Smrt Lernins

A commenter on my post about the pro-creationist bill introduced in Oklahoma seemed to think I was getting my panties in a twist over something he dismissed as a “crackpot bill.” Whether or not the state senator introducing the bill is a crackpot isn’t the issue here, however (though I agree that he is, in fact, a crackpot). The problem isn’t that one guy in Oklahoma thinks teachers should teach creationism in the classroom. The problem is that so many teachers already do.

LiveScience reports that data collected from 926 nationally representative participants in the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers shows that fewer than 30 percent of teachers teach an adamantly pro-evolution biology curriculum, while 13 percent of these teachers advocate creationism in their classrooms. An overwhelming majority (close to 60%) didn’t take an in-class stance on the issue at all, opting to skirt the issue by talking about genes or “teaching the controversy.”

So, yeah. I’m concerned when a senator introduces a bill that would give that 13% of teachers state support. I do think it’s a big deal and I expect better for and from our public schools.

Growing up in an affluent, yet very conservative, county in GA, the potential for creationism popping up in my high school science classrooms was high. Luckily, I instead had Dr. Wes McCoy, who is both a devout Christian (Presbyterian) and a vocal proponent of evolutionary science. He was also a 2006 recipient of the AAAS Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility. He is a member of the Broader Social Impacts Committee of the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History’s Human Origins Initiative, which explores the question of “What does it mean to be human?” in part through relationship between science and religion.

That Dr. McCoy holds a strong belief in God and is an active member of his church was never an issue in the classroom. It didn’t interfere with the evidence-based teaching of evolutionary science. On the contrary, Dr. McCoy himself has said, “My understanding of evolution does nothing to diminish my faith in God. In fact, my connection to God is deepened when I contemplate the intricate beauty of evolution.” A man of profound faith, but also a man of science, Dr. McCoy has staunchly fought for high science standards for our local school system and against such anti-evolutionary nonsense as the “evolution is a theory, not a fact” stickers in the county’s science texts.

This man set my standard for scientific excellence in the classroom. It wasn’t until I had my own children and had to start looking at potential pitfalls in their education that I came to realize that Dr. McCoy, while an exemplary teacher, is not a particularly accurate example of the type of science teacher I could expect for my children throughout their years in school. They would be twice as likely to have a teacher who pussy-foots around the topic of education as they would be to have one like Dr. McCoy. Their odds of having a teacher with a creationist or “intelligent design” approach to education is unacceptably high. The desire for my children to have a sound, accurate education in evolutionary science is one of many reasons why I have chosen to homeschool them. When I look at the numbers from the National Survey of High School Biology Teachers, I have it reconfirmed for me that this choice was a very wise one.

It’s easy to dismiss concerns about inappropriate religious influences in the classroom and on our laws as “tilting at windmills,” but saying it doesn’t make it so. Conservative (“evangelical” and/or “fundamentalist,” if you prefer) Christianity still significantly impacts laws and policies relating to education, healthcare, marriage, and other areas of our lives. Even if, as some numbers show, the overall % of people in the US who identify as Christian is decreasing (and even that is debatable, as more people are becoming disenchanted with organized religion and identify as religiously unaffiliated, which doesn’t mean they have don’t still share specific conservative religious views), those who remain become more and more polarized into an extreme way of thinking. That impacts the lives and education of my children and makes it a topic worth addressing here.

You need to know what going on in Egypt. It’s going on right now. These are scenes you need to see. Egypt has gone offline. This is happening now, and it should matter to you. Really, it matters.

Why would the Egyptian government cut off access to social media? Ask Iran:

Twitter didn’t start the protests in Iran, nor did it make them possible. But there’s no question that it has emboldened the protesters, reinforced their conviction that they are not alone and engaged populations outside Iran in an emotional, immediate way that was never possible before. [...] Totalitarian governments rule by brute force, and because they control the consensus worldview of those they rule. Tyranny, in other words, is a monologue. But as long as Twitter is up and running, there’s no such thing.

Twitter isn’t up and running in Egypt. Control the media and control the message? We’ll have to see about that, as the Egyptian government is limited in their reach. They can’t cut off our media. They can’t stop our signal. Whether you support the protesters or fear the outcomes if they are successful, this is a signal that needs to be boosted. You need to know what is happening in Egypt. Whatever the outcome, it is going to have global ramifications.

At least we don’t have to worry about a nation-wide internet shut off here, right?

I’m so glad that people like Ken Ham exist, to make sure that we heathens can learn the valuable lesson that not believing in [his specific flavor of] God leads to violence, lack of compassion for our fellow man, and an overall absence of morals. Without billboards, how would we non-[or wrong denomination of or too liberal of]Christians ever understand what we’re missing out on!

Personally, I’m pretty darn tired of being told that, because I’m not [evangelical/conservative/specific denomination of -- take your pick] Christian, that I have no “moral convictions.” I have many moral and ethical convictions. I have a strongly developed sense of right and wrong, of just and unjust, of good and evil, and also of what parts of your life are my business (how you interact with me or others, for good or ill) and which parts aren’t (what you believe in your heart/mind, what you do with your body, what you do in your bedroom). I’m a moral individual, but my morality doesn’t including hating you on spec, devaluing your life because of what you do or who you love or what choices you make for your body, or threatening you (either directly, with violence, or indirectly, with vengeance from some divine origin).

I’m terribly afraid of the pervasiveness of the belief that a person can only be moral if s/he does believe in a very specific and narrow set of ideas, if s/he does feel that hate towards the Other (only they don’t say they hate YOU, see, just your “sin”), if s/he does think the ones who don’t believe as they do are going to burn in hellfire. Is that what morality is? Really? Frankly, I don’t see how teaching children to hate [gays/women who want reproductive freedom/abortionists/other races/other religions/other nations/insert your threatening Other here] instills the sort of morality that would keep the boy in that billboard from pulling the trigger. In fact, I think that flavor of morality — the one where only your morals are “real” morals and only those who believe in them are the “real” and worthy people — is exactly the thing that encourages the more mentally-fragile among you to pull the trigger.

Christianity isn’t the sole source of human morality. Believing in God doesn’t prevent violence. It doesn’t stop crime. It doesn’t magically make a person or group good. On a grander scale, look at history and the atrocities done in the name of one [big G or little g]od or another. On a smaller scale, Officer Daddyman arrests people every week who believe in God, who have tattoos of crosses/Jesus/Mary, who attend Church, who use the Bible as the basis for hatred of specific groups or justification of certain actions, who think it’s ok that they act like total douchebags in their life because they’ll reap a divine and heavenly reward simply for believing in Jesus. Morality/ethics can find their origin in faiths outside of Christianity or non-religious spirituality, in cultural and social roots, in familial teachings, from individual or shared experiences, in an inherent and biologically programmed sense of right and wrong that we are finding that even small babies possess. We don’t all need to include Christian “character building” curricula into our homeschooling lessons in order to raise children with strong moral conviction and good character.

Morality can (I argue that it must) be flexible; what is wrong for my situation may be right for yours. Morality must change, too. Morality has to grow up. It can’t be as simple as “my God good, your God bad, so my way good, your way bad.” As our humanity evolves, our morality must evolve with it, changing to include a world much larger than the narrow and tiny set of experiences and values in which we were each, as individuals, raised. As we ascribe more humanity to the Other, the ones not exactly like us, our morality has to expand to include them. Morality, ethics, values, and collective humanity are all much, much too large to fit onto a billboard.

Only those with an exceptionally limited worldview would even try.

A real hero doesn’t look like a basketball player, or a baseball player, or a football player.
A real hero doesn’t star in movies or make platinum albums.
A real hero doesn’t make the big bucks or the big fame or the big name.

A real hero looks like a 24 police officer, just 15 days out of field training, who puts her body between a gunman and an 11 year old girl, at the expense of her own life.

God bless you, Officer Jillian Michelle Smith. You are the embodiment of “protect and serve.”

I have an assignment for y’all. You don’t have to do this right away. Ruminate on it for a while if you need.

I want you to make a list of what you’ve learned this year. It could be a long list or a short list. It could be facts or skills or introspections into yourself and/or life as we know it. Write down your list and (if it’s not too private) share it here.

I’d love to see what my readers have learned in 2010. Maybe it’ll light fires under our tails to learn even more in 2011.

While I don’t believe in a God that is particularly meddlesome, I do believe that God or the Universe sometimes sends a you a message when you need to hear it.

Just now, an affirmation from Louise L. Hay appeared at the top of my Facebook news feed: ‎”I am safe; it’s only change.”

I’ve never done well with change. As a child, I dragged my heels over anything new. I liked to wear the same things, eat the same things, do the same things in the same way at the same time. I have ever been a creature of routine bordering precariously on a creature of habit. New things are scary.

Having children has helped someone with the fear of change, because you have to be adaptable when you have children, but I am still resistant to it when it is presented to me. Daddyman jokes (accurately) that he knows I’ll always put up a huge fuss about new things when I find find out about them. I stomp my feet and insist I won’t go along with it, but when it comes down to the actual time of doing, I’ve usually adjusted to the idea and am able to handle it just fine.

The message from Louise Hay reminded me that I don’t really need that have that period of resistance. New may be scary, but scary doesn’t always mean bad. Reading that affirmation gave me a warm, safe feeling in my chest. It was exactly what I needed to see today; not because any change is looming on the horizon, but because it could be and I’ll have to deal with it when it comes. Won’t it be less exhausting if I didn’t have to freak out about it? Wouldn’t I be happier if anticipating the very potential for change didn’t send my heart racing and my head pounding? I think I would be.

I’m going to post this affirmation on my desk somewhere, so that the next time something new comes up, I have that little reminder that the world isn’t ending, the poles aren’t shifting, and I’m not falling into an abyss. It’s only change, and we’re always changing.

For starters, have you made your “awesome” lists yet? If not, you’d better get right on that.

Now, for today’s “Ask a [Smrt] Homeschooler” question, submitted anonymously through Formspring.

You seem to be kind of anti-waldorf (correct me if I’m wrong!). Do you feel it’s one of those methods that doesn’t work for you but is fine for others, or do you feel about it how you feel about unschooling? Why?

I really don’t think that Waldorf and unschooling are quite analogous. Waldorf education tends to be done in a structured environment, with text books and a curriculum. It’s a methodology that is applied in multiple settings, from private Waldorf schools to public schools (though the method’s application in public schools has been a subject of controversy) to homeschooling. Some unschoolers even espouse a “Waldorf philosophy,” though by that, I think they mean a focus on nature, open-ended play, etc. more than an implementation of Waldorf methodology. My problems with unschooling lies in the lack of formal/structured education, while my issues with Waldorf education lie in the philosophy and implementation. Either could result in a well-rounded, well-educated child. Either could result in a child who is educationally short-changed. Neither strike me as the ideal education for all or most children.

I like the Waldorf-inspired toys, I like the wide array of art forms Waldorf schools teach to their students, I like that nature is valued, and I like the cool way they paint their walls…and that’s about where my “like” of this methodology ends. I feel that Waldorf can probably work for some children (just like unschooling can work for some children), and some Waldorf schools may not embody all the unpleasant aspects of Waldorf philosophy, but on the whole, I don’t see the Waldorf method as a means of imparting a thorough education in a child. In fact, in confirming some of the things I’d heard and read about Waldorf education, I have actually found some downright frightening aspects to it. I don’t think parents who choose the Waldorf method are being neglectful or have negative/harmful attitudes or intentions, but I also think that many of them don’t explore the roots of Waldorf or consider the greater implications of some of the philosophies and methodologies.

Waldorf education does have some specific aspects that greatly put me off, such as:

No technology — Sorry, folks. I’m a believer in the written word, both the hand-written word and the printed paper book, as much as the next bibliophile, but technology is absolutely ingrained in our society…and much of it with good reason. Technological literacy is as much a necessity as reading literacy at this point, perhaps even more so. Labeling all technology as evil or harmful is absurd. Technology is neutral, on the whole; what you do with it is what gives it weight. Rather than “protecting” children from the supposed dangerous influences of technology, I feel it is important to introduce children to responsible uses of technology in education.

Technology provides an incomparable fount of research and resources, far beyond a library’s physical (and financial) capabilities to hold. Technology provides a means for a child whose brain works faster than his hands or who has certain learning disabilities to get the words out without frustration. This “fearing technology just because” mentality makes no sense — electric lights were a technological advance, the printing press was technological advance, the eyeglasses or contact lenses you wear were a technological advance. What makes them acceptable and not other technology? Because of the newness? Because someone has arbitrarily decided certain technologies are acceptable, but others are not? I don’t think computers necessary need to be in every classroom or used all the time, but there’s an expectation in many Waldorf schools that computing should not be done by students at all, television watched at all, technology from their disapproved list used at all. It’s one of many ways in which Waldorf education attempts to extend its sphere of influence beyond the classroom.

The downplaying of the importance of technology is also one of my biggest qualms with classical education, come to think of it. Come on, guys. I don’t think classical education is a perfect methodology, either.

Intentionally delaying reading — The Waldorf method discourages “early” reading, which they classify as reading before at least 2nd grade. They don’t just mean “don’t push reading.” They actually mean “try to delay it.” Independent reading is discouraged, because apparently reading is somehow damaging to a child. Y’all know how I feel about the importance of reading.

While some Waldorf parents (and some Waldorf schools) may simply not encourage (or in their words, “push”) reading before second grade, some do, in fact, outright discourage “early” reading. The wording “discourage early reading” is used throughout multiple pro-Waldorf information sites. This isn’t just a matter of not teaching or not encouraging reading, but of actively thwarting the learning process if possible, in order to protect the “development of the etheric body.” Rudolph Steiner himself said, “A child who cannot write properly at thirteen or fourteen (I can speak out of my own experience because I could not do it at that age) is not so hindered for later spiritual development as one who early, at seven or eight years can already read and write perfectly.” This is not an education method that loves or values literacy.

Claiming to encourage artistic qualities and creativities, while really controlling the artistic process — The “no black crayons” thing is a great example of this. Elementary school students aren’t allowed to use black crayons in many Waldorf schools. I heard this one directly from my future sister-in-law (who went through Waldorf education) and thought that surely it must have been her school only! Since then, I have had it confirmed in multiple places. Black crayons might lead to horrible things like drawing outlines and black is a “dead color,” apparently. Scroll down to “About Black Crayons at Waldorf” to learn more about that.

Of course, if you have black hair or very dark skin, you’re out of luck. My future-SIL said that her school encouraged substitution of the color blue for black when coloring hair. A commenter in this thread (whose children were enrolled in Waldorf education) expresses quite well why I find this anti-black(and sometimes even brown!) crayon sentiment to be so damaging:

There is no way to express or comprehend how an oriental or African American child must feel being unable to draw their own hair or the hair of their family members. And while there may seem like a stretch to make a racial connection with this, we hear time and time again of children who have tried to draw angels with dark skin or hair and are corrected by the teacher and told angels must have light skin and golden hair.

Waldorf schools often tend to discourage the use of pencils, markers, or anything else that can draw a crisp line. Children are typically given block crayons that can only make wide swaths of color and discouraged from detailed face drawings. Much of their art is “wet on wet” watercolor art, which doesn’t allow for much detail work. There also seems to be a heavy emphasis on copying other artwork examples or art under specific direction, at least early on, rather than truly creative artistic expression.

It’s more than a little bit cultish — I was unaware of how much of Waldorf education is wrapped up in anthroposophy. They call it a “spiritual science,” a term I have difficulty even dignifying, as there is absolutely no evidence for their supposed scientific claims. What teachers are taught to teach is sometimes just plain bizarre. The more I read, the more cult-like Steiner’s foundations of Waldorf education seem. The fixation with “demons” (like Lucifer and especially this “Ahriman”), the strange melding of eastern philosophies with European mythologies in order to create a magical world that–of course–only a Waldorf-education person could contact and understand, the encouragement of Waldorf families to associate with only other Waldorf families (I’ve seen this one first-hand), Steiner’s beliefs about racial superiority. Though Steiner’s defenders like to claim his quotes are taken out of context, I’m not sure what context, exactly, would justify statements like, “If the blonds and blue-eyed people die out, the human race will become increasingly dense if men do not arrive at a form of intelligence that is independent of blondness.”

While blatant racism may not be tolerated in Waldorf schools, Waldorf education’s roots are planted in questionable soil and I have found plenty of examples of Waldorf schools subtly and not-so-subtly presenting white as right. By devaluing the colors black and (sometimes) brown and by insisting that angels must be drawn as blonde-haired and fair-skinned, Waldorf schools may be sending dangerous messages about race.

Downplaying the importance of the study of history. — The Waldorf method seems to present history and mythology as essentially same thing, especially in the early years. While I’m not as history-centric as some classical (or neo-classical, as I’m starting to think of myself) educators, the idea of dismissing history as a separate subject entirely or presenting it solely or primarily through myths and legends is troubling and I have a hard time believing that a thorough historical education could be had through such means. Myths have an important role to play within the context of history, but when you remove them from their historical context, you essentially boil the entirety of the human experience down to fairy tales.

What I have written here is my own set of concerns regarding Waldorf education. I have tried to, by and large, use only pro-Waldorf links in my examples above, though in the area of racism/anthroposophy, I have linked to experiences and examples on sites with a negative view of the Waldorf method. I haven’t address Waldorf as it applies to homeschooling, because I honestly have no idea how much of the Waldorf method could be applied at home (as Waldorf method teachers seem to require a goodly amount of specialized training in the methodology/philosophy), outside of the more benign art-and-nature-focused aspects of it. The former Waldorf students I know have been taught in traditional Waldorf method schools, not at home, and their experiences and accounts have had the most significant influence on my perception of Waldorf education.

If you’re interested in reading more about concerns and pitfalls of Waldorf education, you can find quite a few sites out there that actively explore and deconstruct the philosophies and practices of the Waldorf method, including those site I linked in the section on anthroposophy and racism. Mothering.com’s forums have multiple discussion threads about negative experiences with Waldorf or with specific aspects of the method. Other parents have had experiences like this blogger’s and written about it. You can also find many sites and accounts that praise the method, including those I have linked in most of the above post.

To answer my anonymous questioner, no, I don’t feel that the Waldorf method is one that “doesn’t work for [me] but is fine for others” in a larger sense. Like with unschooling, I feel there are people and circumstances that can probably do it very well and very right, with the result of a well-educated and thoroughly delightful student. As with unschooling, I think it has merits that can make it seem quite appealing. I don’t think those merits and the slim possibility of the stars aligning for a perfect education are strong enough to consider Waldorf education a good call for most families. Your mileage may vary. If you are a Waldorf family, I sincerely hope your mileage does vary, because (as with unschooling, believe it or not) I’d like to be wrong on this one.

Do you have a question for the [Smrt] Homeschooler? Email them to
smrtmama@smrtlernins.com or ask me anonymously on Formspring.

Good evening, everyone. I have an announcement to make:

You are awesome.

Not a little bit awesome. Not sorta kinda awesome. You are thoroughly, completely, and incredibly awesome.

Really, have you looked at yourself lately? Have you taken a moment to consider your many amazing qualities? If not, here’s a little activity I’d like to you do:

1. Make a list of five amazing, beautiful physical qualities about yourself. Don’t couch them in an insult (“I look good for my age” or “I have nice legs for an overweight person“). You have at least five beautiful things about you, I guarantee. If you can’t see them immediately, this is your opportunity to search for them. Find those five amazing things about your appearance and list them.

2. Make a list of five amazing things about your mind. Don’t couch them in an insult (“I’m smart for someone who never finished college“). You have at least five incredible things going on up your head. If you can’t think of them immediately, this is your chance to discover them. Find those five amazing things about your mind and list them.

3. Make a list of five amazing things you have accomplished. Don’t couch them in an insult (“I’ve accomplished a lot for someone with children“). You have accomplished at least five spectacular things in your life. If they don’t spring immediately to mind, take this time to remember them. Find those five amazing accomplishments and list them.

Now you have yours lists of amazing things about your physical appearance, your mind, and your accomplishments. What can you do with them? Here are some ideas:

Share them here in the comments.
Share them on your blog as a new post.
Share the link to this blog with others, so that they can comment with or blog their lists.
Copy and share this entire post on your blog, along with your lists.
Share this entire post or a link to this post on a favorite forum, along with your lists.
Email these prompts to friends and family and encourage them to share their lists or post them somewhere.
Print out your list and put it somewhere visible (your car, your desk, your bathroom mirror) and look at it every day.
Encourage your spouse/partner and/or children to make a list, too, and share them with each other.

Read your lists as often as you need to in order to remember that you, the unique and remarkable you, are an amazing person. Don’t let anyone tell you anything different. We spend too much of our lives tearing ourselves down or letting other people do it for us. I personally think all of us should stop that bad habit RIGHT NOW. I recently made a rule that I would never say anything outloud about myself that I wouldn’t say about someone else to his/her own face. I hope you can start doing the same for YOU.

How can someone ever feel ok with the concept of “breaking a child’s will?” How do you write those words without vomiting on your own keyboard? What is wrong with these people? Because no decent human being would to that to a child.

Ok, Christians — you want to know one area where I think you reasonable, compassionate folks need to speak up and put a stop to something? THIS. Someone is invoking your name here. Worse, they’re invoking your God’s name and what is supposed to be your God’s holy word, and they’re using it to justify repeatedly hitting a child and then expecting the child to be happy about it. You need to stand up for your God and your Christ and put a stop to this. Non-religious people like me aren’t heard by these monsters. They might hear you, though. You need to tell these…these…things to stop hitting their children in the name of God.

“If she does not obey the 1st time, quickly, & w/a happy heart, she will get spanked. So, she has been spanked 10x today.”

Your child is THREE, you monster. Yes, monster. You are a monster. You have arbitrarily decided that a three year old can “obey” perfectly and happily every time and that if she does not, she deserves to be hit. You have hit her ten times in one day…not for doing something like putting herself or others in danger, but because she didn’t immediately obey and then be happy about it. You are a monster. You do not deserve children.

“she gets spanked 3x each time (b/c she is 3)”

You hit your daughter once for each year of life. You are sick. You are a monster. You are hitting your daughter for failing to be happy. You are hitting her three times for each time she isn’t happy and you are claiming to do it in the name of Godliness.

“After a spanking, she always wants to hug me”

Perhaps because your daughter needs reassurance that you don’t hate her. After all, she’s only three and you are hitting her ten times a day. You are hitting her because she isn’t smiling and acting happy when you give her commands. Of course she needs to hug you. How else will she know you love her? It isn’t through your other actions, because your other actions are monstrous. Have you also considered that (since you admit later that you do ask her if she wants to hug you), she might also terrified of being hit three more times if she tells you no?

“I group obedience, submission, respect, etc. when I mention all of those things. For example, I talked back to my bosses and did not respect them (NOT GOOD) and submission to my dh is a struggle at times – I want to help my children with those things (esp. my girls)…”

Why especially your girls? So that they’re prepared to be beaten by the domineering husband you’re programming them to marry? You are beating the “will” out of your daughter so that her husband won’t have to do it for her? Does your husband hit you because you don’t submit well enough? I wouldn’t be surprised, since that also seems to be pretty normal in these circles. Is that what you want for your daughters? You want them to be mindless slaves?

Another monster on this thread commented: “I always said to mine, “When Mommy spanks the bottom __________” and my kid would finish the rest of the statement with “…it makes the heart sweet.”

You, madam, are another sick individual. You are perverse and what you are doing to your children is despicable. You’re teaching them to equate a beating with love. You are telling them you hit them because you love them. You are telling them that hitting them makes them “sweet” and more lovable. Do you want to make your children into victims of domestic violence? If you do, congratulations! You’ve found the method.

Christians, I implore you. Please, PLEASE. Only you can intervene. I am not a Christian and thusly, my words will be meaningless to people like this. You, however, might be able to make a difference. I am so grateful that so many self-identifying Christians, even those who are from a more Bible-literal tradition, have stood up and said that this woman’s behavior is inappropriate. Christians like Daisy, whom I absolutely cherish as a gem amongst the rubble of the internet, are the ones who can make changes. You are the ones who can make a difference. Christianity is your belief system, not mine. It’s your culture, not mine. I’m a stranger, an outsider, who can only judge and comment from without. You have to make changes within that culture. You, as a group, need to continue to shine light on these darknesses and say “This is NOT God’s love.”

ETA: TulipGirl has some excellent suggestions for resources for Christians who want to put a stop to this particular subset of pseudo-Christian parenting:

http://parentingfreedom.com/discipline/

http://www.freewebs.com/suffer-the-little-children/therodorshebet.htm

http://www.wholeheart.org/

Families Where Grace Is In Place by Jeff Van Vonderen
Heartfelt Discipline by Clay Clarkson
Relational Parenting by Ross Campbell
Grace Based Parenting by Dr. Tim Kimmel

I have fairly regular bouts of insomnia. This is bad for several reasons, but chief amongst these is that it means I’m lying awake in the middle of the night thinking about things. After I’ve exhausted all the things about which I must anxiously and obsessively worry, my brain starts going to weird places.

Last night, I spent about a half-hour mulling over how unschoolers would respond to their children receiving letters from Hogwarts.

Seriously. These are the kinds of things that go through my sleep-deprived brain.

If we did live in the Harry Potter ‘verse, though, how would an unschooling parent react if his/her child received an invitation to attend Hogwarts?

Would it change based on whether or not the parents themselves had magical ability? Would the wizard unschoolers keep their children home and expect that they would learn through going about a magical life with their parents? Would the muggle unschoolers expect the magical abilities to unfold naturally if their children weren’t forced to channel them through specific incantations? Would they leave it entirely to the child’s choice, try to influence them, or make the decision for them?

And what about those unfortunate incidents that occur when the latent magical powers reveal themselves (like Harry disappearing the glass on the snake cage, Lily flying through the air off the swing, or Neville bouncing when dropped out of the window)? Without guidance, wouldn’t those incidents continue, putting the child at risk of some sort of magical legal trouble? Can magic be learned through modeling and real-world application only, especially with the legal limitations placed on underage wizards?

Would magic be viewed as something completely different from academic education, due to the potential danger of inadvertently blowing up one’s aunt, and unschoolers would have no problem sending their children off to Hogwarts? Would those who opted to home-magicschool their children use a more formal curriculum for it? Would they still allow the child’s interests to be more self-guided (no need to learn potions if they don’t show interest) or expect a basic level of proficiency in all areas?

Inquiring minds want to know. If you are an unschooler, how would you respond if your child received an invitation to Hogwarts (outside of the “OMG, I can’t believe Hogwarts really exists!!!” response)?