Elizabeth Priddy on tue 18 apr 06
One more time for the cheap seats in the back:
I did not paddle hit discourage or even chastise the
boy. I physically picked him up, moved him 10 feet
toward the door, and put him down. Then addressed his
mother to take him outside the room and talk to him
about anger and hitting.
His mother probably would not have looked up from her
conversation if he had not screamed, the first audible
noise out of the kid in the 6 weeks I had been working
with that particular group. I had communicated quite
effectively with him with friendly smiles and body
language.
As I recall it, I GAVE the homeschoolers the class
with no fee except the cost of clay, in exchange for
the children each producing a pot for the SA program.
So it was gratis, essentially. And even though each
of them promised to bring a dish to the SA soup and
bowl fundraiser, not one did what hey said they would.
I wonder if I would have been allowed to lay my hands
on him to grab him from the road if a car was coming
toward him. It certainly wasn't ok for me to grab him
up to prevent him from hitting her.
Do you have any idea what it was like to have a person
with an obvious and selfish interest besmirch my
reputation with the accusation that I inappropriately
touched her kid. Have you any idea of the child's
"telephone" game? Any clue of what her being such a
reactionary and specious idiot could have done to my
career, my life, and at the time barren life? When
teaching her and other precious josh-u-a's was the
only cool and wonderful outlet I had in my life for
giving back to children, whom I have dedicated all of
my expendable resources to for the last 20 years.
What a thoughtless, reckless, horrible person. When I
retired from public work in teaching to have my son
and spend my remaining time on a legacy of sorts for
him and the other kids that have been ultimately my
life's work, the other thousand and some kids whose
lives I touched and made better or at least more fun
...all those kids weighing against that one horrible
day.
But what would you have done? Would you have said no
with no time enough for a verbal command to work and
kept your hand off? Grabbed up the intended victim,
ensuring the wrath of the other mother and frightening
the hell out of a kid who really wasn't doing anything
much?
I would really love to know, and it would be
instructional for other teachers in similar
situations.
What do you do when a subverbal nonresponsive kid is
about to hurt or be hurt in a world where the
authority figure in the room is not allowed to touch
the kids for any reason?
What was I supposed to do? His mother was not
supervising nor helping.
It is now just an issue of NMP, so I am letting it go,
but it is like the detectives who have one case that
just bugs them because they never could solve it. I
heard from many other teachers, including the Masters
Degree'd special education teachers I worked with in
the at risk youth programs, who said that they would
have done the same thing, and possibly risk being
fired. So there was some vindication in the end, and
of course the same thing could have happened in public
school situations, I suppose, if parents were involved
in and activity or such...but I don't really think so.
The massive defensiveness of the homeschool crowd is
certainly understandable. And I have been an outsider
in enough situations that I am sympathetic, or I
wouldn't have been working with them in the first
place, so lets just leave that part of the issue at
the curb.
And just tell me, other parents, regardless of your
school options and structure, what do you expect in
that situation, and what are the duties of pottery
instructors with regard to the safety of child
students who are using stuff that is much more
danger-friendly than crayons and paste style art
classes?
I have felt that making them sign a waiver that allows
me to use any necessary force to maintain safety in my
classroom would be off-putting to say the least.
And the rule I eventually evoked after seeing the
second 8ish girl with a pony tail get her hair yanked
by an electric wheel was that I can't be expected to
know every child's name every second of the day when I
might be seeing 50 or so on a given week. And that
accordingly, if I ever say "stop" loudly to the room,
everybody stops everything immediately. Wheels off,
hands down and to the side, and no motion or sound
until I say it is ok. As I said, though, josh-u-a had
not indicated that he was age appropriately verbal and
I had not grilled his mom about hearing problems or
speech problems, because I didn't think it mattered
much with regard to making pots and I assumed that if
he had some serious problem his mother would have
disclosed.
And when the dowel was up and ready to come down, I
wasn't ready to deal with the possibility he could not
or would not obey the stop command and allow the girl
to get a 2 inch stick smashed in her face with violent
force.
And for that "crazy" reasoning, my entire career and
reputation was on the line. I heard about this from
the arts council president, the head of the gallery
that had sponsored their class costs, the other
mothers, the performance review sheets I put out at
the end of each class...and all of this during the
first year of my Artist in Residence Fellowship for
Youth-at-risk Program, the year that future grant
funding would depend on.
So I cared. The next 3 months of damage control and
explaining as it inevitably came up when I went out to
promote the program to sponsors and vendors...what a
pall on an attempt to do the right thing.
So that is why *I* feel as strongly as I do about the
incident.
I have my own kid now. I am retired from it. If I did
go back, I would indeed just avoid homeschool
situations having been burned to the core there. And
the irony is, that this whole portable wood kiln
project I am developing is specificly designed to
serve underserved populations, like homeschoolers. SO
my point is, have some awareness of the consequences
of your actions whenever you can. You never really
know who are what good thing you may be destroying in
your myopic reaction to the world. being like that is
natural but not admirable.
And my question is, what would you have done?
E.
TIVO makes commercial free programming a reality and
compresses the screen time for an average one hour
show to no more than 40 minutes, less if you skip the
credits, introduction branded theme songs and
"previously on Law and order" snips. Educating kids
about the necessary restrictions of screen time and
giving them the tools to avoid the brainwashing of
commercialism saves the baby while throwing out the
bathwater. I keep in my cache of tv an episode of
Barney where thay create an art show in the park, a
teletubbies of them making sand art with russian
toddlers, and a baby animals show that is nothing but
footage of baby animals set to classical music.
I am an attachment parenting type. The boy goes with
me everywhere I go. Not so that I can control him,
but so that he can experience the miracle of being the
center of the universe for a few precious years. But
the most frequent comment I hear about him after how
beautiful he is, is how well behaved and happy he
seems. And he watches tv when I get a shower, as it
is more engrossing for a 20 minute span than a board
book. And even with tv being an integral part of his
ife, his morning quiet routine is to sit and "read"
his picture books for an hour straight, so his
attention span has not suffered.
Jeff and I both watched an obscene amount of tv as we
are average 40 yr olds and the commonality of being
able to talk about complex subjects with the
abbreviated set-up facilitated by an extremely broad
television vocabulary of stories, allows for mental
short-hand between us.
So if I love television and am convinced that
attachment parenting is best, the boy is going to get
some tv time.
But I don't watch commercials and neither does Jeff
and neither will Logan. And in nearly two years he
has gotten two swats on the bottom. Both for throwing
things at the rottie mix mutt dog. So we are a rather
non-violent household as well.
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on tue 18 apr 06
Hi Elizabeth, Kelly, all...
While I am only sometimes around Chilren, I have
been more often around adults or other animals of
one kind or another.
My own method, to stave off some immediate or
about-to-happen deed or action, for any of them,
is to pronounce 'to' the ofender, a swift,
concussive version of 'Auk!'
Now, for this to work well, it is best of course
if one is close to them, rather than a long way
off...
Or, it sounds sort of like 'Auk!' anyway. Maybe
"Ahk!" is close too...
This may be done with virtually zero emotional
tone or emotional inference to it, it may be done
as a neutral device which is not judgeing anyone
but which implicitly IS saying "Stop!" but it is a
more effective term or sound than a pronouciation
of the word 'Stop' is or would be since "Stoip' IS
a 'word' and invites thinking or ratinocination of
some kind which is not good, since for thinking,
they then will thinkinlgy 'decide' some resolution
while processing endless brachiations, so...
Anyway...it works universally for any Creature
possessing endothermy, and, with many who in fact
do not.
It may work sometimes with various Insects or
Reptiles even...or, at least, it has for me.
One does of course invest 'in' the sound, one's
willful, and somehow 'neutral' and definite clear
intent, that the offender pause or cease their
immediate involvement.
...and, it buys that second for them to pause,
shift into another mode of mind...and in people
situations or animal ones, for them likely to look
at you and ( discover, ) their energy, just-then
poised to have been about some objectionable deed
or action...that their energy is changed, and
their attention also.
If one concussively said 'Stop!' with a
people-creature, then there is going to be
problems after, in obligatory asking by the
recipient, of "why?" and or resentment for
embarassment or resentment about being 'told' what
to 'do'...or whatever.
Thus, often, in itself, it is enough then, if one
use the sound rightly, for the recipient to
implicitly reflect and accept that the change of
direction is something they will conceeded
to...and it of course provides a spacious moment
also, in which one may lead or recommend or 'pull'
in effect, their attention to whatever one wishes
to recommend it to, or, to a rational mind, in
some cases, to offer 'reasons'...but in that
moment, everyone will be somehow between
'thinking' and be relatively free from the
liabilities of it.
Anyway...
Just that thought...
Truely, to confront misdemeanors or mischiefs
directly, or with justifications or argument or
force, is a very delicate business which only too
easily contributes to the wherefore they arise,
and, to the resourcefullness or subterfuge with
which they shall return.
With Puppies, Dogs, Kittens or Cats or various
orders of Birds, or other intelligent and
sensitive forms of Creaturedom, or with Children,
I (would) never scold or dis-approve, rather, I
invite their attention to something else
'positively', if I feel they are getting into, or
about to 'do' something, or are doing something, I
prefer they did not do...and I may or may not
narrate according to their wits and interest or
curiousity.
While this works less well with hominids maybe, or
is less easy to do cleanly, it has some very good
measure for recommending it anyway, and to provide
a sometimes necessary 'spell breaker', which is
important, so, just saying a sound that is not a
word, which is short and concussive, that is
simple, immediate, direct, implicit, flexible,
outside of thinking, faster than 'words' or
reproof, and without imputeing the other, offers
them a constructive juncture for re-direction. One
in effect speaks not to their conscious processes,
but, 'to' their Body.
'No', as a word, for people-creatures, as a
corrective anyway, is far too complex of a concept
which engauges all the same resources already
involved 'in' the spell of the misdemeanor already
underway, or, that shall rally to protect it, and
is far too s-l-o-w to be processed, and, will
invite resentment.
I myself, if standing next to a child who is about
to stab or jab another in the eye or something
with a sharp insturment, I would simply utter,
concussively, 'to' them decidedly, 'Auk!' and, I
assure you, they would stop instantly as if hit by
some energy beam...and then, 'then' looking at me
to see the source of the sound/energy thing that
just happenned, they would immediately know with
no words or rejection from me or other political
complexity, that the deed they were poised to 'do'
has lost it's appeal. Even if they might not know
'why'...
Thus would they be poised to recieve some other
recommendation or subject for their attention, or,
I would 'have' their attention to guide it to
something else...and, maybe, to some new 'spell'
or other which I would approve of.
Would I, could I, do this all-day-long?
No...
I would remove myself from any such situation.
Sorry to be rambly...Lol...
Love,
Phil
el ve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth Priddy"
> One more time for the cheap seats in the back:
>
> I did not paddle hit discourage or even chastise
the
> boy. I physically picked him up, moved him 10
feet
> toward the door, and put him down. Then
addressed his
> mother to take him outside the room and talk to
him
> about anger and hitting.
>
> His mother probably would not have looked up
from her
> conversation if he had not screamed, the first
audible
> noise out of the kid in the 6 weeks I had been
working
> with that particular group. I had communicated
quite
> effectively with him with friendly smiles and
body
> language.
>
> As I recall it, I GAVE the homeschoolers the
class
> with no fee except the cost of clay, in exchange
for
> the children each producing a pot for the SA
program.
> So it was gratis, essentially. And even though
each
> of them promised to bring a dish to the SA soup
and
> bowl fundraiser, not one did what hey said they
would.
>
> I wonder if I would have been allowed to lay my
hands
> on him to grab him from the road if a car was
coming
> toward him. It certainly wasn't ok for me to
grab him
> up to prevent him from hitting her.
>
> Do you have any idea what it was like to have a
person
> with an obvious and selfish interest besmirch my
> reputation with the accusation that I
inappropriately
> touched her kid. Have you any idea of the
child's
> "telephone" game? Any clue of what her being
such a
> reactionary and specious idiot could have done
to my
> career, my life, and at the time barren life?
When
> teaching her and other precious josh-u-a's was
the
> only cool and wonderful outlet I had in my life
for
> giving back to children, whom I have dedicated
all of
> my expendable resources to for the last 20
years.
>
> What a thoughtless, reckless, horrible person.
When I
> retired from public work in teaching to have my
son
> and spend my remaining time on a legacy of sorts
for
> him and the other kids that have been ultimately
my
> life's work, the other thousand and some kids
whose
> lives I touched and made better or at least more
fun
> ...all those kids weighing against that one
horrible
> day.
>
> But what would you have done? Would you have
said no
> with no time enough for a verbal command to work
and
> kept your hand off? Grabbed up the intended
victim,
> ensuring the wrath of the other mother and
frightening
> the hell out of a kid who really wasn't doing
anything
> much?
>
> I would really love to know, and it would be
> instructional for other teachers in similar
> situations.
> What do you do when a subverbal nonresponsive
kid is
> about to hurt or be hurt in a world where the
> authority figure in the room is not allowed to
touch
> the kids for any reason?
>
> What was I supposed to do? His mother was not
> supervising nor helping.
>
> It is now just an issue of NMP, so I am letting
it go,
> but it is like the detectives who have one case
that
> just bugs them because they never could solve
it. I
> heard from many other teachers, including the
Masters
> Degree'd special education teachers I worked
with in
> the at risk youth programs, who said that they
would
> have done the same thing, and possibly risk
being
> fired. So there was some vindication in the
end, and
> of course the same thing could have happened in
public
> school situations, I suppose, if parents were
involved
> in and activity or such...but I don't really
think so.
>
> The massive defensiveness of the homeschool
crowd is
> certainly understandable. And I have been an
outsider
> in enough situations that I am sympathetic, or I
> wouldn't have been working with them in the
first
> place, so lets just leave that part of the issue
at
> the curb.
>
> And just tell me, other parents, regardless of
your
> school options and structure, what do you expect
in
> that situation, and what are the duties of
pottery
> instructors with regard to the safety of child
> students who are using stuff that is much more
> danger-friendly than crayons and paste style art
> classes?
>
> I have felt that making them sign a waiver that
allows
> me to use any necessary force to maintain safety
in my
> classroom would be off-putting to say the least.
>
> And the rule I eventually evoked after seeing
the
> second 8ish girl with a pony tail get her hair
yanked
> by an electric wheel was that I can't be
expected to
> know every child's name every second of the day
when I
> might be seeing 50 or so on a given week. And
that
> accordingly, if I ever say "stop" loudly to the
room,
> everybody stops everything immediately. Wheels
off,
> hands down and to the side, and no motion or
sound
> until I say it is ok. As I said, though,
josh-u-a had
> not indicated that he was age appropriately
verbal and
> I had not grilled his mom about hearing problems
or
> speech problems, because I didn't think it
mattered
> much with regard to making pots and I assumed
that if
> he had some serious problem his mother would
have
> disclosed.
>
> And when the dowel was up and ready to come
down, I
> wasn't ready to deal with the possibility he
could not
> or would not obey the stop command and allow the
girl
> to get a 2 inch stick smashed in her face with
violent
> force.
>
> And for that "crazy" reasoning, my entire career
and
> reputation was on the line. I heard about this
from
> the arts council president, the head of the
gallery
> that had sponsored their class costs, the other
> mothers, the performance review sheets I put out
at
> the end of each class...and all of this during
the
> first year of my Artist in Residence Fellowship
for
> Youth-at-risk Program, the year that future
grant
> funding would depend on.
>
> So I cared. The next 3 months of damage control
and
> explaining as it inevitably came up when I went
out to
> promote the program to sponsors and
vendors...what a
> pall on an attempt to do the right thing.
>
> So that is why *I* feel as strongly as I do
about the
> incident.
>
> I have my own kid now. I am retired from it. If
I did
> go back, I would indeed just avoid homeschool
> situations having been burned to the core there.
And
> the irony is, that this whole portable wood kiln
> project I am developing is specificly designed
to
> serve underserved populations, like
homeschoolers. SO
> my point is, have some awareness of the
consequences
> of your actions whenever you can. You never
really
> know who are what good thing you may be
destroying in
> your myopic reaction to the world. being like
that is
> natural but not admirable.
>
> And my question is, what would you have done?
>
> E.
>
> TIVO makes commercial free programming a reality
and
> compresses the screen time for an average one
hour
> show to no more than 40 minutes, less if you
skip the
> credits, introduction branded theme songs and
> "previously on Law and order" snips. Educating
kids
> about the necessary restrictions of screen time
and
> giving them the tools to avoid the brainwashing
of
> commercialism saves the baby while throwing out
the
> bathwater. I keep in my cache of tv an episode
of
> Barney where thay create an art show in the
park, a
> teletubbies of them making sand art with russian
> toddlers, and a baby animals show that is
nothing but
> footage of baby animals set to classical music.
>
> I am an attachment parenting type. The boy goes
with
> me everywhere I go. Not so that I can control
him,
> but so that he can experience the miracle of
being the
> center of the universe for a few precious years.
But
> the most frequent comment I hear about him after
how
> beautiful he is, is how well behaved and happy
he
> seems. And he watches tv when I get a shower,
as it
> is more engrossing for a 20 minute span than a
board
> book. And even with tv being an integral part
of his
> ife, his morning quiet routine is to sit and
"read"
> his picture books for an hour straight, so his
> attention span has not suffered.
>
> Jeff and I both watched an obscene amount of tv
as we
> are average 40 yr olds and the commonality of
being
> able to talk about complex subjects with the
> abbreviated set-up facilitated by an extremely
broad
> television vocabulary of stories, allows for
mental
> short-hand between us.
>
> So if I love television and am convinced that
> attachment parenting is best, the boy is going
to get
> some tv time.
>
> But I don't watch commercials and neither does
Jeff
> and neither will Logan. And in nearly two years
he
> has gotten two swats on the bottom. Both for
throwing
> things at the rottie mix mutt dog. So we are a
rather
> non-violent household as well.
>
> Elizabeth Priddy
>
> Beaufort, NC - USA
> http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
>
>
__________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
__________________________________________________
____________________________
> Send postings to clayart@lsv.ceramics.org
>
> You may look at the archives for the list or
change your subscription
> settings from http://www.ceramics.org/clayart/
>
> Moderator of the list is Mel Jacobson who may be
reached at melpots@pclink.com.
Elizabeth Priddy on wed 19 apr 06
David,
your position is perfectly great, but I will leave you
with this:
talking about "South Park" is fun, becaue the guys who
write it are really smart and ascerbic. But talking
about it without watching it is just weird, because it
is a cartoon, a visual art media.
Rent "South Park: Bigger, longer and uncut" It is
just as point on political satire today as it was when
it came out.
I can't talk about it here, because this has gone
waaay off topic, and the language necessary to discuss
south park is offensive for most people, but Saddam
Hussein's musical love song to the devil called "I can
change" is something you, as a musician would really
find cool and weird and interesting. And "Blame
Canada" is also pretty hilarious.
Kind of like Monty Python for modern americans,
nothing sacred and nothing held back. But not for
kids, not at all for kids. Also "Boondocks", the
cartoon series is devastiatingly spot on satire.
I guess the thing with tv is that you have to kiss a
few frogs to find the good stuff. It requires
self-restraint, the ability to tape and fast forward,
and the desire to see really strange stuff.
I love it. And I will teach Logan to watch
responsibly, in the same way that I will teach him to
drink and drive responsibly, not those last two in
close proximity.
TV is like everything else, moderation is key.
Elizabeth
Elizabeth Priddy
Beaufort, NC - USA
http://www.elizabethpriddy.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
David Hendley on wed 19 apr 06
Since you want to write about TV, E, here is a
response. Just as homeschoolers know that the
"socialization argument" will be immediately raised
by those not familiar with, or hostile to, homeshcooling,
non-TV-advocates know that it will also be used as an
argument in favor of TV watching by who like it.
The truth is, you don't need to watch any television
to talk about it around the water cooler or in PE class.
My non-TV-watching nephews verified this for me
many years ago. "All you have to do is listen to
people talk about a show for 5 minutes, and you know
all about it." I actually heard them joining in conversations
with their friends about a TV show they had never seen.
Having not watched a football game in 20 years, I,
myself, quite often fake conversation when someone
wants to talk about a recent big Dallas Cowboys game.
The other line of argument presented by good parents
is that they only let their kids watch "good shows",
or "educational programs", or no commercials.
Well, the damage done to children by television goes much
deeper than content. Of course Sesame Street is better
than HBO, but the act of watching television has profound
effects on people, particularly children.
"Four Arguments for the Elimination of Television",
by Jerry Mander, is the classic 1977 book on the subject.
The book discusses how television induces of unnatural
alpha waves in the brain, and the effects that large
amounts of television viewing have on children and the
onset of attention deficit disorder.
See http://www.netreach.net/~kaufman/Jerry.Mander.html
for a brief summary.
Believe me, I have no criticism of a mother who has
her child watch television. I just want you to be aware
that there are serious and well-thought-out reasons why
some people choose to eliminate television from their lives.
David Hendley
Maydelle, Texas
david@farmpots.com
www.farmpots.com
Carl Finch on wed 19 apr 06
At 11:49 PM 4/18/2006, pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
>My own method, to stave off some immediate or
>about-to-happen deed or action, for any of them,
>is to pronounce 'to' the ofender, a swift,
>concussive version of 'Auk!'
...
>This may be done with virtually zero emotional
>tone or emotional inference to it, it may be done
>as a neutral device which is not judgeing anyone
>but which implicitly IS saying "Stop!" but it is a
>more effective term or sound than a pronouciation
>of the word 'Stop' is or would be since "Stoip' IS
>a 'word' and invites thinking or ratinocination of
>some kind which is not good, since for thinking,
>they then will thinkinlgy 'decide' some resolution
>while processing endless brachiations, so...
And in a similar vein, as Tommy and Dickie sang it 40 years ago...
Tommy: "I yelled 'FIRE' when I fell into that [vat of] chocolate"
Dickie: "Why'd you yell 'fire' when you fell into that chocolate?!"
Tommy: "Cuz no one would save me if I yelled "CHOCOLATE!"
Good thinkin' there, Phil!
--Carl "who can think of worse things than falling into a vat of Swiss
Callier chocolate" Finch
in Medford, Oregon
| |
|
