home parent -- as well as homeschooling -- are good things.
He said in one book that "a mother should be home for her children, in case they need her, but not be home with her children."
Uh-huh. In other words, she should quit her job and hang around at home all the time, just in case her kid breaks a bone or something, I guess, but stay away from all her kids. Just be home doing "interesting" things (whatever they would be) in another room while her kids basically fend for themselves -- because, apparently, they don't want to be around her either!
And how in the hell does that work with homeschooling? Yes, homeschooling is good, but you shouldn't actually be around your children, or involved in what they're doing, or talking about it with other parents?? Huh? What, is his idea of homeschooling to stick the kids in another room with "assignments" and then go in another room and do your own [interesting] thing?
I guess so.
It bothers me that this bothers me. It makes me feel like he must have hit a nerve. But, really, I find it very insulting. I am an intelligent, well-educated, yes, interesting person (even though I kid that I'm not), and the fact that I spend time with my children and do things with them, and know them well, does not make me less so.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
How many toys?
A parenting author I liked years ago, but am starting to disagree with more and more over the years, is John Rosemond:
He claims that when he was five years old, he had exactly five toys (which he wasn't even allowed to play with unless it was raining or dark outside.)
I believe he recommends that kids have less than five toys -- or perhaps it's less than ten, but you get the idea.
A few years ago, I actually thought this sounded like a good idea. For one thing, I'm not a fan of clutter. And also, I bought into the idea that "too many" toys kills creativity and resourcesfulness. (By the way, is there any evidence of this, or is it just a convenient excuse?)
He also says that children should watch no television and not play any computer games.
Which leads me to wonder ... what in the world did he (and children in families that follow his advice) spend their days doing???
I kept track of what toys my girls (ages 4 and 6) played with in a 48-hour period, and it included the following:
- toy farm with animals
- wooden xylophone
- big indoor slide
- Playful Patterns (from Discovery Toys)
- Play-do
- Tea Set
- Aqua Doodle
- Blocks
- Hi-Ho-Cherrio
- Barney floor puzzle
- Air hockey table
- Toy jewelry
- Various stuffed animals
- Ball and bat
- Scooters and bikes
- Swing set
And yes, they were also read to, and they watched TV and they played on the computer. And no, they were not even home all this time.
Five toys??
Playing outside is great -- in fact, we're all outside as I type this -- but for eight or nine hours a day?? Every day?? And not by choice, but because they're "not allowed" to play with toys until after dark?
And why would I want that for my kids anyway?
He claims that when he was five years old, he had exactly five toys (which he wasn't even allowed to play with unless it was raining or dark outside.)
I believe he recommends that kids have less than five toys -- or perhaps it's less than ten, but you get the idea.
A few years ago, I actually thought this sounded like a good idea. For one thing, I'm not a fan of clutter. And also, I bought into the idea that "too many" toys kills creativity and resourcesfulness. (By the way, is there any evidence of this, or is it just a convenient excuse?)
He also says that children should watch no television and not play any computer games.
Which leads me to wonder ... what in the world did he (and children in families that follow his advice) spend their days doing???
I kept track of what toys my girls (ages 4 and 6) played with in a 48-hour period, and it included the following:
- toy farm with animals
- wooden xylophone
- big indoor slide
- Playful Patterns (from Discovery Toys)
- Play-do
- Tea Set
- Aqua Doodle
- Blocks
- Hi-Ho-Cherrio
- Barney floor puzzle
- Air hockey table
- Toy jewelry
- Various stuffed animals
- Ball and bat
- Scooters and bikes
- Swing set
And yes, they were also read to, and they watched TV and they played on the computer. And no, they were not even home all this time.
Five toys??
Playing outside is great -- in fact, we're all outside as I type this -- but for eight or nine hours a day?? Every day?? And not by choice, but because they're "not allowed" to play with toys until after dark?
And why would I want that for my kids anyway?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)