My daughter is never allowed to watch broadcast TV, and only watches what I select and approve of, in videos and On-Demand. This doesn’t make her a ‘weirdo’ by any means! She is attractive, reads at a 4th grade level, plays sports and the piano, is popular with both the boys and girls in her grade and is in every way a normal 7-yr-old. But as a family, we have never-ever discussed how people look, only how they behave (are they nice, shy, bratty, talkative, etc. ). You can’t be influenced by this terrible way of thinking if you are not aware of it.
Please please be careful. My parents brought us up without pretty hair slides and ribbons, without pretty dresses. We were not told daily that we were beautiful and pretty, but clever and polite. We were encouraged to do well at school, to read, learn to play music and be creative. My parents meant well but my sister and I had terrible self esteem, we believed we did not fit in with our beautiful peers. We felt unloved by our parents, ashamed that we must have been so unattractive, we didn’t not deserve pretty clothes and ribbons. We did not do well at school because we lacked the confidence and self worth. We both became unhealthily preoccupied with our looks. My sister spent a fortune on clothes, having her hair and nails done when she left home. I never feel pretty enough to wear pretty clothes and felt an outcast. It wasn’t until I was in my 30′s and I wanted children that I sought cognitive behavioural therapy. I didn’t want my children to be exposed to my issues. I am now very happy with how I look. I am happily married and have 2 little girls. I tell them every day that they are pretty and beautiful. I tell them they are pretty because when they smile and laugh they brighten up the World and that is what pretty things do. I tell them they are beautiful because they are kind and caring, because they try their best at everything they do. That they are beautiful because they enrich other people lives and that is what beautiful things do. My children are confident and happy and very very much loved.
I am an English teacher, and guess what their presents are every birthday and holiday? They get a book. Nowadays, it’s usually an ebook. They don’t have a n eReader, but thanks to me, my sister now has the Free Kindle App for PC. I try to buy them age appropriate books, and when they have both turned 14, I will be buying them books about the Holocaust because my sister wants me to wait. her kids, her choice. They were into Barbie, all things pink, Ariel, the Little Princess, Cinderella, and Beauty and the Beast as little girls. I always talked to them about much more substantive matters. Whenever they asked what i was up to, I always told them about the lessons I was teaching my High School students. Things just slightly above their current levels. A big one with Middle and Lower High School students, is, “If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?” it;s still one of my favorites, and I start the year off with it because it let’s us as a class dive right into learning, and makes kids dive right into what they already know. What I am constantly working on as a teacher is wait time. We really do need to slow down, and let people think before they blurt things out….
This. Is. AWESOME. I am the eldest of four children and my 8 year old sister loves nothing more than to devour a book. She has a better vocabulary than half of the people in my college classes, and really couldn’t give less of a hoot about what other people think. I wrote my college application essay about how her gallantry through her celiac disease inspires me, but she has shown me so much more than that. Elli represents the person I wish I could have been 12 years ago. My life would have been so much different if I had her confidence and bravery at her age. I am so glad to have had the opportunity to help foster her sense of self-worth, and I could not be more proud of her. Thank you Latina, for reminding us that every interaction with a child matters, no matter how short.
Also, I’m not telling you what you should or should not write, but nitpicking to the point where you make a deal out of a single spelling mistake in an entire article is kind of unnecessary and can be interpreted as a tad disrespectful. I understand that you probably mean well, just be aware that doing so usually does more harm than good. Had the author actually made a little spelling mistake it would hardly have made the message any less professional or clear.
It is, of course, quite true that bits and pieces of the mediaeval traditionstill linger, or have been revived, in the ordinary school syllabus oftoday. Some knowledge of grammar is still required when learning a foreignlanguage--perhaps I should say, "is again required," for duringmy own lifetime, we passed through a phase when the teaching of declensionsand conjugations was considered rather reprehensible, and it was consideredbetter to pick these things up as we went along. School debating societiesflourish; essays are written; the necessity for "self- expression"is stressed, and perhaps even over-stressed. But these activities are cultivatedmore or less in detachment, as belonging to the special subjects in whichthey are pigeon-holed rather than as forming one coherent scheme of mentaltraining to which all "subjects"stand in a subordinate relation."Grammar" belongs especially to the "subject" of foreignlanguages, and essay-writing to the "subject" called "English";while Dialectic has become almost entirely divorced from the rest of thecurriculum, and is frequently practiced unsystematically and out of schoolhours as a separate exercise, only very loosely related to the main businessof learning. Taken by and large, the great difference of emphasis betweenthe two conceptions holds good: modern education concentrates on "teachingsubjects," leaving the method of thinking, arguing, and expressingone's conclusions to be picked up by the scholar as he goes along' mediaevaleducation concentrated on first forging and learning to handle the toolsof learning, using whatever subject came handy as a piece of material onwhich to doodle until the use of the tool became second nature.
Now the first thing we notice is that two at any rate of these "subjects"are not what we should call "subjects" at all: they are onlymethods of dealing with subjects. Grammar, indeed, is a "subject"in the sense that it does mean definitely learning a language--at thatperiod it meant learning Latin. But language itself is simply the mediumin which thought is expressed. The whole of the Trivium was, in fact, intendedto teach the pupil the proper use of the tools of learning, before he beganto apply them to "subjects" at all. First, he learned a language;not just how to order a meal in a foreign language, but the structure ofa language, and hence of language itself--what it was, how it was put together,and how it worked. Secondly, he learned how to use language; how to definehis terms and make accurate statements; how to construct an argument andhow to detect fallacies in argument. Dialectic, that is to say, embracedLogic and Disputation. Thirdly, he learned to express himself in language--how to say what he had to say elegantly and persuasively.
"Subjects" of some kind there must be, of course. One cannot learn the theory of grammar without learning an actual language, or learn to argue and orate without speaking about something in particular. The debating subjects of the Middle Ages were drawn largely from theology, or from the ethics and history of antiquity. Often, indeed, they became stereotyped, especially towards the end of the period, and the far-fetched and wire-drawn absurdities of Scholastic argument fretted Milton and provide food for merriment even to this day. Whether they were in themselves any more hackneyed and trivial than the usual subjects set nowadays for "essaywriting" I should not like to say: we may ourselves grow a littleweary of "A Day in My Holidays" and all the rest of it. But mostof the merriment is misplaced, because the aim and object of the debatingthesis has by now been lost sight of.
For we let our young men and women go out unarmed, in a day when armorwas never so necessary. By teaching them all to read, we have left themat the mercy of the printed word. By the invention of the film and theradio, we have made certain that no aversion to reading shall secure themfrom the incessant battery of words, words, words. They do not know whatthe words mean; they do not know how to ward them off or blunt their edgeor fling them back; they are a prey to words in their emotions insteadof being the masters of them in their intellects. We who were scandalizedin 1940 when men were sent to fight armored tanks with rifles, are notscandalized when young men and women are sent into the world to fight massedpropaganda with a smattering of "subjects"; and when whole classesand whole nations become hypnotized by the arts of the spell binder, wehave the impudence to be astonished. We dole out lip-service to the importanceof education--lip- service and, just occasionally, a little grant of money;we postpone the school-leaving age, and plan to build bigger and betterschools; the teachers slave conscientiously in and out of school hours;and yet, as I believe, all this devoted effort is largely frustrated, becausewe have lost the tools of learning, and in their absence can only makea botched and piecemeal job of it.
Thanksgiving means to me when gather at the family table and talk to your family about stuff important stuff or not important stuff but Thanksgiving is fun in all but sometimes it could be important too it is not just fun and games.Ashley, Age 7 wrote: The holidays are when we celebrate Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years.
What, then, are we to do? We cannot go back to the Middle Ages. Thatis a cry to which we have become accustomed. We cannot go back--or canwe? Distinguo. I should like every term in that proposition defined. Does"go back" mean a retrogression in time, or the revision of anerror? The first is clearly impossible per se; the second is a thing whichwise men do every day. "Cannot"-- does this mean that our behavioris determined irreversibly, or merely that such an action would be verydifficult in view of the opposition it would provoke? Obviously the twentiethcentury is not and cannot be the fourteenth; but if "the Middle Ages"is, in this context, simply a picturesque phrase denoting a particulareducational theory, there seems to be no a priori reason why we shouldnot "go back" to it--with modifications--as we have already "goneback" with modifications, to, let us say, the idea of playing Shakespeare'splays as he wrote them, and not in the "modernized" versionsof Cibber and Garrick, which once seemed to be the latest thing in theatricalprogress.